C1 4.8 .NEF much lighter and contrastier than LCD screen
I made a support case and apparently my camera is broken and the LCD is a piece of junk and C1 is giving me a more accurate rendition of the file than my D700 because the LCD on my professional grade and highly accurate 5th generation digital camera is poorly made with low tolerances. At least that is what they told me. I turned the brightness all the way up on my LCD and it doesn't begin to match the brightness I see on my calibrated monitor in C1 of the same .NEF. The skin tones on my LCD which is set to 0 are nice and neutral, the contrast matches what I would expect to get from my lighting setup and the exposure is correct. But in C1 the same image using the default D700 profile, has pinkish skin tones and is 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter, and when I bring the exposure down of course the color and contrast change as well. These are family portraits and all of that is very important and besides, I should see in C1 pretty closely to what I see on the LCD.
So, who is wrong? Me? Nikon? C1?
1. Why cant I see more closely in C1 what I see on my LCD? (HINT: It's not the LCD)
2. Who else has problems getting an accurate skin tone exposure reading from their LCD without using the histogram? Histograms are fine for studio work, but on location I need to know where my skin tones are placed, not the highlights or shadows.
3. Is the default D700 profile the ONLY profile that is available for the D700 in C1? Why cant we get more? Why aren't more accurate versions available?
thanks, roger
So, who is wrong? Me? Nikon? C1?
1. Why cant I see more closely in C1 what I see on my LCD? (HINT: It's not the LCD)
2. Who else has problems getting an accurate skin tone exposure reading from their LCD without using the histogram? Histograms are fine for studio work, but on location I need to know where my skin tones are placed, not the highlights or shadows.
3. Is the default D700 profile the ONLY profile that is available for the D700 in C1? Why cant we get more? Why aren't more accurate versions available?
thanks, roger
0
-
any portrait shooters notice this difference? 0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
... I should see in C1 pretty closely to what I see on the LCD....
There you lost me. I have never expected such comparison nor is it a valid statement in my book. In other words: you camera is OK, as is CO4.8 and you monitor calibration might be OK (which I have more doubts about), but it is perhaps your expectation that bothers you most, creating a disappointment.0 -
except that the processed jpg's are a half stop darker than what i see in C1. 0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
except that the processed jpg's are a half stop darker than what i see in C1.
And how do you view your processed jpg's and what is their output profile (workspace), which Windows version?0 -
in CS4 set to convert all to working space which is sRGB. Vista 64 on a calibrated monitor.
"you monitor calibration might be OK (which I have more doubts about),"
Why do say these things when you have absolutely no idea, none at all, that my monitor is accurately calibrated?0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
"you monitor calibration might be OK (which I have more doubts about),"
Why do say these things when you have absolutely no idea, none at all, that my monitor is accurately calibrated?
Because based on your limited input I tried to assess what is potentially causing your problem. The fact that I had absolutely no idea at all made me guess. No uncommon practice here, which hopefully was not taken as an offense.
That said, monitor calibration is more often noted as a problem here, in particular in relation with Vista, and Vista 64 in particular and how CO4.x reads the profile. Unfortunately, details were not revealed when these cases were solved, so hopefully someone else kicks in. IIRC CO4 does not like v3 or v4 profiles, but again, not sure. Maybe try a search in this forum.
Bottom-line: A CO4 image in the viewer and its output in CS4 should match perfectly. For me that would be a bigger concern than whether or not the CO4 viewer would match my camera's LCD.0 -
Because based on your limited input
I see. Limited input.Vista 64 in particular and how CO4.x reads the profile.
How does it? Or not? What are you saying, that C1 does not properly read and interpret a monitor profile in V64?IIRC CO4 does not like v3 or v4 profiles,
What is IIRC?0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
What is IIRC?
If I Remember Correctly0 -
Vista 64 in particular and how CO4.x reads the profile.
which profile are you referring to?
the profile attached to the raw file in the camera?
the C1 default D700 profile?
the C1 output profile?
the monitor calibration profile?0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
Vista 64 in particular and how CO4.x reads the profile.
which profile are you referring to?
the profile attached to the raw file in the camera?
the C1 default D700 profile?
the C1 output profile?
the monitor calibration profile?
I was discussing monitor calibration. I meant the monitor profile.
