> Either you use profiles, OR you use camera Raw...
Dear Thomas
Do you say this -in practical terms- out of the impossibility to add new
profiles to Camera Raw's menus to choose a different working profile ( and
eventually use our own camera custom one) while building the Tiff/Jpeg
files?.
If this is not the reason, can you please explain?
On 12/8/04 6:53 AM Mike Russel Wrote
> How about if you left "Adjust" in Camera Raw to
> Camera Default, export to TIFF, then use this
> file to build a profile. As long as you don't
> subsequently touch the "adjust" settings for
> future pictures, wouldn't that work?
However, the default settings are as relative as you may want to, since you
can change them at will, then what is THE absolute default to choose?
My answer is: whatever suits you better, and most likely, leaving this
setting on hold for ever may benefit you on some situations and may harm you
on others.
Actually, I have knocked my head against the wall a hundred times trying to
develop a method to calibrate Digicams using the Macbeth chart as to make
it really useful and at the same time practical, to no avail, (actually the
new plugin reported by some for profiling is exactly the same sort of
interfase offered in programs like PhotoRetouch Pro, to make profiles out of
Macbeth, IT8 and other targets,both for camaras and scanners, with equally
weak results), and my most recent findings have to do with precisely
modifying the Default to get as close to what I want to get and select this
as my new default, and this includes simple things like using the Daylight
setting in the digital camera all the time, but then lowering both the hue
and the color temp obtained in files, to eliminate some of the exaggerated
yellowish cast this camera setting provoques( much noticeably on the skin),
and then going on with Contrast ( BTW, I have added lots of contrast since I
have seen part of the" Digital Flatness" problem lays in poor blacks in
final litho printed files, thanks to the extended dynamic range making more
harm than good),Highlighs and Shadows, etc to accomodate to my choice of a
"standard" file and then just proceed to individual adjustments in
individual files later on, as the need arises.
THis is apparently the most empirical way to run the "calibration show' for
a camera. I am curious about the profiling made by Thomas for a camera to be
used for art repro, obviously this presuposes ( as has been the case all the
time) one profile for each type of lighting , from which I infer there is
one highly calibrated and well defined lighting set for the repro of these
art pieces by the danish museum, and as long as the camera is used under
this scheme it will work amazingly well, am I right here?. Now, if on the
contrary the profile works wel in different scenarios, I will most certainly
be interested in testing this in my (coming) new cameras.
Perhaps some of the variations obtained with this new plug in to profile
comes exactly from the potential variation in camera's reponse to different
light sources, and then an empirical calibration in Camera Raw for shooters
using several diferent lighting schemes (my case) may be a simpler yet
effective way to go.
Best
Jorge
---------------------------------------
Jorge Parra Photography
APA / EP
---------------------------------------
http://JorgeParra.com/
http://TheStylePortfolios.com/
---------------------------------------
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
