On 4/12/2013 5:38 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I have to be careful here (and Moose probably knows) but I think that
> ACR may have profiles for each camera and manage each a bit differently.
Man, can I remember the details? Something like this ...
Adobe measures each camera against a standard. The 'As Shot' setting passes on
the data from Raw without adjusting it
for WB, and the temp and tint settings show what their tests show that camera,
with that WB setting, actually produces.
If camera WB is set to daylight, ACR shows 5100, +8 for an E-PL2, with daylight
WB set on the camera, 5150 +6 for a 60D.
If you want Adobe's defined daylight, click on that choice, and get 5500, +10.
So, if you leave it on As Shot, you can meaningfully compare colors from
different cameras. This is what Joel did in his
first comparison. 'For the two shots I posted, I left WB "as shot" in ACR.'
If you pick one of the other choices, other than Custom, the images from both
cameras should look very similar
(identical in color, in theory), because they have both been adjusted to the
measured standard.
If you shoot Tungsten with daylight set, you get a very red image. Click on the
Tungsten setting in ACR, and you get
their idea of correct WB for Tungsten light. That may not be the same thing as
if you had shot with Tungsten set on the
camera, then view ACR's As Shot. I picked Tungsten particularly as different
folks have different idea of what that
should be. Oly's and Adobe's could differ considerably.
I tend to side with Canon (don't know enough about Oly's), who chose to only
partially correct in their Tungsten
setting, leaving some of the warm glow that makes those images so appealing.
Want cool/natural? Use the ACR Tungsten,
roll your own with Custom in ACR (I do that.) or make a Custom setting in the
camera.
> But when you get to Auto WB you're really talking about that
> particular camera's conversion from raw to JPEG.
This can be confusing. There are two possible Auto WBs, the one in the camera
and the one in ACR. Go into PS, and you
have yet another.
> If you're still taking
> in the raw file which is now *marked* as Auto WB instead of *converted*
> then neither camera's conversion firmware has entered the picture yet.
> ACR picks up a raw file, sees Auto WB and provides its own
> interpretation of what that means.
Perhaps true enough. I'm not sure what that may mean, though, I haven't used
Auto WB in a camera in years. If they have
measured the camera, they could know the target WB setting the camera shoots
for in its AWB, pass the data through
without adjustment and show the target values in As Shot.
> Since the results are very similar either the raw data from both sensors must
> be very similar or else ACR discovers them to be similar after first passing
> each one's data through the custom profiles by body type.
Here, I think the above confusion may have got to you. Joel says:
On 4/11/2013 1:14 PM, DZDub wrote:
> ... As far as the tones go, I am going to experiment with allowing ACR to auto
> adjust WB.
On 4/12/2013 5:09 AM, DZDub wrote:
> .... Not a lot to choose from between them, and I
> think that would have to be expected because I let Photoshop override the
> camera's WB.
He has not used the camera Auto WB, but ACR's (assuming the PS ref should read
ACR). As he points out, the only visible
difference then is a subtle contrast difference.
I'm not sure I see the point of the second comparison. If the E-400 is bought
for a different take on color from the
Kodak sensor, why correct both to be essentially identical in color?
Hope I got all that right. At least it doesn't disagree with my experience. :-)
Correctable 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/
|