Mon, 27 Jul2015, 9:41 +02:00 Adriaan van Os wrote:
Yes. I was discussed quite a lot. You may build abstract profile which links
My apologies if this has been discussed again. I searched for the word RAW in
the archives but got
quite a large number of hits.
A well known problem is that the output of RAW importers doesn't match theWhy not to use proprietary software? Or, in contrast, your own profiles without
gamut of the camera JPG
output. For example, when I import a Nikon .NEF with Nikon's proprietary
Caputure NX 2 software,
the produced TIFF matches the JPG exactly. When I import the same .NEF with
(say) the OS X built-in
CGImageSource RAW importer, the colors don't match. And I assume that
importers like dcraw and
ufraw have similar problems.
Assigning different profiles to the TIFF imported RAW after import givesMay be. But better job requires more work of the professionals. Therefore this
different levels of
deviation from the camera JPG. Of course, the problem is that camera
manufacturers keep part of the
RAW image data format secret. And maybe, the RAW importers should do a better
job at color management.
But many cameras do have an option to output both RAW and JPG. And the JPGIf you carefully read the license agreements and the laws it may become clear
does reveal the secret
of how the imported RAW should look like (for a specific set of camera
settings). So, why not take
the JPG and the RAW imported TIFFs, compare them and calculate a "raw
importer" profile from both.
That profile, when assigned to the RAW imported TIFF would then represent the
best possible color
match with the JPG (for a specific set of camera settings).
Would this be possible with argyll ? If so, it would offer users a quick wayI can't imagine why the situation is dissatisfactory? By a cameras, use
to create a "raw
importer" profile from a (statistically relevant) set of RAW and JPG images.
Or at least it would
be better than the current (rather dissatisfactory) situation.