Edit/add: I did a search (+vista, +monitor) to refresh my memory and found this. Maybe it helps.
viewtopic.php?p=25858#p258580 -
I recalibrated the monitor just to make sure (no change), and other apps are reading the new default monitor profile. How do I check that C1 is reading the new profile? I did not see that setting anywhere. Also, what are you referring to v2, v3, v4 of monitor profiles? My Spyder2 and ColorVision software just make a .icc profile and puts it in the windows profiles folder.
here is the result
http://www.rogerbeck.com/Untitled-1.jpg
the computer restarted and when i reopened C1 and processed the same image with the same settings, i got this,
http://www.rogerbeck.com/Untitled-2.jpg
and this is what i see without any adjustments at all. blown highlights and high contrast when there is tons of detail in the highlights, but for some reason C1 is showing me this
http://www.rogerbeck.com/Untitled-3.jpg0 -
Horrible indeed (that is, differences in pictures). You sure might want to investigate whether your calibration software has the option to create v2 rather than the suspected v4 icc profiles (in general it can), or try other calibration software. That is the best and sincere advise I can give. 0 -
what, exactly, are v4 profiles? v4 of what? 0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
what, exactly, are v4 profiles? v4 of what?
Read this and you'll love it. 😉
http://www.color.org/v4spec.xalter
Note: ColorVision supports v4 icc profiles... (I've been googling around a bit)0 -
this is not getting me anywhere, there are too many unanswered questions
Does C1 4.8 work or not work with v4 .icc profiles on Vista 64?
How do I make a v2 profile?
Why am i not getting output that looks like the preview?
Where is the monitor profile setting in C1?
Why am i getting different results from the same settings?
If I cant get the answers to these questions on the C1 forum, then who can help me?
Why do all other color managed programs give me the same output as the preview, but not C1? (lightroom)0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
How do I make a v2 profile?
Get into your ColorVision manual.0 -
FWIW, this is a user-to-user forum....so you are not posting to PhaseOne, but other users. (Paul E is about as competent as anyone, so that's not a big problem and most answers can be found here.)
You are also asking several questions at once, all related to color management....but not answerable by one simple reply.
I, like Paul, would be most concerned with the monitor calibration and disparities. As paul noted, modern OS's can handle more than one profile (as in the case of multiple monitors)...so that's an issue. Also, FWIW, speaking of standards...if you assume the Spyder 2 as absolutely correct....the introduction of the Spyder 3 to give a better calibration might give you insight as to why we don't necessarily view that calibration as a standard of some sort.
That said, I've had calibration issues occur occasionally over the years...given the number of possible variations in hardware/software, there's no single solution...wether it's COne or another RAW converter. While software from the same company can match in the manner that makes them identicle on the screen....that MAY (only MAY) mask a poor profile when it goes to a third party for print. That's my rationale for making files in the first place, so problems with COne matching Photoshop may well be the miner's canary here...they should match very well.
I don't know if COne doesn't handle V4 profiles well, or my OS doesn't, or my software doesn't do a good job of creating a V4 profile. Doesn't matter, creating a V2 profile gives me more consistency....so that's something you should try, or not...this is merely advice, free...and worth every penny...<g>....0 -
I am asking a lot of questions because I need to get some work done and if C1 is not working properly I really would like some answers as to why it is not working. The problem is not my computer, operating system, color profile, camera or LCD.
I sent DataColor a question about v2 and v4 profiles and the answer was "What are those?" 😕 I saw nothing in the software about which version of .icc it produced. It is the cheapest decent profiling solution, Spyder2, so it may not have that option, waiting to hear from DataColor.
Part of the problem is the default D700 profile, while it is the only D700 profile available for the D700, is not very good, the color is not that great, I have more options with Lightroom where I can start the adjustments from a more neutral starting point and that is where I processed the current job.
I have been using color calibrated monitors and software for several years, and I understand how to get good color and check all of the steps along the way to ensure proper color, it is not that difficult so I am not completely unaware of how this works or is not working. It is not that difficult to achieve good basic color. With C3,7,8 it was a snap, so I am wondering why it is so difficult with C1 4.8 and Vista 64.0 -
creating a V2 profile gives me more consistency.
so what, exactly, are people creating a v2 profile with?0 -
First, send DataColor my best regards. I peeked into their Spyder2/Spyder2express/Spyder2Pro User Guide (February 2006) and found this on page 92: Version
You can choose to create ICC Profiles that meet version 2.0 or 4.0 of the ICC
Specification. The default value is 2.0.
