Hi Thomas,
ICC profiling is a substitute for the built in calibration, an "either or approach". It can't be used "in addition to calibration".
Please forgive me if the the semantics were not exactly as they should have been (As we all know it's easy to have misunderstanding in emails , especially when firing off several in short succession while still trying to do the day job) . I wasn't referring to the built in calibration of the Captureshop Software .Certain software requires that you white balance the camera before attempting to profile it . It's a linear process not necessarily 'additive' but then again if you perform one process after another are you doing it ' in addition' ? Hope that clears up the above .
Making use of profiles isn't a big problem, building them is. In regard to using profiles there is pretty much everything one could ask for except the ability to export camera data with a profile assigned (which isn't converted to a working space).
Once again , it's in the words . Making use of the profile(s) isn't a problem. We've been doing that for some time . The point I was making was about the best use of the profile . Sinar themselves have yet to answer several queries regarding Cpatureshop and suggested efficient workflows . Using two of their systems daily throws up several anomalies , particularly how working space , input space and 'viewing' space are related within CS5 , and the lack of ease of setting up the software to produce an efficient as well as accurate workfklow.As you said yourself "In regard to profiling Sinar has made some, ahem, implementation decisions I strongly disagree about and has said as much in May when I first got the software. "
and given that some camera profiling software and camerasoftware/ firmware still pushes one in the direction of pretty pictures instead of accurate ones.
Camera software may, but that's the built in approach. When you build camera profiles you can find that middlepoint YOU (or you) prefer between completely accurate and pleasing contrasty/saturated, and trust me very few people, mostly museums shooting art reproduction, are interested in totally accurate (within the constraints of current reproduction technology).
It is of course true that very few people are interested in totally accurate recording / output from a digital camera , but accuracy would be a reasonable starting point from which to edit ( if that is one's preferred route ) or rebuild profiles using different parameters ( more to the taste of others) . Accuracy is desired by a few but significant number of 'colour critical' smudgers , who continue to push the manufacturers for a more 'honest output' from the CCD , firmware and software. Maybe we'll end up getting 'negative accuracy' just like the negative USM that appeared on some scanners in the past in order to get there :-) .
In addition to striving for accuracy , we also build tailored profiles for different 'feels' for all of our camera systems , not just the Sinars , and of course there is still the issue of just how raw some ( all? ) RAW files are. Access to more 'linear' information would give a better starting point for this .
And as Thomas points out , access to more time would also prove a huge benefit given the conditions necessary to capture the target and produce good profiles. At some stage , I can see the technology coming up to speed , but I somehow feel that as always , the available time will be going in the opposite direction.
Regards
Bob Marchant.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
