Zum Hauptinhalt gehen

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Issue with ColorChecker Profiles

Kommentare

100 Kommentare

  • C-M-B
    Apart from the fact that the ICC profiles generated with x-rite are broken, right?
    0
  • Denis Mortell
    As I've just posted on another thread, I downloaded Lightroom Classic and installed the X-Rite Camera Profiler plugin.

    Very impressed.

    And, yes, you get no loss of contrast and solid blacks (if you want them) in the profiled images.

    C1 has some catching up to do.

    D.
    0
  • Denis Mortell
    Further to my comment above...

    I've just created my first X-Rite profile with C1 20.

    Unless I'm going blind, things have improved.

    Contrast is better.

    One one file, I'm easily achieving 0,0,0, RGB.

    On another, I'm getting 3,0,0.

    In both cases, this happens without having to move the Curves shadow all the way across.

    Ditto using Exposure.

    Anyone care to see if they're getting better looking profiles?

    Thanks.

    D.
    0
  • C-M-B

    Hey Dinarius,

    X-rite has not changed anything, their profiles are still broken. Perhaps you were using "camera profile" as your export setting so that issue did not appear.

    They have not fixed their software (even though I complained multiple times) and we're still left with no true black tones.

     

    So I ditched X-rite completely and instead used CoCa and Lumariver with different targets (CMP and others).

    The results are 1000 times better, X-rite obviously is having difficulties with fixing their bugs.

    1
  • Jolyon Brown

    Hey C-M-B

    I've just come across this myself. Have you heard anything since? I'm thinking of to raising a case myself with X-rite.

     

    1
  • C-M-B

    Well - the product management is fully aware of the issue but they don't fix it.

    I guess they don't know how to produce a good profile or they don't care - anyway you can either keep the ColorChecker and use a different software (Lumariver for example, but you need the Pro license to produce compatible profiles) or you return it and get something better.

    A colleague recommended http://www.cmp-color.fr/E_index.html. These targets are apparently much better and not very expensive on top. As far as I know you can take a photo and send him the file and he'll produce a profile. If you need more profiles you can do that yourself with Lumariver Pro.

    Personally I don't think I'll purchase anything from X-rite any more, their customer care is subpar/non-existent.

    0
  • Denis Mortell

    I would like the option of the X-Rite software working.

    In the end, I bought Lumariver.

    But, I think you should open a case with them. Their behaviour is pathetic.

    D.

     

    0
  • Jolyon Brown

    I'm reluctant to put buy 3rd party software for now. I'll raise this tomorrow and keep you all updated. CMD, at the risk of repeating info to them is there any further evidence on the web that you haven't referenced earlier in the conversation? Just looking to collect evidence of other user experiences.  Thanks.

    0
  • C-M-B

    Of course:

    I have to case numbers/references, the first one is from the basic support team from X-Rite Photo Europe:

    Case #SC51313: Schwarz-Wert bei ICC Profilerstellung​

     

    The second refence number is from the upper tier support (Application Specialist) :

    X-Rite Case 2019-00259474 [ ref:_00D30IRW._5000z1M6vJP:ref ]

    I have been in contact with Xrite from June 2019 - October 2019 (yes, 4 Months) and in the end the whole thing was brought up with the product manager.
    They even produced a beta version that should have fixed the issue but it didn't work.

    So if they couldn't fix it after I've been pestering them for 4 months I have little faith that they're able to fix it now...

    1
  • Jolyon Brown

    Thanks, just trying to build up a case here. Interesting to hear about this beta version? Did they send to you separately or is this a now released version? (we're up to V2.1 for the ColorCheckr Camera Calibration software as far as I'm aware)

    I've submitted a support ticket btw. The current climate may affect response times but if I gain any significant traction I'll be sure to update this thread.

    0
  • Leo FABRIZIO

    Just having issue using Color checker passport 2 for an art reproduction job. Following very well the procedure, the result is really really soft (no contrast) and the black are really light!

    On the x-right web site, I've found the following colorimetric value for the patches, 52 for the blacks seams quite high...:

    https://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?ID=820&Action=support&SupportID=5159

    X-rite clams now it's fully working with C1, which I doubt. Even in the acclaimed youtube video, as many others, the result is not quite there as he prefers the C1 profile:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4kO6HndQpc&feature=youtu.be

    You can choose "by eyes" your preferences on a portrait, but this is not true for art reproduction.

    Software version used:

    Color Checker Camera Calibration 2.1.0

    Capture One 20 Pro Build 13.1.0.172

     

     

    0
  • Denis Mortell

    1. If you are following the instructions correctly, then you should be getting about RGB 50,50,50 for black. This is the value that the black should have when all the other colours in the Gretag CC are correct. It is NOT the value for the black after you have applied the profile to image of the artwork you are copying. I presume that you have created the profile using Linear Response? Now you must reinstate the curve that Linear Response has removed in order for the image of you artwork to look right.

    2. As I wrote in an earlier post, I switched to Lumariver. The ICC Repro profiles it creates are superb. I use https://deltae.picturae.com/wiki to check the profiles. It's old, but it still works. I get **** (four star) results from them. (See p.11 of link below)

    3. I'm not aware that X-Rite have solved their problems with C1. Perhaps someone would like to confirm this? At the very least, it would be an opportunity to compare profiles.

    4. You might be interested in this. It's pretty much all you need to know. https://usermanual.wiki/Document/Instructionmanualforphotographing2DobjectsV63.1011524829/view

    5. You will have more problems dealing with clients who are looking at your work on unprofiled monitors. :)

     

    D.

     

     

    1
  • Denis Mortell

    Ps.

    Hadn't opened X-Rite software in months.

    Did so just now and saw that it has been updated from 2.0.1 to 2.1.0.

    So, I updated it and created a profile.

    Blacks have still not been fixed. Impossible to get 0,0,0, on C1/Windows x64.

    Anyone else tried it?

    D.

     

     

    0
  • C-M-B

    As I said, they don't care or they are unable to repair it.

    Only viable option right now is to use free Software like CoCa or paid Software like Lumariver. Otherwise there's not way to get a proper profile.

    X-rite is useless.

    0
  • Denis Mortell

    Yes, it seems to be useless.

    This is another alternative, albeit more expensive than Lumariver.

    https://www.colourmanagement.net/PDF/basICColor_input_E_2015.pdf

     

    D.

    0
  • Denis Mortell

    Emailed X-Rite.

    I sent them a screenshot of side by side images of the same image with and without an X-Rite profile.

    In both cases, I had pulled the Levels shadows in so that the non-profiled image turned blue in Capture One (shadow warning), while the profiled image simply got darker and muddier, without ever reaching a true black.

    They admit there is a problem and they have no timeline on when they might fix it.

    D.

    0
  • C-M-B

    Yeah, as I said they don't care.

    They've known for a year now and they don't give a fricking duck. (censored)

     

    So I'd say return it on the basis of it being faulty and get something else

    0
  • Denis Mortell

    As I wrote above, I'm using Lumariver. It works.

    X-Rite is not a pro product, and it looks like it never will be.


    D.

    0
  • C-M-B

    Which is a shame because their screen calibration devices are very good and unless I'm mistaken even EIZO uses a version of their technology in their screens with built-in calibration devices.

    0
  • Gabi Nazareno

    https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360009401357/comments/360002001197 

     

    Hi,

     

    I was wondering how to use Lumariver Repro to create ICC profiles using Capture One. I have purchased the pro version (not the Repro version) and the results are just OK, but far from being amazing. I have followed step by step their instructions and still I'm not pleased with the results. Some of you have used the Repro version I believe, and I wonder if it makes a difference, and what is the exact process step by step from C1, to Lumavier and back to C1.

    many thanks in advance

     

    0
  • Kostyantyn Ligum

    hi gabi. first of all it is significant important which lightsource you use when you shoot your targets, you will get best accurate results using full spectrum light like midday outside on a sunny day, not in a shadow. your white has to be around 240-250 using general profile and curve for your camera. as far i am aware of you dont need profiles for different light sources (didnt do any experiments of that kind), but more likly for each lense you have. use as many targets as you can get to have more measurementpoints. using pol filter doesnt have any influence on colors as far i saw it but maybe not bad to use. and one thing you have to be aware of - profiling is not for getting better colors, but correct ones.

    import into c1, on basic settings (icc profiles) set under show all - effects - no color correction for the camera profile and linear respons for the curve. export as 16 bit adobergb tiff and go to lumariver.

    for the workflow there check this video:

    https://vimeo.com/268585170

     

    best regards

    0
  • Denis Mortell

    Gabi,

    You don't say what you mean by "ok colours".

    What are you trying to get from Lumariver?

    As K says, you get correct colours, not nice colours.

    If you are following the instructions correctly, then your image of your colour chart should pass the test here> https://deltae.picturae.com/

    But, your image of the colour checker, and any image you apply the profile to, will look flat in every way.

    Lumariver does not provide a magic wand of exposure/brightness/contrast/saturation - quite the opposite, in fact. It is up to you to put back all of these into your image, once you have corrected any colour issues using Lumariver.

    It's really only useful for colour critical work - product photography and fine art reproduction. And even product photography can be done perfectly in C1 without Lumariver if you know the RGB values of the product you're photographing.

    The default profiles for cameras in RAW processors such as C1 are excellent. The likes of Lumariver is only for very fine tuning.

    Hope that helps.


    D.

    0
  • dee jjjaaaa

    > and the results are just OK, but far from being amazing

    getting exact colors is a science (one can go by with proper tools and proper shooting & measurement discipline, etc), but getting "amazing" colors is an art (tools and proper shooting & measurement discipline, etc are enough - one needs a talent how to twist exact colors into "amazing" ones).

    0
  • José Riquelme

    Problemas de impresión con CaptureOne 20.Win.13.1.1

    El problema no de ColorChecker, es la última versión que no respeta los colores del perfil específico creado para papeles determinados, creando imágenes muy diferentes en color. La versión anterior sí me permite imprimir con exactitud mis perfiles de color. He tenido que dejar la última versión para usar la anterior.

    : (

    0
  • Gabi Nazareno

    Hello all of you,
     
    I very much appreciate your comments. I'm not an English speaker so I apologize in advance for any mistakes. I think I have to be more specific and give you a more detailed explanation here. A quick note about me as a photographer/retoucher: I don't qualify as a pro yet (more like as a "serious amateur") but I'm a perfectionist and I always try to get the best results I'm capable of, and keep learning and understanding. This is my first time trying to achieve perfect colors, or accurate colors, using some new tools rather than just using my "eye". So I calibrated the Imac screen using the Datacolor Spyderx Pro device and software, got the Colorchecker passport and install the Lumariver profile designer.


    Now into the matter:

    Gear and shooting details: I used the Fuji GFX 50R with the GF 110 f2 in a studio environment (strobes, modifiers, etc) Auto white balance (which when uploading the images to my editing software I've got between 4800k/5100k on average, whites being around 224 in value)


    First shots taken pointing to the colorchecker, as evenly lit as I can and near the model`s face. I continue with my shooting, a very casual one in my garage, and just as test shots. Then I open the images into the latest Capture One software and I proceed to follow step by step the instructions given by Martin Bailey here https://vimeo.com/268585170 (after trying the instructions from Lumariver itself and not being "happy" with the results)


    Steps followed: On C1 I crop the image and fill the frame with the Colorchecker passport held by my wife in this case, I put No color correction on ICC profile, Curve on Linear Response, and then export as TIFF16bit uncompressed, embed camera profile, resolution at 300. I do another export with same parameters with the exception of the curve, using "Film Standard" this time. As a side note, at this I wonder if you have to, in case of being a bit off or even too off, adjust the white balance and exposure accordingly before exporting the TIFF image or if in the contrary this won't affect the color calibration and I can do that after using Lumariver.

    On Lumariver: start new project (ICC profile), load the first TIFF file, illuminant at D50, show target grid, align the dots, grid in place. On tone curve tab: Input curve on Auto. Load base curve: I use the second TIFF with the Film Standard curve. Curve mode: Add to base curve. Curve: Custom (I load the Generic Fujifilm GFX R curve) In the Look tab, I go for Neutral in the Tone Reproduction Operator (I've tried at the TRO using both Neutral and Skin and Sky with similar results). Gamut compression set at None. On ICC export I just activate the High resolution Lut. I click on Render, and at a first glance it looks great. Export ICC profile and reopen Capture One.


