I did the test suggested by Iliah Borg, but couldn't notice any significant difference between the two shots except a slight overall difference in brightness (aprox. 0.04 stop). I than placed a mirror in the spot of the target and couldn't see anything except some spots of dust. So I replaced the mirror with an old glossy 5x7 it8 in the same setup. The resulting profile came out nice with a very low peak and average value. The glossy old it8 performed better than the still quite new CC24?!
Also there are no shiny objects, because I work in a large black studio, following a procedure similar to the one discribed here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/coloreyes-commercial.shtml One light only to avoid mixtures. The strobe is at an angle that does not reflect back into the camera. The light source is at a great distance from the target so that illumination is very even, and using a black cutter in addition to reduce on the closer side. Further screens in front and around the camera, and all metal pieces covered, to reduce reflections.
nino On 8/8/2011 10:53 AM, Nikolay Pokhilchenko wrote:
May be You'll see the glare from light sources or bright objects
around the target. Even if the target isn't glossy, the glare
influence is present anyway.
Try to follow by Iliah Borg's advice: shoot the target in right and up
side down positions and compare the profiles. If the results will be
the same, the problem is metametrism only.
07.08.2011, 16:15 nino loss wrote:
I want to try, but why should that be different? I didn't use a
glossy
target this time.
On 8/5/2011 9:58 PM, Nikolay Pokhilchenko wrote:
>
> What if You shot the clean glossy paper sheet in place of target?
>
>
