On Dec 4, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Gerhard Fuernkranz <nospam456@xxxxxx> wrote: > Am 29.11.2012 02:34, schrieb Ben Goren: >> For example, all my recent work has been done with studio flashes that are >> already pretty close to D50. But what would things be like under other light >> sources? I'm going to do some experimentation along those lines, myself, but >> maybe not for a few more weeks (unless it's something that would help you). > > If color constancy is not granted for the captured objects, then you would > need separate profiles for different light sources. Depending on your > reproduction intent you may need separate target reference files for the > different light sources as well. Actually, the plan is for a fresh profile with every shot. It's not *that* much additional work compared to everything else each shot takes, and it removes any chance of unintended consequences. Once this project is over, I'll see about creating general-purpose profiles that work under diverse lighting conditions -- or, perhaps a bit more realistically, creating as many profiles as the camera has white balance presets (and perhaps even planning on tying the profile to the preset...that'll take some experimentation). But that's for later.... >> And, may I suggest? Whatever needs to be done at the white point probably >> also needs to be done at the black point, for all the same reasons. > > Well, what is the "media black point" of a real world scene? Again, while that's a valid question / concern in most situations, it seems (from empirical examination) that raw processing software renders such questions moot. Until we can twist Graeme's arm into writing his own raw development engine, we're stuck with the (sane or otherwise) situation where the raw development engine mucks around with things in such a way that R=G=B=0 in its output should remain R=G=B=0 after profiling. Cheers, b&