[argyllcms] Re: White Point

  • From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:39:56 -0700

On Nov 7, 2015, at 5:07 PM, Iliah Borg <iliah.i.borg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

FTP refuses the connection, I will try later.

I was able to get in with the credentials in the original post. But I don't
feel qualified to comment. It's a Sony camera that I'm not at all familiar
with. The image opens in Raw Photo Processor v4.8.0 superficially looking
perfect -- white balance, exposure, the works. That's a subjective evaluation;
I didn't run any numbers. In Raw Digger v1.2.1...something's clearly amiss,
because many of the patches are clipped at zero in one, two, or three channels.

So...I'm not quite sure what to suggest, though I do think it's well worth
considering using RPP. Chances are superlative that the built-in profile for
your camera that ships with RPP is going to be better than anything you
(Henning) are going to be able to be able to make with a ColorChecker. Iliah's
profiles are damned hard to beat...I should know....

I've had lots of stuff come up the past few weeks, including an email server
die on me...I've got all the pieces in place for low-cost spectral camera
profiling, but it's going to be at least another couple weeks before I can get
back to photography stuff. In the mean time...if this profiling exercise of
yours is for general-purpose photography, you're not going to do better than
RPP unless you're using either a monochromator or a spectroscope as an integral
part of your profiling workflow. If this is an exercise in fine art
reproduction or similar copy work, you _can_ do better, but only with a
several-dozens-to-hundreds-of-patchs chart with lots of spectrally diverse
samples, with said samples drawn from a similar palette as the art itself. And,
even then, what you're _really_ profiling isn't the camera so much as the
illuminant....

b&

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Other related posts: