AG Schnozz wrote:
> I have not, but in a way, I feel as though I shouldn't have to. It
> doesn't seem to be overly important is my guess. The GretagMacBeth
> colorchecker seems to be the defacto standard in what we choose to
> determine what is "good".
What you mean "we", white man? Those things are essentially meaningless
to me. I have, perhaps naively, assumed that all those folks who use
them either have eyes highly trained by experience or process the images
in some way similar to IT8 targets to correct color balance.
> But this isn't the full-story. We're always looking at what has been
> processed by the support chips. A
> RAW file, for example, truely isn't RAW.
>
Nor is the latent image on the film. It requires some further
processing, chemical development before being complete output of the
"film system" So what? RAW is pretty far down and at a level where you
can pretty much do whatever you want with it, rather like the negative
in the darkroom. Ever see any response curves for the latent image?
> I ask this question: Am I the only photographer in the world that
> has any interest in seeing this data?
Who knows? Those graphs are YOUR way of knowing how a film will work.
I'm sure there are many more photographers who simply learned by doing
what they could expect to get out of their films. St. Ansel was one of
them, I believe. he calibrated his own film systems. Neither is better,
in any absolute sense.
> Or does it not matter anymore because we've now become conditioned to accept
> "wow, that's a pretty picture" as being sufficient?
Oh, come on, I know you are frustrated with the whole film/digital and
Oly vs. the world businesses at the moment, but you know there are folks
out there doing really great work their own way. And, as usual, a great
many more hacks trying to get by.
> What about the high-end studio
> photograpers that shoot fashion/clothing/etc--I can't imagine them
> just accepting whatever the manufacturer says as being good enough.
> Nor are they going to hand-gig thousands of RAW files one-by-one to
> get things right.
>
Is it possible that they used to do their own, calibrated, whether by
eye or electronics, work flow and simply calibrated the new stuff to fit
in? You can calibrate a digital camera by producing an icc profile for
any or all combinations of its settings. Use default settings, create an
icc profile for them, shoot RAW, process RAW with those from the camera
settings untouched and let your color aware application use the icc
profile to assure consistent output. Update your profiles regularly to
correct for drift, just as you do with your other equipment profiles.
> As I look back through some of the deep pee reviews, which is
> essentially our only standardized testing available to us, the common
> man, we can see the GretagMacBeth charts and how vastly different
> they are from one setting to another and even from one camera to
> another. Yet, we gloss over those tests and jump right to the
> resolution and ISO tests.
>
There is that "we" again. I am not very expert at color management, but
interested and learning. And those shots tell me nothing useful or
necessary to my process, so of course I skip over them. I have spent
time looking at them in the past, and I have no way to go from that to
what my image will look like. They are "greek to me".
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|