Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why make DNG profiles for your cameras? Andrew Rodney makes a compelling case  (Read 3397 times)
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2794



« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2014, 12:14:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Rather than viewing the utube version, I would recommend looking at the full resolution tutorial on his web site.

Bill
Logged
Iliah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2014, 01:22:55 PM »
ReplyReply

You may be interested to see for yourself, Imaging Resource are publishing raw files of shots that contain both targets. They call those Multi Target. See, for example, here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/M9/M9THMB.HTM
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2014, 03:06:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that Esben said that he could not talk about their processing pipeline without an NDA, but my interpretation of his writing is "yes" and that happens also make a lot of sense.

I think that it was simply his way out  Wink and no, it does not make any sense (see Iliah's matrix profile for C1 that I referred in another topic)


By the way, you forgot about white balance…

per channel WB is not a color transform - it leaves the data in the original "space"...
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2014, 03:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

What bothers me the most is that you can only use the 24 patch card for a DNG profile but I can make ICC profiles with the Digital SG chart which has far better ability to deal with subtle colour transitions.
that's because Adobe gives you a prebuilt base profile to rest upon (when you use colorchecker and Adobe PE).
Logged
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1795



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2014, 07:08:55 PM »
ReplyReply

that's because Adobe gives you a prebuilt base profile to rest upon (when you use colorchecker and Adobe PE).

Once again, I'd like to see some proof rather than just words.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 464


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2014, 10:20:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I watched the video and waited the entire time for an example of why a dng profile in LR or ACR (which I also understand to be built on top of the Adobe canned camera profiles) is any better than, say, the direct icc approach of Capture One. All I saw were comparisons between Adobe standard profiles in LR/ACR and the tweaked version as represented by the new dng profile, which may or may not be an improvement. Clearly, in at least on example shown, the dng version was visibly worse, and in others it was just different, and in yet others, not different enough to matter.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2014, 04:35:51 AM »
ReplyReply

The SG is quite expensive. Is there an example of the difference in quality of profiling from a standard 24 patch to the SG?

We found for our repro setup, building ICC profiles for C1 (Leaf Aptus-II Cool that there was a significant difference. Which is why we bought the SG. I don't have those test files any more I'm afraid, the testing was done some 19 months ago.
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2014, 09:15:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Once again, I'd like to see some proof rather than just words.
Ellis, how about doing this : google "Eric Chan" or google "Madmanchan" (within LuLa forums or http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw) and actually reading straight from the person instead of watching promotional videos from 3rd party sources ?
Logged
Lightsmith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2014, 06:32:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I have all my files in the native RAW format with 100% of the data. I have some that have been processed and saved as TIFF files for print labs and some saved as JPEG for Web use. Why would I want to translate all my RAW files into a proprietary Adobe format that holds me hostage to this company that has shown for the past 20 years that it is power crazy, buying up competitors and killing their products again and again and again, and now forcing its customers to rent the software month to month.

I also lose all the camera manufacturer specific settings as with Nikon and it Active D Lighting. I have had problems with the Adobe Camera Raw converter, which is reverse engineered from the output file of the cameras, where I get banding or loss of dynamic range and other problems and I resolved them every time by opening the file using the Nikon RAW converter and then saving as a TIFF.

TIFF by the way is the only non-proprietary lossless file format that exists. I can send a TIFF to any lab or graphics or print shop anywhere in the world. The same is not true for a DNG file.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7406


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2014, 12:29:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to mention, DNG has an option to store the original raw file. The files will be bigger but you can always restore the original file. It will be bit for bit identical.

By the way, TIFF is also a format specified by Adobe and DNG is just a TIFF variant. My remembrance tells me TIFF was developed by Aldus and taken over by Adobe.

Best regards
Erik

I have all my files in the native RAW format with 100% of the data. I have some that have been processed and saved as TIFF files for print labs and some saved as JPEG for Web use. Why would I want to translate all my RAW files into a proprietary Adobe format that holds me hostage to this company that has shown for the past 20 years that it is power crazy, buying up competitors and killing their products again and again and again, and now forcing its customers to rent the software month to month.

I also lose all the camera manufacturer specific settings as with Nikon and it Active D Lighting. I have had problems with the Adobe Camera Raw converter, which is reverse engineered from the output file of the cameras, where I get banding or loss of dynamic range and other problems and I resolved them every time by opening the file using the Nikon RAW converter and then saving as a TIFF.

TIFF by the way is the only non-proprietary lossless file format that exists. I can send a TIFF to any lab or graphics or print shop anywhere in the world. The same is not true for a DNG file.
Logged

Robert55
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2014, 03:26:26 PM »
ReplyReply

@ligthsmith: IIRC [watched the video when this thread started] you do not need to convert  all files to DNG, you need one or two that the colorchecker software uses to create camera calibration settings to use in LR.
Of course, if you are of the 'Adobe's number is 666' persuasion, this point is moot

(and as far as I remember, no TIF's were mentioned at all)
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad