Use RAW profile of other cameras?
Hi there,
I used the Canon 5D Mark IV for a fashion shoot. I just played around with the RAW profiles "Base Characteristics" tab. I found the profiles of other cameras to give me better starting point color wise. Canon for my taste is to vibrant and red. Would there be any reason not to use the profile of other cameras?
thanks for the tip.
Cheers
I used the Canon 5D Mark IV for a fashion shoot. I just played around with the RAW profiles "Base Characteristics" tab. I found the profiles of other cameras to give me better starting point color wise. Canon for my taste is to vibrant and red. Would there be any reason not to use the profile of other cameras?
thanks for the tip.
Cheers
0
-
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste? 0 -
If there is any reason, you would see it in the preview. Off the top of my head, you may strange rolloff in the highlights. However, if you see nothing wrong, go for it! Even better, you can tweak the input ICCs as you need:
If you need to better divide the colors, the tool itself can be pulled out and the window can be expanded to better divde the color for better separation.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste?
How would I get linear? Under "Curve" --> "Linear Response"?
Sometime building the colors to your taste requires a high skillset which I belive only professional retouchers and color graders have. A good RAW profile can be a good starting point for someone like me, who knows to handle color, but only to some extend.
Cheers0 -
[quote="Nightjar" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste?
How would I get linear? Under "Curve" --> "Linear Response"?
Sometime building the colors to your taste requires a high skillset which I belive only professional retouchers and color graders have. A good RAW profile can be a good starting point for someone like me, who knows to handle color, but only to some extend.
Cheers
Yes to your Curve question.
Well the various setting available for the Curves provided for the camera are all starting points in effect, provided to approximately match certain types of image as you can see from the names.
But you can always adjust those to taste and then save your results and set a new default Curve of your own to be the preferred choice for your camera.
Unless you work is extremely focussed on colour accuracy it is entirely you choice for how you want to present things.
Have fun with it!
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste?
The "Linear" option only applies to the tone curve.
The camera profile also contains a mapping from the camera's primary colours (as defined by the colour filter array) to the colours you see in a rendered image.
FWIW, I use a profile for a different camera all the time. By renaming the profile to feature the name of your camera (rather than the original camera) the profile becomes available for direct selection (obviating the need to navigate the profile tree).0 -
[quote="Class A" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste?
The "Linear" option only applies to the tone curve.
The camera profile also contains a mapping from the camera's primary colours (as defined by the colour filter array) to the colours you see in a rendered image.
FWIW, I use a profile for a different camera all the time. By renaming the profile to feature the name of your camera (rather than the original camera) the profile becomes available for direct selection (obviating the need to navigate the profile tree).
I would have thought that the profile for a different camera would have been quite likely to change colours, per your second sentence, in unpredictable ways at certain colour settings.
The named curves, other than Linear, that C1 offers are intended to look something like the sort of results that a film solution might offer. They are starting point rather than destinations.
Linear takes away those curves but keeps the sensor interpretation as assessed by Phase One.
It's actually not that diffcult at all to quickly build up something you like in terms of colour "look" and then save it as a preset (by tool) or style (several tools together) and then deploy it when you choose to.
Heck, if I can do it anyone can.
Grant0 -
[quote="Class A" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste?
The "Linear" option only applies to the tone curve.
The camera profile also contains a mapping from the camera's primary colours (as defined by the colour filter array) to the colours you see in a rendered image.
FWIW, I use a profile for a different camera all the time. By renaming the profile to feature the name of your camera (rather than the original camera) the profile becomes available for direct selection (obviating the need to navigate the profile tree).
Note though, that the assignment of the white balance values are closely related to a Phase one camera profile, meaning that when you only select a different profile, but do not alter the white balance values, you will in most cases throw the image off balance.
The only real option to use a profile from a different camera, with the corresponding "correct" white balance setting, is to change the exiff info to the camera model which' profile you want to use.
I tried this with images from the Sony A7RII for which I wanted to use the new Sony A7RIII profile (because the Sony A7RII profiles were "copy over's" from the A7R profiles, which is a camera with totally different sensor. The A7RII profiles never felt right, and possibly with reason).
Anyhow, merely changing the base profile to "Sony A7RIII generic" threw the images off balance in a way that wasn't to be expected for two cameras with identical sensor. So I changed the exiff info for some A7rII images to "Sony A7RIII", and imported a few of these test images, next to the original "Sony A7RII" images. This immediately made clear why merely changing the base profile threw the images off: the newly imported "Sony A7RIII" exiff images all had substantially different white balance settings (both temperature and tint). And by the way, they looked very balanced and i.m.o. much better (with a few small tweaks) than the original images using the Sony A7RII base profile.
Chris0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste?
I've been using C1P since forever - V3 - and I just started processing my Sony files using linear response and its been a revelation. I still need to figure it out a bit more but I'm able to pull even more dynamic range out of the Sony files than ever before. If anyone has some workflow tips, I'd love to hear but if anyone is looking to really get in and work their files - linear response is the way to go.0 -
[quote="Edward51" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Why not go for Linear and adjust things entirely to your own taste?
