AG Schnozz wrote:
>> Maybe you are. I haven't noticed anyone joining your chorus.
>>
>
> I feel like the lone voice in the wilderness. Uh oh, he got beheaded.
>
If I run across it rolling around, I'll send it back.
> In theory, a fully calibrated process, from input to output, will
> provide the photographer or art director a perfectly predictable
> image always.
>
That certainly sounds to one un-knowledgeable in that area like an
ideal process for product photography and such.
> What we are doing, in our RAW converters is applying our own
> preferential offset to achieve a calibration to what our eyes want to
> see.
Yup.
> Is this any different than our selecting films for tasks?
>
Nope. I made this suggestion a while ago, but it sank like a stone. "We"
used to do our own calibration with choice of film, development, process
paper, printer, etc. Portra 160NC gave different results printed by Fuji
than by Kodak Royal than by Kodak's mass market processing than by the
my local lab than by....... One had to control all those variables to
get the desired result. Now, all my Portra comes out looking the same
with a profiled scanner and a film profile.
I would think something like that would be ideal for the mass event and
portrait shooting. Put a target in the lap of the first subject, shoot
it, and use it to mass process the shoot into consistent results. Even
if the end product, true to standard color as it is, isn't what you
want, the consistency of the image balances allows batch adjustment to
the desired final product.
It makes sense to me even for fine arts photography. The initial,
calibrated process gives a standard, consistent result from which to
take off.
> However, even at that, there will always be variences. Settings that
> are used in one raw converter won't be the same in another.
>
They should be if you calibrate your process with profiles and use color
aware converters. The IT8 target has what appear to be 228 different
color patches and a full gay scale. That's enough to define a lot of
points on response curves. I'm betting you could shoot the same
difficult lighting with Reala and another film of your choice using IT8
targets and be hard pressed to see a difference in the results.
> ...
> I was stewing about this curves thing the other day when I was
> scanning some FUJI REALA. This film has the uncanny ability to
> "correct" mixed lighting. It would be so neat to have a digital
> sensor that did the same thing.
It would also be nice if all monitors and printers never drifted in
color response. The point is that a system has been devised to in effect
do that for you- with ANY sensor and its ancillary processing.
> Why is it that digital imagers are so sensitive to color temperature whereas
> film seems to give you much more latitude?
>
Why is the human vision system so different from both film and digital
imaging systems? They are different underneath, so they give different
results. If you aren't open to learning new ways to use new tools, you
will remain frustrated.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|