I recently went to a class on how to get your prints to match the photos on your monitor, an area I think many of us struggle with. The instructor seemed very knowledgeable and said that you must profile your camera, your monitor and your printer in order to get the best results. I had never heard of profiling your camera, but it makes a lot of sense to first make sure that the image on your monitor has the same colors as what you saw, and then of course you are free to warm/cool the colors as you see fit. He recommended using the Xrite Color Checker Passport to create a camera profile and explained how to use it. I was just wondering how many of you profile your camera and, if so, do you use this Color Checker ($99) or some other product?
Never thought of it and never tried it Carol, because we don't do our own printing. But I can say that when using multiple cameras on the same shoot, we see slight variations in both color and exposure between them. In extreme cases we see as much as 2/3-stop differences between our various handheld meters, so it doesn't surprise me that individual cameras of the same model vary somewhat.
I doubt I'd bother doing it if I was using only one camera and even doing my own printing. If all the shots were "the same" in exposure and color, I don't see the point if your monitor and printer were already profiled. I hesitate because I don' see how I could use the info gained from the profiling.
Hank - Thanks for your response. I guess the point he was making is that in order to control the colors in your images, you first must start with the actual color that you saw at the scene and this can only be done if your camera is profiled. Having a monitor and printer that is profiled/calibrated, doesn't correct the original image to what was actually seen. This is done with a camera profile. And you make his point exactly when you say that your different camera bodies of the same make/model record colors differently. It should work this way: if you take the same photo from each of your camera bodies (which as you say would come out a little different), then apply to each photo the profile for that particular body (you would have a profile for each body), then the photos should look exactly the same because they have both now been corrected to the actual colors as seen at the time the image was taken.
Yes, white balancing is part of it as well. But you don't have to create a camera profile at each scene. From what I understood, you would create one camera profile to be used on all photos taken in your location. Now if you were to leave Alaska and take photos in the Southwest, you would want to create another camera profile for that location because different atmospheric conditions (such as moisture in the air) affect colors differently.
Sounds like a lot of extra work for perhaps subtle nuances that may or may not even show up depending on the work. Seems to me like if you're shooting RAW it should be irrelevant because in the conversion you can correct to any color you see fit. As noted, if you correct the white balance (also easily done in RAW), then the other colors must follow, no? Now if we're talking differences in gamut of various color spaces, probably a different story but again, it would seem that the differences would be so slight as to be largely unseen most of the time. In a pure sense of course there may be differences and of course also we all want to be as accurate as possible. But if I'm selling a 20x30 and I can either spend more time or less time on it, AND when I'm done you can't tell the difference between the two versions, why spend the more time?
I don't believe that correcting the white balance will correct the other colors and that is why you must do white balance as well. I guess I'm interested in camera profiles because I know there have been a number of times where I have loaded an image into my computer (with a calibrated monitor) and the colors definitely were not as I saw them. He showed an example where the blue in the image was not recorded nearly as vividly as the blue in the scene. I think it would help me in my processing if I knew that what I was starting with was what I saw instead of just adjusting to what I think the colors really were. It's very interesting to me that no one so far has chimed in to say they use camera profiles.
I have profiled my cameras with the X-Rite Original ColorChecker Card (B&H about $70) and the free Adobe DNG Profile Editor. I mostly use a Nikon D700, but occasionally use a D2x and a Canon G9. The process is quite easy and only has to be done once for each camera. Once saved on your system, the profile shows up on the ACR Camera Calibration tab. I find them very useful.
...you first must start with the actual color that you saw at the scene and this can only be done if your camera is profiled. Having a monitor and printer that is profiled/calibrated, doesn't correct the original image to what was actually seen.
Carol - If you want your print to try to exactly match what your camera sensor "sees", then sure, that makes sense. But there are so many things affecting how your eyes see something, compared to how your camera captures it, that you have to be careful not to trick yourself into thinking that you can actually get some sort of perfect print that matches what your eyes saw.
For instance, something in shade may appear neutral to you if the rest of the scene is also cool, or very very blue if there is warm sun nearby to compare it to. But the camera sensor will see it exactly the same either way. Your eyes and brain adjust things like that all the time, which is part of the reason for white balance, why it's hard to pick one, and why there sometimes is no "right" white balance.
If you want to do the same processing from multiple camera bodies, then it makes more sense because you can at least get things consistent between them. And of course, you need to standardize everything then, including what white balance you use, and what demosaic algorithms are used (since a sensor is really not a full color device).
Hi, my name is Tachi. I was born in Japan. I am an older view camera with a few blemishes, and my brass is slightly tarnished, but I perform perfectly! I have 310mm of extension, and my rise and fall, swings and tilts are perfect for a day out after a good cup of coffee and a check of the Weather Channel.
