February 27, 2015, 01:26:42 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Viggo

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 149
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Zeiss 55mm Lens
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:44:37 AM »
It uses an 82 mm filter which allows very little vignetting, it uses a retrofocus design and will cost about EUR 4000.

If you're still in the game, expect it to be in the shops near the end of the year.

It's the price, size and weight that's so intriguing to me. It's what makes it seem like a no compromise piece of glass. I've stated a bunch of times, if I can carry a 70-200 with that size and weight, I can certainly carry that weight with a ultimate-IQ 50 also.  ;D

15. Removed "support" for 3rd party batteries...


Did the flash assist thing get any faster?

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 28, 2013, 11:48:00 AM »
In Finder click on Go and press the Option key, this then shows the hidden user Library folder.

Nice !  ;)

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 28, 2013, 11:34:57 AM »
I'm trying to find the Camera Calibration-profiles on my Mac with Mountain Lion OS. X-rite provides a path to the folder, but they aren't there, I enabled "Show hidden files" also, but they are no where to be found. Anybody who knows here?

They can be in either the main computer Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/Camera Profiles/... the next folder is different with different LR versions, they are all either there, or in the sub folder .../Camera/ then a specific camera folder; OR, User/Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/Camera Profiles/... and the same differences.

Thanks! I was thrown off by the "Library" in USER was greyed out and couldn't be opened, but by right-cliking and choose open I found it AND I found the profile, Thanks again, you saved my day!

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 28, 2013, 09:33:00 AM »
Btw, I have worked out a way to get the colors I want, and that looks very much like reality.

1. DO NOT sample the "right" WB. Use LV and set your Kelvin number so that the wb looks the way you want, and I choose a wb as close to reality as I can. For example if I shoot under a warm indoor light, I set a wb to keep that mood, instead of turning the white white.

2. I then shoot the CC with my set wb, and I also use that wb for every shot after that (of course)

3. I export with CC passport and make the profile, finetune the WB and then check the colors, if anything looks to saturated etc, I finetune them also to make it look "right".

4. When the fine tuning is done, I make a preset with the "right" wb, colorprofile and name it after the wb.

That way the next time I shoot under similar conditions I can add the preset and do nothing more.

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 28, 2013, 08:48:19 AM »
I'm trying to find the Camera Calibration-profiles on my Mac with Mountain Lion OS. X-rite provides a path to the folder, but they aren't there, I enabled "Show hidden files" also, but they are no where to be found. Anybody who knows here?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Zeiss 55mm Lens
« on: April 28, 2013, 03:18:13 AM »
Isnt this just for mirrorless cameras? Just looked at Dpreview & they were talking about a Zeiss 55mm, unless it is a different lens.

No, it's a full frame with Canon and Nikon mount.


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Zeiss 55mm Lens
« on: April 26, 2013, 05:55:43 AM »
I hope people post here any new links about it and they're own, or others hands-on experiences. I can't wait to see what it can do. I doubt it will surpass the hype, but I think it will be pretty special.

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 26, 2013, 03:10:39 AM »
Viggo - I'm not sure it's very helpful but I use the color checker passport to get profiles for my 1dx and5d3. After carefully following the instructions lr4 produced some quite effective profiles for me. Certainly they are much better than the standard ones in lr or the "camera" options in lr. They aren't perfect, my red is oversaturated and I normally end up pulling it back a bit. But I have a good starting point if not a perfect one.

I paid close attention to getting the white balance right and the exposure. I seem to remember checking the exposure values of the whites and the color balance was specified in the instruction as needing to be within 1 percent.

Good luck hope it works out for you.

I think I must just suck it up and agree that I can't use it as a quick fix, but use it as a great starting point. If I just come to terms with that, and that is a lot easier now that I've read what TrumpetPower have written about the subject. It's not THAT much more work to post-tune the colors when the CC have made them, to me at least, way better.

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 25, 2013, 04:35:31 PM »
The Swedish Photographer ASSOCIATION  did a test of different reference card and software, best was QP-Card

Translated text:  http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfoto.se%2Fteknik%2Ffarghantering-kalibrering-och-utskrifter%2Fkalibrera-din-kamera&act=url&act=url

One of my pictures from S.Afrika, Cape TOWN  illustrate in this test difficulties with strong red colors and  different cameras CFA + profiles.

Var interessant det der. Jeg som egentlig har trodd at de ColorChecker'ene har vært så og si identiske og at de har fungert helt riktig. Jeg var veldig fornøyd med den til 5d2, men når jeg prøvde idag gir den lignende resultater som 1dx. MEN hvitbalansen jeg har satt med det innebygde gråkortet er helt forskjellig på 5d2 og 1dx, har inte nån förklarning väl?

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 25, 2013, 01:07:05 PM »
So, a few things.

First, the Passport is an excellent small and portable chart for field use.

But the DNG profiling software simultaneously sucks and blows, and that's not a compliment.

The first half of the problem is the DNG profiling software's fault: it only uses the classic 24 patches when building profiles; it completely ignores those other 26 patches. Considering that those other patches include both some much-more-saturated patches that really help define the camera's response as well as a number of near-neutral patches that really help nail down where the neutral axis (and therefore white balance) lies, that omission is both incomprehensible and inexcusable.

The second half is Adobe's fault, and that's the incoherent mess that is the DNG color "profiling" process. It's not even remotely theoretically possible to get anything vaguely resembling colorimetric accuracy from DNG profiles, though you can fake it by manually tweaking a DNG profile to be as close as you can get it and then build an ICC profile on top of it. Basically, if your idea of "good" or "pleasing" color means no-holds-barred impressionistic interpretations of color, DNG is for you. But if you want an accurate representation of color, DNG is a cruel and unusual tool for extraordinary rendition.