I've been using C1P since forever - V3 - and I just started processing my Sony files using linear response and its been a revelation. I still need to figure it out a bit more but I'm able to pull even more dynamic range out of the Sony files than ever before. If anyone has some workflow tips, I'd love to hear but if anyone is looking to really get in and work their files - linear response is the way to go.
Edward,
As per a blog post from one of the Phase staff (I think it might have been Drew) about a year ago my use of Linear - which had become my preferred option for many images - became especially rewarding then combined with reducing contrast, increasing saturation and then running an Auto Levels with the AL set to separate colour channels. Then maybe a WB check depending on the image contents.
In most cases, but not all (for some shots from some cameras) there is some instant improvement of the starting point. At least for my tastes. A will also use the HDR tool adjustments you bring highlights and darks a little more into range it there is something to be gained. But the key, IMO, is getting the separate colour levels to be cohesive after changing to Linear and maybe re-adjusting as one plays with other settings.It sounds complex but takes seconds.
A quick curve and maybe a black point adjustment can also be highly effective depending on what you want to do. And ultimately what the file may be offering.
Grant0 -
Hi all,
I use too a linear entry curve, together with a tailored ICC profile for my camera. In that conditions, you have to increase the contrast (the images are otherwise rather dull due to the ICC entry profile), and I bend upwards the Luma curve in the medium tones.
And the obtained result is far better : you get an extended dynamic range, and the shadows and highlights are much more flexible.
I never tried to separate colour levels but I'll give it a try. Thanks, Grant.
Robert0 -
[quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
Hi all,
I use too a linear entry curve, together with a tailored ICC profile for my camera. In that conditions, you have to increase the contrast (the images are otherwise rather dull due to the ICC entry profile), and I bend upwards the Luma curve in the medium tones.
And the obtained result is far better : you get an extended dynamic range, and the shadows and highlights are much more flexible.
I never tried to separate colour levels but I'll give it a try. Thanks, Grant.
Robert
Robert,
If you set the preferences for Auto Levels to separate colour levels and then use the Auto option on the Levels tool you should see very significant beneficial change. I usually have 3 levels tools open (one for each colour channel) but that's just so I can take a quick look to see what has been adjusted should I feel like it. You do not have to process each colour separately.
The original post suggested some quite significant reduction of Contrast and increase in saturation as a starting point.
I was surprised BUT it really does seem to work out well. IMO.
Grant
ETA:
I went in search of the original article that guided my thinking on this subject.
There is one by Drew that looks for a similar approach by mainly uses White Balance and Curves.
Paul Steunebrink also offers some great guidance about levels.
The article found that comes closest so far to what I have recalled from previous reading seems to be this one by Niels Knudsen
https://blog.phaseone.com/less-clicks-better-images/
I have yet to find the source of the "reduce contrast and increase saturation" suggestion but I can say that for most images it makes sense in my opinion. How much adjustment to apply as a starting point might vary from camera to camera. Or perhaps manufacturer to manufacturer.0 -
Excellent discussion here with great new pointers. I've never tried the linear response curve but can see it working with auto levels per channel. Thanks all for steering me in other directions! 0 -
[quote="ChrisM" wrote:
Note though, that the assignment of the white balance values are closely related to a Phase one camera profile, meaning that when you only select a different profile, but do not alter the white balance values, you will in most cases throw the image off balance.
Sure, fair point.
I haven't noticed major white balance issues with my approach. I don't do high volume processing and expect to fine tune WB for each image anyhow. BTW, if I had major issues, I'd just change the C1 defaults for my particular camera.0 -
Thanks, Grant.
It is clear that adjusting levels per channel (R, G, B) gives better results than adjusting the whole spectrum (RGB). I haven't done it very often, but it allows a better rendering for some hues, and I will use it more extensively. The only drift is to emphasise a color too much with respect to the others, but all the skill is in going not too far with the cursors.
Any picture is different for me, and needs its own processing. So, I am not a strong supporter of the Auto adjustments tool, but it could give a good starting point anyway.
The article by Niels Knudsen is very illustrative.
Robert0 -
[quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
Thanks, Grant.
It is clear that adjusting levels per channel (R, G, B) gives better results than adjusting the whole spectrum (RGB). I haven't done it very often, but it allows a better rendering for some hues, and I will use it more extensively. The only drift is to emphasise a color too much with respect to the others, but all the skill is in going not too far with the cursors.
Any picture is different for me, and needs its own processing. So, I am not a strong supporter of the Auto adjustments tool, but it could give a good starting point anyway.
The article by Niels Knudsen is very illustrative.
Robert
Robert,
The overall Auto Adjustments tool is usually OK but I found myself changing things again anyway when I have made use of it.
However the Auto Adjust for the Levels tool by itself is a different matter to the point where with my Canon files (older bodies) I pretty much always use it. However the results may need re-visiting for some images once other edits have been applied, yet for other images doing so, on some rare occasions, takes the results the wrong way.
Much depends on the image and what one has done with the image before making the Levels adjustment or re-adjustment.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Much depends on the image and what one has done with the image before making the Levels adjustment or re-adjustment.
Grant
Yep,I perfectly agree. 😉0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
16 Kommentare