[argyllcms] Re: DIY color target for photographers
- From: edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:15:30 +0200
+1 to everything Graeme says.
I think if you have a spectro, I'd guess you can do just about as well
yourself by printing out an image of a target, measuring it and using it as
a profiling target. I'd keep the print it in a nice box to prevent it's
getting damaged, though. But if you keep a ColorChecker in a box it doesn't
get damaged either ...
The nice thing about Passport is that it has sturdy packaging precisely in
order that it should be usable in the field; the problem is it is too small
for visual comparison when you get back home.
BTW, if you need to measure a bunch of patches manually, I think ColorMunki
can do it, and Danny Pascale's PatchTool excels at it.
Edmund
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Lars-Daniel Weber wrote:
>
> I want them for photos, not for scanners:
>>
>
> Anything created using a printer is likely to be less than optimal for
> general
> photography. There are two related issues, gamut and spectral similarity. A
> printer
> typically uses a small number of inks (typically CMYK), and this both
> limits the
> gamut and the spectral shapes used to create the colors. A printed color
> may appear
> to be the same as one you might find in a photographic scene, but in fact
> might be
> composed of quite different spectra. This is important when the object of a
> camera
> profile if the camera sensor spectral sensitivities are different to the
> human eye
> (which is typically the case).
>
> So making a high quality chart intended for camera profiling is no easy
> task. For each
> test color you really need to select a pigment combination that matches the
> real world
> color that it represents. The distribution of colors selected should also
> represent the
> distribution of colors as you will find them in the real world.
>
> Graeme Gill.
>
>
Other related posts:
