[argyllcms] Re: Fluorescent patches in a profile target?
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:45:50 -0700
> Determining the expected response
> of fluorescent material is very difficult without some very expensive
> measurement equipment (a Bispectral Spectrophotometer).
...and a bit of Googling suggests the cheap ones are at least a few thousand
dollars. Three and four times as much doesn't seem uncommon.
But Arizona State University is just up the road, including a high-tech
brand-new genomics research center. Assuming they have one, and assuming I
could sweet-talk them into letting me measure a chart with it, would Argyll
know what to do with the readings?
> If you are under fixed lighting conditions, why don't you simply
> have a test chart a bit closer to the lighting, to make sure
> that it's white reference is brighter than anything else in the scene ?
But won't that make everything else in the scene be rendered too dark?
> If you are not in fixed lighting, then profiling is only going to
> have the flexibility desired if it is lighting level independent.
I've come to the conclusion that, for the sake of sanity, only two approaches
make sense. For color-critical work, control the light and profile separately
for each different lighting condition. For artistic photography, forget about
profiling and do whatever it takes to make the captured image look good on the
(profiled) display.
It's also worth noting that Adobe Camera Raw with the Camera Faithful profile
(for Canon cameras) is actually a not-miserable colorimetric match for a scene
when properly exposed with a correct white balance.
Cheers,
b&
Other related posts:
