On 3/14/2022 8:49 AM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
I am wondering if anyone on the list has used Cobalt profiles? There is
discussion on FM. One of the examples at the bottom of this page:
https://www.cobalt-image.com/basic-pack/
of the red flower looks pretty dramatic.
The big change there, and in the larger one at the top of the page, is in pulling down highlights in the red channel, to
avoid clipping and loss of detail. I don't need a profile to do that. It is useful to bracketed EV comp in situations
known to lead to that problem.
We have often discussed different cameras and their colors. But every color
produced by the camera has a profile used to render those colors. As Jim Kasson
has said:
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/roles-of-camera-and-raw-developer-in-determining-color/
in particular the color profile intent.
I assume that you are aware that Adobe, in LR and ACR, has several camera specific profiles available, as well as many
non-specific ones.
Their default profiles seem to be intended to minimize differences between cameras, pushing all toward their idea of
correct color. A few years ago, they changed defaults from "Adobe Standard" to "Adobe Color". AGAK commented at the
time, opining that the new profile pleased him more.
If a Raw file has been opened before, in LR/ACR, with the "Standard" profile, when it is opened again, it will still use
that profile, which is also available by choice for any file.
In any case, there is a way that using the Cobalt profiles is paying to use profiles designed by a small outfit in
preference to those done by a big one, which has been at this profiling business much longer, and pay extra for the
privilege.
I like the Adobe default profiles. The look a lot better to me, for example,
than those in DxO.
Perhaps if one of the Cobalt basic camera specific calibrated profile is used
for camera comparison, will there is still a significant difference when
comparing recent camera models?
I don't know. If you use the Adobe profiles, they tend to minimize differences
between cameras.
I'm not the best color judge by any means. I only notice real differences with
side by side comparisons.
As Meher Baba said, I use the Adobe profiles and "Don't worry, be happy."
As Moose says, no one else here was there, and even if they were, and had perfect visual memory, how does one know
whether yours or theirs is "correct".
Everything is going to be viewed on a range of display devices and/or prints, with various biases of their own. Even if
one color controls the whole chain, the light under which the results are viewed changes them.
Cameras "see" differently than I do. Quite often, when I push the button, I already know what the result is going to
look like, and how I will likely modify it to mirror what I saw. St. Ansel became famous doing this. 😁
My books look different under different natural lights, and under various sorts of interior light. And yet, to the
extent that they are of familiar sorts of things and people, viewer's visual systems correct for all that. I've never
had anyone say "all these pictures are reddish" when viewing under incandescent.
If I were shooting for catalog repro, I'd be using Sigma Foveon bodies or Oly bodies in HR mode, and profile like crazy,
to avoid demosaicing color errors - but I'm not . . .
Other Things Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|