Note that this statement applies to their Spyder2Pro only according to the same manual. I don't believe the default value statement. Vista is using a new color management system (WCS) compared to Win2000 & XP (ICM). WCS is ICC version 4 aware (ICM is v2 only) and I tend to believe that calibration software defaults to the operating system, hence creating a v4 profile on Vista were the same calibration hardware/software (like Spyder2/ColorVision) would default to v2 profiles on XP and 2000. You could force the software to go to v2, but that option might not be available (user Roger12 did not give clear feedback on his endeavors in digging into software or manual, but let's assume he tried vigorously and found nothing).
According to user reports done here on the forum CO 4.x is not v4 compatible (up to 4.8 today).
Add to mix that DataColor is letting user Roger12 down on support, Phase One support is not clear about v4 support (of lack thereof) in combination with OSses like Vista, and you are ready for disaster.
In case someone might like to read more about it - if ever - some links from wikipedia and beyond I came across:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_management
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Vista%27s ... stem_-_WCS
http://www2.chromix.com/ColorNews/index.cxsa
Did you ask for advise? Different OS or different color management tools (Eye-One, now X-rite) if you like to use CO 4.x.0 -
according to the comparison chart the Spyder 2 Express which is what i have only suports v2, which is the version we want, yes?
Why is there no way to check in C14.8 which monitor profile it is using? Wouldn't that be an essential part of color management?
http://www.rogerbeck.com/Untitled-4.jpg0 -
Well, well, well, new information surfaces. Spyder2Express only supports v2. Great. That makes the mystery even larger. Should not be a problem for Capture One 4 then. And indeed, it is not possible (to my knowledge of course) to see which monitor profile CO4 is using. Gasp...
Maybe I'll setup a test environment this weekend with Vista, monitor calibration and CO4/PS CS3 or CS4 to see what's happening. At this point in time I don't have a clue. No promises.0 -
and i can start from the beginning and take some test shots with the camera and see what happens on its way to Photoshop. 0 -
To investigate potential color management issues between Vista and CO 4.x (4.8 currently), I set up a fresh Vista Ultimate SP1 x64 workstation with CO 4.8 and PS CS4. I calibrated the monitor (Eizo CG221 wide gamut) with Eizo’s ColorNavigator 5.2.2 and Eye-One Pro photospectrometer. ColorNavigator 5.2.2 is a fully Vista compliant native 64-bits application. I managed to create a monitor profile of ICC version 4 (4.2.0 to be precise; more about that later) without any trouble. I processed raw files from Nikon D700, Canon 5D mkII and Leica M8 to 8-bits TIFF in AdobeRGB workspace while using CO 4.8’s own camera profiles. AdobeRGB was configured as workspace in CS4 as well.
The first run of processed raw files showed a very good or almost identical image when I compared the raw in CO 4.8’s Viewer with the TIFF in CS4. The images were to much saturated though in both programs. As expected it appeared that I was viewing an AdobeRGB monitor (CG221) through a sRGB profile. How come? Didn't my calibration worked well?
Monitor calibration is great, but in my Vista setup the created profile was not automatically used by Vista after calibration. After I corrected that (more below), both CO4.8 and CS4 produced an very accurate image on screen. Now I was able to do a more thorough investigation in comparing CO4.8 Viewer (raw) and CS4 (TIFF). I found the D700 and 5D mkII image a bit reddish in CO4.8 compared to CS4 by only one point of the Tint slider. The M8 image however was an exact match. Leica has a contract with Phase One and it is clear that it pays off here.
Both CO4.8 and CS4 used the v4 ICC monitor profile automatically that was set as the device profile for the monitor in Vista (more below) without any problem. That removes my previously done assumption that CO4.8 is not able to use the newer profile type (v4 versus v2). Point taken.
How to check and set Vista color management?
So, how do you set color management properly for your monitor in Vista? You need to open the Color Management panel. This is hidden very well for the uninitiated, but we are fearless. Open the Display Settings: right-click your desktop, Personalize, Display Settings, Advanced Settings button, Color Management tab, Color Management button. Shortcut: type ‘colorcpl.exe’ in the start menu search box or Run box. Go to the Advanced tab. In the Windows Color System Defaults, Device profile: select your profile (created from calibration). Click Close. You need to restart your programs (CO4, CS4) for the changes to take effect.
If you like to now the version of your ICC profile, go to the All Profiles tab, select the profile to investigate and read the version below. Simple as that.
Note: my advise is to use (or at least try) PS CS4 on Vista above CS3. Not only because you can benefit from CS4 as a 64-bit application on Vista x64, but it is tested and developed on Vista, were CS3 is for XP only. You can download a 30-day trial from Adobe. I have not tested CS3 on Vista at all. It is an advise if you want to be on the safe side (testimonies will surface of happy CS3 on Vista users now...😉)0 -
Both CO4.8 and CS4 used the v4 ICC monitor profile automatically that was set as the device profile for the monitor in Vista (more below) without any problem.