    On Capture One I just apply the Lumavier ICC profile, curve at Film Standard.


    Then for my own curiosity, and trying to discover if I can get better results, I try to color correct the image using Camera Raw and Color Checker Camera Calibration software, using a DNG conversion and following the short steps needed.


    I get quite different result from these two methods (and non of them I found pleasing?). But I just wonder which one is more accurate, if I'm doing anything wrong, and how could I improve the whole thing. I also wonder if using a 3d LUT will improve it, like the REPRO version of Lumariver. (as a side note, on the Martin Bailey video, at 16:08, I can see how great the colors look compared to the non 3D lut version and the standard version. That's why I've asked if any of you have experimented with this 3D Lut color correction and if it's worth it/ makes a great diference or not)

    I will try to upload here my test images for you to see. Thank you very much for reading this, any feedback on this would be so great.
     

     
    Images:


    Capture One, Default, Film standard, ICC Fujifilm GFX 50R generic:

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/8530/bx728k.jpg

    Capture One, Film starndard, ICC Lumariver color correction.

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/1166/ZAXg6w.jpg

    Adobe Camera Raw, Default, Profile Adobe Color:

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5149/wAgVNS.jpg

    Adobe Camera Raw, Colorchecker Camera Calibration Profile

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/4236/Rx2gpY.jpg

    (This last image is just edited  from the Color correection from Colorchecker, only by moving the Dehaze slider in Camera Raw to +20, since to my eye the pictures looked a bit "foggy". I was surprised how the colors fall more into place just by doing this? I just thought of including here this as a side note too)

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/7875/FPruT8.jpg

     

    Cheers and thank you again in advance.

     

     

     

     

     

    0
  • Kostyantyn Ligum

    i dont know if you ve taken some time to read the full thread here, i would think here you wont find any kind of confirmation that you should use x-rite, there are few obvious things someone cant ignor the company is mismanaging about the calibration software. which leads me to an advice - dont use x-rite as a reference.

    and please be specific with yourself - are you looking for pleasing colors or correct?..

    there are so many if's about that topic you would need a master in ingeneering to understand the backgrounds. if you are that much interested you can start here:

    https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/profiling-a-gfx-100-with-x-rite-cc-camera-calibration/

    https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/profiling-a-gfx-100-with-x-rite-cc-calibration-part-2/

    you could check for more topics on blog.kasson, a lot of interesting things.

    https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/overriding-raw-converter-default-adjustments-settings

    etc. etc.

    my advice - i do use custom profiles as a starting point just to be sure everything set correct, normalized, "set to zerro" (more or less) and start working on my colors etc. from there on.

    3d or not - as far i understand these setting are for a type of resolution of your data which would be used to translate your data from sencor into the colors on your monitor. better resolution more accuracy and not more pleasent colors...

    best wishes

    -1
  • Gabi Nazareno

     

    Hi Kostyantyn Ligum,

    I was not saying that using xrite was my solution or my goal, I said that I've made a comparison and surprisingly I liked more the results of xrite (quick dng process) than lumariver long TIFF process. And I was wondering if something was done wrong on my end. But again, my main goal is to get the lumariver work properly for me and be sure what I get is right.

    About "correct" colors vs "pleasant" colors, I´ve seen videos/pictures of people getting accurate colors after using a colorchecker and the results are pleasant to look at as well! So I guess I'm hoping to get the "pleasure" to see colors "correct" and accurate.

     

    I also wonder why different color calibration software give you different results. But that's another issue. People in general is happy with Lightroom/colorchecker calibrations. Why even bother with Lumariver or Basiccolor and so on?

    Another doubt is if using a 3d lut would improve the results. In this video https://vimeo.com/268585170, at 16:08, the photographer is showing the differences between default profile, lumariver profile and lumariver repro profile (3D Lut). The differences are very obvious. So does it mean that the 3d lut is accurate and the other one is not? Because i don't know mathematically if they are correct colors or not, but they definitely look amazing. The image just POPS! and you can appreciate the colors separately and vividly, rather than just OK /washed out/ not as vibrant. (And I'm not even talking about editing your pics with photpshop or C1 using adjustments and layers, just straight out of the camera + color corrected profiles)

    I hope you get my uneducated point here.