If you care about accurate color, you simply cannot use Adobe products to develop your raw files. Nor can you use many of the other popular raw development engines, such as Canon's DPP, because they suffer from the same root problem: the programmers have decided that their taste in color palettes is best for you. Accurate color, hell -- you can't even stop any of these raw developers from applying a contrast-boosting (and detail-obliterating) S-curve!

It's a real shame, too, because the hardware itself is quite readily capable of superbly accurate color reproduction. There's no reason why accurate color shouldn't be the default starting position, always available as an option, with the various "secret sauce" recipes only optionally added on top.

So what you're left with is mostly tools that come from the Free / Open Source software crowd, some of which produce superlative results but none of which have user interfaces with the spit-n-polish that Adobe products have. That is, you can use Adobe (etc.) products which are beautiful to look at but which mangle your own images, or you can use other tools that are ugly to look at but which make your own images shine.

If you go that route, you'll want something which is at least loosely based on dcraw for its development engine. My own runaway favorite is Raw Photo Processor, but there are other good options.

And your basic workflow would be to first create high quality quasi-generic ICC profiles in carefully controlled situations. The ColorChecker Passport, as useful as it is in the field, really doesn't have enough patches for that kind of work. There are other charts available for purchase that are usable, but I personally made my own chart; it has a replica of the classic 24 ColorChecker patches, another couple dozen paints, a black trap, some PTFE thread tape, a dozen or so wood chips, and a couple hundred patches printed on an iPF8100. I have some plans for a second version, but it's served me well.

Of course, you'll need a spectrophotometer to build the necessary reference files for any chart; there's enough batch-to-batch variation with any manufacturing process that you'll want to measure your actual chart, even if you buy it from a reputable source. The i1 Pro is an excellent tool for this purpose.

You'll also need software that lets you build these kinds of profiles. X-Rite doesn't include that with the software they bundle with their consumer-level instruments, but they do sell some very good and very expensive software that would work. However, if you're not afraid of the command line, ArgyllCMS produces absolutely amazing results, is free, and is superbly supported by the author on a mailing list.

So, you'd build profiles for each camera with the light sources you most care about; one for each of the camera's pre-canned white balance settings is a pretty good idea. And you might even want to consider building one such profile for each lens, as different lenses have different color characteristics.

Then, when you're shooting, you'd include a shot of the Passport as usual. When you get back to the studio, you'd do a linear gamma UNIWB development of that shot -- basically, just dump the raw file completely unmodified to a TIFF. You'd build a matrix profile from that and do a reverse lookup of D50 white, which will tell you what per-channel multipliers you need both for white balance and to normalize exposure. You'd then use those figures when developing the real shots and apply your most-appropriate custom-built pre-canned ICC profile.

That'll get you as close to perfect color as you're going to get with a DSLR. And, indeed, said color is good enough that, if you've got a similar workflow at the printing end of things, you can make copies of artwork such that the artist herself has to stare a long time at the original and copy side-by-side to be able to spot the differences -- the gamuts of the original and your printer permitting, of course.

One other note...you're having problems with reds and you're mentioning problems with overexposure. Some cameras, especially older ones, are notorious for overexposing reds, especially reds rich in infrared such as flower petals in sunlight. It's impossible to recover an overexposed image, no matter how good your profiling software.

What you can do, however, is underexpose the image sufficiently to prevent the reds from blowing, and still use the Passport to determine how to normalize the white balance and exposure in post. You're essentially applying digital ISO boost in post-production at that point so you have to be careful of noise, but you can boost a 5DIII ISO 100 exposure by a half-dozen stops in post if you're careful so it's not as much of a concern as it used to be.

Good luck, and may the Farce be with you....



I really appreciate your thorough answer and I am absolutely convinced your absolutely right.

But for me I'm not looking to have 110% right
Color for everything. The reason I liked the Cc was that it made everything south better looking than what came out, or rather how Lightroom would make my colors look. This was with the 5d2. And now also with the 1dx the profile I got with flash is good enough for me. I'm only trying to get the results I got with the 5d2 with the 1dx and am a bit frustrated that it seems so hard to get even remotely okay reds.

Even more so when you explain the camera itself has no problem with it, and actually, the colors on my camera screen lpoks mucg more like the real world thAn the profiled ones, something isnt right..

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 25, 2013, 12:17:11 PM »
I have similar problem with CCP. I even replace the different one, but it turns out the monitor profile is dated. The CCP software does use the monitor profile when creating the profile. How long ago has you calibrated your monitor?

Recalibrate every two weeks, and the profile is updated and rebuild ever 5 minutes..

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 25, 2013, 09:26:42 AM »
At a guess (I don't claim any specialist knowledge here) I think you have to be pretty accurate on your exposure when shooting the colour chart - if any of the patches are blown out in any of the channels the resulting colour profile won't be 100% accurate. Maybe better to underexpose slightly when shooting the chart than to overexpose? I usually bracket my shots and then choose the best exposure to create the profile from.

I really thought an external lightmeter would get the exposure perfect. Although I have seen that the CC gets exposed differently under different light even if I use the meter, not sure why.

But the patch with red, purple pink etc are very far from being blown (the others also). I also use low iso settings to avoid color contamination.

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?
« on: April 25, 2013, 08:49:41 AM »
I tried underexposing the image to see what happens to the red, and then boosting saturation it really comes out great. I think the purple/pink issue, at least to a pretty big extent, is that the reds are overexposed. I got the idea from when I overexposed a shot with my iPhone and the red turned bright pink.

So what does that mean, I can't really underexpose just the reds, and why isn't the CC correct any way? All my wb-samples and the CC-shots are done with a lightmeter.

Here's the same shot only underexposed:

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 149