Digital BW, The Print

I think your right on.. I ONLY calibrate for studio work in which I can repeat and or control the light.. In my mind it makes no sense to build a profile for outdoors shooting in which the kelvin value is a moving target.. Makes more sense then to just make a quick adjustment in the puter.. I do on occasion set a white point.. but that's as far as I go on an outdoors shoot that I have no control over the lighting on..

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Kirwan 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:15 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Article on Canon 5D Mark lll and Nikon D800 color


    
  For general scenes I agree with you, but creating a custom profile for a
  product shoot, where for instance, the label color needs to be more than
  accurate has saved me both time and effort while increasing customer
  satisfaction. So for this type of work I would say I need a "clinical"
  output rather than an artistic output for say landscapes.

  I typically shoot my target at the beginning of the shoot and use a target
  for the camera profile as well as set the white balance and exposure etc.
  Then I can globally apply the changes to all of the images. For me, this
  only applies to print based output (with an custom profile for the printer
  and paper), and of course a calibrated monitor, all bets are off for web
  based displays as you are at the mercy of monitors that are not calibrated,
  and the vagaries of the web browser being used. 

  Mike

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
  Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:28 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Article on Canon 5D Mark lll and Nikon D800 color

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , CDTobie
  <CDTobie@...> wrote:

  > But the goal of this excercise was to compare the camera color, which
  requires paring this back to just that, not any of the following steps.

  I understand, but as much of a believer as I am in color managed workflows,
  I've never quite gotten the point of building camera-specific profiles, even
  when dealing with very specific scene illumination conditions for real=world
  subject matter (fine art repro is another matter). If the camera profiling
  process still leaves you with global color temperature, lightness and
  contrast issues, and you may still want to perform selective hue and chroma
  adjustments, then I don' see any real image editing time savings when
  choosing a software "camera profiled" image over the manufacturer's
  "baseline" image calibration. On the other hand, if a camera has a real
  deficiency in certain colors that are hard to manually correct, then some
  camera calibration software might be of help, but I don't own any cameras
  that are so far out they need this kind of additional software intervention
  prior to beginning my "artistic" edits. They are all "close enough" as a
  starting point which was my point for your chosen image examples as well.
  None was so superior at the beginning as to diminish one's time in
  subsequent image editing steps. David, maybe you can convince me otherwise
  in good time, but this exercise didn't do it ;-).

  kind regards,
  Mark

  __

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5230 - Release Date: 08/28/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]