Digital BW, The Print

If you are interested in seeing the color capabilities of the Canon 5D Mark lll and Nikon D800 compared, I've finally gotten a chance to make that comparison, and write it up.

http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/color-comparison-canon-5d-mark-lll-and-nikon-d800/

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager

Datacolor
5 Princess Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
609.924.2189
www.datacolor.com

Phone: 207.685.9248
Mobile: 207.312.0448
Fax: 207.685.4455
Email:  cdtobie@...
Skype: cdtobie



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

Not to be too much of a naysayer here, but none of these images, calibrated or not, seem quite right to me. I'd have to interject with specific manual edits on all of them. Moreover, in looking at the image file starting points, I'm pretty sure it would be relatively easy to "fix" any one of them to my liking with said manual intervention.  Hence, I'm not sure I would want bother with any type of "camera calibration" software for typical photography events. The RAW starting points on all of the images seem more than adequate as a satisfactory point to begin the final edits for "pleasing color and tone" as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I do use camera profiling software when doing fine art repro. Most of these software approaches rely on shooting a Macbeth Color checker chart under same light/exposure conditions, then using the chart data to build a camera profile. Once again, none of the software I've used seems to calibrate well to all hue, saturation, and lightness values of the color checker chart.  Lightness values seem to be entirely left alone, which means further and quite significant manual edits. Tonal mapping might be an area where some creative software programming could make an intelligent contribution to the camera calibration conundrum.

best,
Mark


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:

>
> If you are interested in seeing the color capabilities of the Canon 5D Mark lll and Nikon D800 compared, I've finally gotten a chance to make that comparison, and write it up.
> 
> http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/color-comparison-canon-5d-mark-lll-and-nikon-d800/
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> 
> Datacolor
> 5 Princess Road
> Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
> 609.924.2189
> www.datacolor.com
> 
> Phone: 207.685.9248
> Mobile: 207.312.0448
> Fax: 207.685.4455
> Email:  cdtobie@...
> Skype: cdtobie
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>>Not to be too much of a naysayer here, but none of these images, calibrated or not, seem quite right to me. I'd have to interject with specific manual edits on all of them.

The goal was not to process the images as I would choose, for the web, for various output, etc. But rather to preprocess them for optimal camera color. Doing that brings all images to a known and consistent state. I then correct for color temp (a separate thing from camera color) and exposure (those two items make up the SpyderCube step that follows the SpyderCheckr step), and from there may well choose to adjust for any number of other reasons. 

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.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Imaging Color Solutions
Datacolor inc. 
cdtobie@...
www.datacolor.com

On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:41 PM, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:

> Not to be too much of a naysayer here, but none of these images, calibrated or not, seem quite right to me. I'd have to interject with specific manual edits on all of them.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.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

On Aug 28, 2012, at 1:28 PM, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:

> 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).

I certainly was a believer in display and output profiling long before I moved into capture calibration. For a long time, users asked me for ICC profiles for their cameras, but when I looked at the issues they were thinking of as solvable that way, partly because an ICC profile is just not the right tool for caturem but also because almost all of problems were white balance and exposure related, which are not camera profile issues, they are scene lighting issues. So the first capture tool I developed was the SpyderCube, which solves those scene issues nicely. But once that was out there, it became clear there as a second, subtler, set of issues that really were at the camera level. So I experimented with targets, DNG profiles, and other calibration methods, and determined that I could reduce camera color error and difference between cameras a fair amount with a color target-based calibration. So over the last couple of years I've been working on that type of workflow, developing methods that work for various types of photography based on such tools, and I'm pretty comfortable with it now. 

I still see a lot of knowledgable shooters who wouldn't dream of using uncalibrated displays, or making trial-and-error prints, but who are not convinced by the value of capture calibration tools. I guess thats my new frontier� fitting those tools into the ever-changing RAW workflows.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager

Datacolor
5 Princess Road
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
609.924.2189
www.datacolor.com

Phone: 207.685.9248
Mobile: 207.312.0448
Fax: 207.685.4455
Email:  cdtobie@...
Skype: cdtobie



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

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]

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]

I think absent both cameras shot in RAW modes and processed with their 
own software is a moot comparison.  And, with their scene, landscape, 
and various other modes available, there is no apples-to-apples.

Even LR and PS will generate different results.  Another variable is the 
profiles available for embedding in camera raw.

The slight differences I saw (calibrated monitor) were minimal. They 
might even be by-products of lens coatings too.  Who knows?

If my work were THAT critical /during/ the shoot, I would have to 
calibrate with a much higher end product.

For most work that needs a norm, I pop in a Color Passport sporadically.

Seth




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

>>I think absent both cameras shot in RAW modes and processed with their 
own software is a moot comparison

If that was how the cameras were actually used, then that would indeed be the basis for comparison. Those days are over, the majority of RAW files are processed through Lightroom or ACR, so the most reasonable testing workflow is to do the same. 

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Imaging Color Solutions
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@datacolor.com

On Aug 28, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Seth Rossman <seth@...> wrote:

> I think absent both cameras shot in RAW modes and processed with their 
> own software is a moot comparison