How, exactly, did you verify that CS4 and C1 are using the monitor profile you created? there is no monitor profile setting in C!? And I dont see one in CS4 either. All I see are camera profiles or working space profiles, but not monitor profiles.0 -
[quote="Roger12" wrote:
Both CO4.8 and CS4 used the v4 ICC monitor profile automatically that was set as the device profile for the monitor in Vista (more below) without any problem.
How, exactly, did you verify that CS4 and C1 are using the monitor profile you created? there is no monitor profile setting in C!? And I dont see one in CS4 either. All I see are camera profiles or working space profiles, but not monitor profiles.
Easy: when I changed settings as described to apply the calibrated profile, color behavior of both programs changed accordingly. Test for yourself: It is an old trick to create profiles (through calibration) with different color temperatures (5000K and 6500K for example). Swap the profiles in the configuration panel and see what the program is doing. There is no need for to know which profile a program is using. It is using the system profile, as configured, by default. Hence: configure the system profile.
Have you checked for your monitor profile setting in Color Management panel as described?0 -
Hello,
I would like to confirm similar findings.
I do not use .NEF, but I use Sony raw .ARW. I have found that the C1 default at 100 iso is over exposed by 1 stop, iso 200 about 1/2 stop,
as I increase the iso the overexposure decreases till at 400 iso it is about 1/3.
I would like to say though that I have not had any issues with blown highlights, the exposure pulls back very nicely.
I also have a issue with the Default icc profile with my camera (Sony A700) with the white balance being too red.
I can create a "color corrected profile " which I have and works good. The thing is I have to adjust all these settings in every image, and am I unable to set this as the default profile. I would think that these settings would be right on by default, especially under controlled conditions like a portrait shoot, (with a custom white balance).
Also I have tried importing into CS3 Camera Raw and have had similar results, while some other Raw converters gave correct exposure. I am not sure if this is a C1 issue or a problem with the Sony ARW file, and or firmware update of the camera. My findings were done the shooting raw and jpg, with the jpg being correctly exposed and the color being more right on.
I have had a support case on this and it seems to have something to do with the firmware and how C1 reads the iso info.
My understanding now is that using raw allows you to customize the files to your "look" and standards, and not necessarily give you the exact look of the brand of cameras (jpg) interpretation. If I use the Sony supplied RAW converter, the default conversion looks exactly like the jpg.
Although it would seem that at least the exposure setting would be accurate.....
I have XP Pro SP3, monitor calibrated (Eye-One Display 2), using sRGB color space.
Still love the software and will continue to work around these issues....
Thanks,
Bill0 -
here's what I found in Vista 64 and a created V4 file.....firstly, Photoshop CS4 did NOT use the set system profile, even after system restart. I belive that is not the desired or prior PS behavior. You can check the monitor profile used by Photoshop in the Edit>color settings> ...then in the colorspace drop down scroll up to see the monitor color profile used. In my case, it did NOT change to the set system profile until the profile used was deleted, then on restart, it used the proper system setting. This is IMHO a bug in Photoshop not to pick up the system profile....the behavior of prior versions.
(Edit....this may be an erroneous observation, when switching back to the V2 monitor profile, Photoshop picked up the changed system profile as expected. It displayed correctly under color settings. I'm not going to confirm the prior behavior, lets assume the profile was set incorrectly, because I'm not going to use V4 monitor profiles.)
Now, as to V4 profiles....using View>Proof Profile, I see a check beside the last V2 profile I used as the system profile, and some other V2 profiles listed...but none of the V4 monitor profiles even listed......
This leads me to conclude that COne V4 dos NOT use V4 profiles...sorry for the confusion...and to get the best match, one should not use V4 monitor profiles. You can see the type of monitor profile in the info dialog in the system setting dialog....
but I'm sticking to creating V2 monitor profiles AND checking to see that Photoshop is indeed using the same system profile as COne uses....hope this helps....0 -
are you kidding? you just solved the problem, thank you for posting this. When i changed the View>Proof Profile in C1 to the default monitor profile, then the output matches the raw preview, the preview went darker and now it is the same as the jpg. Why this setting is never mentioned in the manual or by C1 I'll never know.
😄 😄 😄0 -
Nope, thank you for asking the question. I certainly had no idea I was helping, your question saved me some problems on down the line.... 0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
30 comments