    0
  • Kostyantyn Ligum

    hi gabi

    "... i don't know mathematically if they are correct colors or not..." thats the point, and thats my answer to your undercuted question - at some point you just have to trust it, as i said there are to many if's. i dont know much myself so i have to guess a lot, actually like most people.

    "... I said that I've made a comparison and surprisingly I liked more the results of xrite..." did you check the first link from my last post? his conclusion at the end was "It looks like the X-rite profile making program is not trying to be accurate, but is going for a “look” they think you’ll like."

    3d lut or not - how much do you know about colorspaces? ever seen it 3d visualized? for your matter i would say it is less that important the correct colors as themselves but the distances and realation to eachother in the colorspace.

    do you know what are percepriv, relativ and absolut farbmetric etc. staying for? in capture one when you open a raw file basicly you see already rendered jpg as a preview. perceptiv etc. are methods to fit your colors into smaller colorspacefor that jpg preview... in c1 the standart is perceptiv which is good, but just to be aware of the fact that there is a lot happening before you see the picture.

    and the last thing - how much do you know about light spectrum, colorquality and how it influences your colors? whats the difference among how a camera sees the things and the human eye? automatic adaptaion and light/color compensation... maybe the colors in videos do pop up switching among different methods because the pictures they are using are made outside in full spectrum and yours in a light source with limited/shifted spectrum.

    0
  • Gabi Nazareno

    Hi Kostyantyn,

    Even tho I'm not a professional and I can't follow all that you're saying, I undertand that things are not that simple, many variables and things to consider, and so on and so forth.
    To answer some of your words:
    1) whenever I calibrate my images using lumariver, the results are not pleasing to my eyes, but when I check some other photographers, they seem to get it right. So I was wondering if I was doing it wrong somewhere, even if following all the steps. My view is the view of an artist (most likely a bad artist) so I judge the results based on my perception. And it seems maths and softwares and formulas are in my way, preventing me to fully achieve the vision I have.

    I came here just in case some more knowledgable photographer could clear things for me a bit, but the deeper we go, the worse it gets or more complicated it gets.

    But still, whenever I look at a picture that is properly calibrated, balanced and clean, it clicks. It looks right. Whenever I color edit a picture and find the right white balance using curves and values and all that, I notice how the colors suddenly pop, I realize the color cast that was affecting the image before, I see those greens and those reds coming alive, and I like it.
    But I was trying to be accurate and getting the images right before going to photoshop and mess around with those pixels.

    I have been using Capture One and Camera Raw and observing that this two softwares present a different look for the same raw file. I usullay like more the look of Caprure One. But still I needed or wanted to be a bit more professional and getting all the equipment and software needed to calibrate the files. And after trying with Lumariver and Colorchecker software, I was disappointed.
    So I thought: maybe its me, maybe I'm doing it all wrong.

    But in short, if a simple question I can ask here, which method gives you the best results? Which software and procedure you use? I'm asking any any advance (or more advance than me) photographer/ retoucher out there that can provide help, specific help and practical help to achieve better results.

    On the meantime, using the Colorchecker passport and it's software is doing an OK job to my eye, and until I don't get or stumble upon a better way, I guess that's the only thing I can do.

    Anyway thanks for your time, I really appreciate it.

    Cheers mate

    0
  • Kostyantyn Ligum

    here is a small experiment for you - take around 10 random pictures you like and oversaturate it by 10-15 points in c1. in next step watch these pictures as a diashow for like 5-10 minuteson on your monitor and at some point switch suddenly to the original ones. which are more pleasent? let me guess... :-) thats what happening all the time around you in small amounts.

    so there is nothing certain about beeing pleasent, its always in relation.

    every raw converter is an interperteur of a raw data from your sensor and each of them has different approach to it. thats normal that they look different.

    garther your exprience, thats what counts at the end, and work on your workflow. its a good starting point here and beeing frustrated is tottaly normal, even good. it makes you go further.

    0

Bitte melden Sie sich an, um einen Kommentar zu hinterlassen.