On 24 Feb 2011, at 13:53, Iliah Borg wrote:
With input profiles for "moving target" media like film or digital captures (moving in the sense they depend on the colour of light, exposure, development, aging, etc) the task of the profiles is to convert colours, just colours - not the tone. Ironically, even auto- levels before applying a matrix-based profile do a better job than an elaborative hand-edited LUT profile with an embedded tone curve.Alternatively, profiles done from targets shot using different exposures are in wide use; operator just selects the proper proper profile based on visual.
Hmm, I think that I need to see the results of this type of workflow? Neg just "moved" far too much for me.
I spent a lot of time trying different approaches -- including working with the complex developer curves that were available in Scanview's ColorQuartet for one or two dot releases back then. No matter how successful the results were for the test image we got mediocre results even when applying the same corrections to a duplicate roll of neg processed at a different lab :(
And, as you also need to incorporate a wide choice of print papers into colour managment, I didn't really see how profiling would be faster or better than having a good scanner operator getting the colour right during scanning?I do not see how papers come into the blend. Applying output profiles is accomplished in a much later stage. Input profiles are helpers, they cut the time an operator spends working on an image; but most importantly they lessen the fatigue.
I meant that, seeing as neg/print is a two-stage process, the result of whatever you are doing to get the image into a working space for retouching *should* take into account the nature of the paper that the neg would have been printed on.
-- Martin Orpen T: 020 7739 5554 • M: 07768 414558 Idea Digital Imaging Ltd, 5 Christina Street, London EC2A 4PA Registered in England & Wales: 4051407 VAT Registration: 548100073