I have five lenses of various focal lenghts, from 90 to 300mm, all with shutters. Each of these are nice and clean, and perform well. I also have all the accessories required for a date in the field.
I am light, easy to use, and carry. I can't be hand-held, but I do love a sturdy tripod. In use, I take some time to be set up, so you'll have to be patient. However, the rewards are great!
If you would like a date with me, please write. I am a great companion, quiet, but happy. You can e-mail me at Tachi @ lonesomeview.com. I will send nice pictures when I hear from you.
I am looking forward to hearing from you!
Signed--Tachi
ps: Please bring 4x5 Velvia 100, Astia 100, and Polaroid Type 55. thanx.
Seems like you're really leaning toward wanting to use camera profiles and are looking for corroboration. If you feel that strongly that they will help, and you have input from someone who says they will, then go ahead. In fact, like so many other things in photography, the best way to solve an issue personally is to simply try something. If it makes a difference or works for you, great. If it doesn't, then forget it. Either way you have your answer. I still think it's sifting for the gold dust when all the nuggets are gone from the stream.
Since I'm the only positive respondent, I guess I should expand on why I find them useful. First, if digital is any part of your workflow, you do use camera (or scanner) profiles. The only question is whether they come from the vendor of your software, are built into your camera body, or whether you have created them by shooting (or scanning) a color chart.
I have found that with recent iterations of ACR, the supplied profiles have gotten much better to the point that for some images I prefer theirs to mine. That said, there are other images where applying my profile brings the colors into much better balance. At best it is just a global adjustment that can give me a good head start on processing an image. As Carol pointed out in her original post, you still have to consider white balance.
If you shoot RAW and use ACR (or Lightroom?) and have yet to investigate the Camera Calibration tab, you owe it to yourself to do so.
David, thanks for your further explanation. I always use the profiles listed in the Camera Calibration Tab of ACR/Lightroom to see what they do to my photos. Like you, I have found them to be very useful. It sounds like the camera profile created by using a color chart will just be another profile to choose from and, from my understanding, should provide the colors closest to the actual colors that were shot. I think that knowing the true colors in an image will help me in deciding where I want to go from there creatively speaking. I think I'll give it a try!
Discussion
14 repliesI doubt I'd bother doing it if I was using only one camera and even doing my own printing. If all the shots were "the same" in exposure and color, I don't see the point if your monitor and printer were already profiled. I hesitate because I don' see how I could use the info gained from the profiling.
Carol - If you want your print to try to exactly match what your camera sensor "sees", then sure, that makes sense. But there are so many things affecting how your eyes see something, compared to how your camera captures it, that you have to be careful not to trick yourself into thinking that you can actually get some sort of perfect print that matches what your eyes saw.
For instance, something in shade may appear neutral to you if the rest of the scene is also cool, or very very blue if there is warm sun nearby to compare it to. But the camera sensor will see it exactly the same either way. Your eyes and brain adjust things like that all the time, which is part of the reason for white balance, why it's hard to pick one, and why there sometimes is no "right" white balance.
If you want to do the same processing from multiple camera bodies, then it makes more sense because you can at least get things consistent between them. And of course, you need to standardize everything then, including what white balance you use, and what demosaic algorithms are used (since a sensor is really not a full color device).
Kent in SD
Hi, my name is Tachi. I was born in Japan. I am an older view camera with a few blemishes, and my brass is slightly tarnished, but I perform perfectly! I have 310mm of extension, and my rise and fall, swings and tilts are perfect for a day out after a good cup of coffee and a check of the Weather Channel.
I have five lenses of various focal lenghts, from 90 to 300mm, all with shutters. Each of these are nice and clean, and perform well. I also have all the accessories required for a date in the field.
I am light, easy to use, and carry. I can't be hand-held, but I do love a sturdy tripod. In use, I take some time to be set up, so you'll have to be patient. However, the rewards are great!
If you would like a date with me, please write. I am a great companion, quiet, but happy. You can e-mail me at Tachi @ lonesomeview.com. I will send nice pictures when I hear from you.
I am looking forward to hearing from you!
Signed--Tachi
ps: Please bring 4x5 Velvia 100, Astia 100, and Polaroid Type 55. thanx.
--P
Here is an explanation from Adobe.
I have found that with recent iterations of ACR, the supplied profiles have gotten much better to the point that for some images I prefer theirs to mine. That said, there are other images where applying my profile brings the colors into much better balance. At best it is just a global adjustment that can give me a good head start on processing an image. As Carol pointed out in her original post, you still have to consider white balance.
If you shoot RAW and use ACR (or Lightroom?) and have yet to investigate the Camera Calibration tab, you owe it to yourself to do so.