[argyllcms] Re: help with camera profile
- From: edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:02:21 +0200
Passport is a much better product than the "real" big colorchecker for
profiling
BECAUSE IT IS SMALLER SO ILLUMINATION DIFFERENCES WILL BE REDUCED IN REAL
SITUATIONS.
Edlmund
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Alan Goldhammer <agoldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Yes, the Passport does contain the identical patch, it's just more
> convenient and it also has some other valuable tools. You can also use the
> X-Rite software and Adobe Lightroom to do a camera calibration which will
> be
> specific for your camera. The effects are quite subtle but noticeable.
> With respect to the dynamic range of the camera, yes this can be an issue
> which is why so much has been written about exposing to the right (ETTR) so
> that you move the histogram more towards white clipping. The problem is
> that the camera manufacturers set the software to render the histogram as
> they see fit and you may end up losing 1/3 to 1 full stop of information
> this way. Two ways to get around this are 1) bracketing so that you get
> several images with a range of exposures or 2) setting your camera up for
> Uni-White Balance (UniWB) that will counter what the camera maker has set
> up. You can also extend the dynamic range by HDR as long as you don't go
> overboard with wild colors. Photoshop can do this and there are other
> shareware software packages as well.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Alberto Ferrante
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 7:03 AM
> To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [argyllcms] Re: help with camera profile
>
>
> I was actually planning to get a ColorcheChecker Passport: it has pretty
> much the same price and it could be useful to me not only for checking the
> profile. If I understood well, the 24-patch "classic" target should be the
> same as the standard 24, just smaller... Is that correct?
>
>
> A question I was asking myself: cannot the problems with shadows/highlights
> be related with the dynamic range of the camera?
> Specifically, the dynamic range of the target is roughly 8 stops (gray
> patches from full black to full white on paper). Most cameras, in raw, can
> register more than 8 stops of dynamic range and, therefore, the model built
> in the profile will not cover directly the missing parts (it may cover them
> through some kind of interpolation, that may not correspond to the
> reality)... Am I wrong?
>
> Thanks again for the great help!
>
> Regards,
> Alberto
>
>
>
Other related posts: