[argyllcms] Re: Fwd: Simple how-to on camera profiling

  • From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:51:56 -0700

On 2010 Mar 20, at 11:41 AM, Karljohan Lundin Palmerius wrote:

> The clipped and scaled whites that you talk about, isn't that a
> difference in the raw converter rather than the profile?

It could be that, or it could be different use of the -u flag in colprof.

> Could it be
> that we have different default rendering intent in the profile? I'm
> not sure I understand what would make that difference.

That's another possibility.

If you put a bit of thought into it, the only way a profile can even begin to 
make sense is if the RAW conversion was performed identically. A bit more 
thought reveals that the lighting and exposure has to be identical, as well.

I don't bother with profiling a camera unless I'm attempting colorimetric 
reproduction of the scene, which basically means copying artwork and nothing 
else. And, for that, I adjust lighting and exposure until that's as close to 
perfect as I can get it; take a picture of the profile target; take a picture 
with identical settings of the art; generate a custom profile from the target; 
and apply the target to the picture. If I'm shooting multiple works in a single 
session (and the lighting isn't changing), I'll only use the one profile. But, 
if anything at all changes, I create another profile.

For other kinds of photography, I've been using the creative tools in Adobe 
Camera Raw as they were intended. If the download will ever complete, I'm 
planning on giving Capture One a go; it seems to have the potential to be much 

Of course, everything after capture is color managed in all situations, 
regardless of the method or intention of the capture.



Other related posts: