Dear Iliah, > I agree that ufraw does not have an option for the output suitable for > profiling. I made some further tests and I think that the main problem is Ufraw. I have tried building a profile by using dcraw and it seems to be better (though, to build a profile that works in ufraw I needed to use an image that was overexposed of 2/3 f-stops). Though, when used in ufraw, the profile shows the same yellow cast in some situations. >> 2. It is really difficult to control glare (flare) and get good uniformity >> of >> REFLECTANCE when shooting in sunlight. An incident light meter is not >> helpful. Check the average RGB around the edges of the target in ufraw. If >> the variation is more than 2 or 3% then the profiling will likely have >> problems. > > To get raw values and to confirm the uniformity you can use RawDigger, I cannot use rawdigger as it is not available for Linux (or at least I could not find it). I checked the raw file in ufraw with no profiles loaded and I confirm the uniformity of illumination: there are only slight variations on the border of the target. What I can add is that there is the L15 patch (yellow) that is problematic, especially with a matrix only profile (it gives errors of about above 20-30). Though, if I make a x or l profile the peak error il 3-4. >> 3. The IT8.7/2 target has a good spread off patches but the Kodak paper has >> flourescent whitening additives. The target white point will not be neutral >> in direct sunlight (lots of UV). > > Sensors have very low response to UV. I tried another profile by shooting the target in artificial light (a 430EX flash). The result is not much different, even though there is a little bit less yellow in the images. Any further help will be highly appreciated. Regards, Alberto -- Home page: http://www.alari.ch/people/alberto Photo galleries : http://albertoferrante.name Public key: http://www.alari.ch/people/alberto/keys/yahoo.asc