I have ColorChecker SG. It works better than other targets. I've tested custom-made targets, printed on inkjet printer and printed in photo minilab. The results of RAW conversion with profiles by custom targets was mostly worser than camera JPEG images. The results with ColorChecker was mixed. The most problem with ColorChecker was the absence of dynamic range comperssion. The photos with ColorChecker SG profiles are dark or with oversaturated channels (with clipped highlights). In generaly, the color tones on images converted with ColorChecker SG profile are more natural than camera JPEG or profiles by other targets. Because of few patches, I can build only the gamma+matrix profie with SG targets. LUT or even shaper+matrix profile generally unacceptable. 26 Oct. 2011, 04:31 Stephen T wrote: Hello Argyll CMS users, The X-Rite ColorChecker SG costs around US$259. X-Rite targets are unique(?) with patches composed of multiple different pigments, giving reflective spectra that are more representative of the real world. On the other hand, the ColorChecker SG has 'only' 140 patches versus some other targets with two or three times as many patches. I am hoping for a reliable camera profile. A simple matrix profile would do. My experience so far with an IT8.7/2 target has been mixed, results are sometimes good but sometimes the rendering doesn't look right. I have also noted that the camera manufacturer's RAW converter (and the camera output itself) sometimes produces unsatisfactory colours! I have a calibrated and profiled wide-gamut LCD for critical evaluation of results. I would like to hear of users experiences with the ColorChecker SG. Are profile made with this target noticeably better than profiles made with other targets? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this target? Is it worth the high price? Stephen.