Question about using X-Rite Color Checker

I think I'm going to buy this guy, but here's my question....after you profile your camera in say a Daylight environment (5500K) and get all of the colors accurate, does it stay accurate if you change the white balance in LR/ACR to say Cloudy(6500K) or Shade(7500K) temp settings? It just seems like a lot of work to profile it for each scene if you're doing landscape work. I guess the overall goal is that I want the colors to look exactly as they did to the eye and not like a de-saturated RAW image like it always looks like from my camera.

Its only accurate when the light is the same. "daylight" is not always the same color. Noon is "daylight" so is the golden hour, but they have vastly different color to them. No way to use one calibration for two different color temps.

The checker is meant to be used each time the light changes. It is not only white balance but saturation and luminescence as well. The checker will keep all that in control.

Also keep in mind "correct" and "right" color balance may not be the same. If you want to add a mood or feel to an image, you can add a color cast. and throw most of the point of the checker away in the process.

How much work it is depends on your work flow. Just need one frame of it correctly exposed, then the rest is done in post with a few clicks of a mouse. If its not correctly exposed the software cant read it. So if you are doing night scenec and want it dark and moody, its not going to work for you.

Mark1 is talking about using the CC in a scene as a reference for WB. You asked about using it to make a camera profile for LR/ACR, which is a slightly different matter. My experience has been that the Adobe supplied profiles are generally quite good for general usage and if you are not demanding a high standard of color accuracy. {Editorial comment: My own feelings about color accuracy is that the chances are very good that I will be changing many colors. I don't see my camera as a scientific recording machine but rather as a portal to a creative space. That's for the arty stuff. For more mundane shots, my grandson doesn't give a eff if his jeans are exactly the right shade of blue, but God help me if my wife's new blue dress is slightly purplish.} But the Adobe profiles are made using just one or two units of a particular model and they may be generically valid but not spot on for every other unit in the world. So if your camera is far enough off the center of the bell-curve, it will benefit from profiling with the CC. Another point is that the Adobe profiles are dual-illuminant - they contain two profiles, one made under 6500K light and the other under 2800K lamps, and they are interpolated together in proportions that vary according to the ambient indicated by the WB. So for, say, 4000K light the profile values are a compromise. A home-made profile for that specific 4000K lamp and specific camera would, theoretically, be more accurate. This is especially true for weird illumination with a non-continuous spectrum, like LED lights.

In the LR/ACR internal workflow the profile comes first, correcting for the way the camera reacts to colors, and then the WB comes on top of that, correcting for the way the light has affected the colors. But the profile also contains a tone curve that adds another element - making it Standard, Neutral, Landscape, etc. However, since the derivative profiles are all based on the same basic lab measurements and the WB is supposed to be derived from external factors, it should not change when you change the Adobe profile. Going to a home-made profile might change the WB.

But your eye is different from my eye which is different from John Doe's eye. And if your color memory is like mine,... The best the profile can do is to aim for the CIELAB standard. But the profile is primarily about hue, saturation is a product of the added tone curve and the subsequent processing. If LR default processing isn't saturating enough for you, change it. It is easily done.

I own the color checker and love it. I only use it for studio work or critical sessions, but it is so nice to have. I also own a white balance calibration target for quick and dirty white balance references. I use the white balance calibration target 80% of the time and the color checker 20% of the time. You will like it.

I have made a custom profile, but most of the time I just grab a shot of it, and tune my colors to the checker.

Great explaination Elie. I think the color checker is a must tool. As Adharr states, one, well exposed shot of it gives you the ability to create a custom profile (which I may or may not use), along with multiple WB balance targets.

I have it but don't use it. If needed to calibrate two cameras I would use it. I found the blues were to saturated for my liking. They don't look like what I see. My wife backed that up when I asked her to compare images. Skin tones looked great. I find Adobe Standard is pretty accurate and will switch to Camera Faithful if I think it needs to be toned down a bit. It is a good product and very easy to use but did not work out for me.

Thanks a lot for all of the input everyone! I always have to add saturation to my RAW files as they never look anything like reality, so I figured I might give this a try and see if the colors shift at all. In camera, Landscape is actually the most accurate profile to reality on my body for some reason. With RAW, the landscape profile saturates blues way too much and seems to really change oranges and yellows so I try to stay away from it. I'll take a shot looking through the viewfinder and then the back of the LCD and Standard or Faithful just looks de-saturated too. I'm using an older camera too in the 5DII, so maybe that's part of the issue, but it never seems to just capture the colors correctly as I see it. Maybe my eyes need a color checker too? LOL

I'd say you want to start with learning all you can about Raw and Raw processing!

Understand that Raw is "wide open" when it comes to processing, there is no Pre-set bunch of settings. As a result, most Raw processors give you a "default" set of processing that typically does not look like an out-of-camera jpeg, especially one from a camera set to a Picture Style that is designed to give some "pop". Canon camera have Standard and Landscape, for instance, which add boosts of Contrast and Saturation as well as Sharpening that add some "pop" to your shots.

The only Raw processing software that is designed to give "jpeg-like" Raw rendering is the Canon Raw processing software Digital Photo Professional (DPP). Because it's from Canon, it can "read" and "interpret" in-camera settings, and so your out-of-camera rendering of your Raw file can show up like your out-of-camera jpeg as a good "starting point", and then you can adjust your Raw processing to improve things according to your taste!

In fact, I tend to advise folks that are new to Raw processing to use DPP for this very reason. Yes, you can get more features and "Umph" from more advanced Raw processors, but when you find yourself struggling with the Raw format, DPP is a good place to go!

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #16810714
Thanks a lot for all of the input everyone! I always have to add saturation to my RAW files as they never look anything like reality, so I figured I might give this a try and see if the colors shift at all. In camera, Landscape is actually the most accurate profile to reality on my body for some reason. With RAW, the landscape profile saturates blues way too much and seems to really change oranges and yellows so I try to stay away from it. I'll take a shot looking through the viewfinder and then the back of the LCD and Standard or Faithful just looks de-saturated too. I'm using an older camera too in the 5DII, so maybe that's part of the issue, but it never seems to just capture the colors correctly as I see it. Maybe my eyes need a color checker too? LOL

Have you calibrated your monitor yet?

Adharr wrote in post #16810776
Have you calibrated your monitor yet?

This is a good point.

One of the paradoxes with LR (or any Raw converter) is that the parametric/non-destructive workflow is a very attractive method - space saving and simple organization because you need only the Raw file and the recorded edits and it is easily revised - but for the most part any additional software to expand the converter's abilities (Nik, Topaz, Perfect or PSE and PSCS/CC) require breaking the parametric chain. One of the reasons for the dominant position in the imaging market held by Photoshop was the realization early on by the Knolls of the advantage of opening the program's architecture to third party party plugins that integrate seamlessly within PS and today there are thousands. With LR there are two ways that similar integral editing plugins can be created. One is with presets, either purchased or free; but anybody can easily make their own - it is simply a matter of finding a combination of settings you like and saving it. The second is with profiles. Adobe provides the software for altering profiles, but its use to obtain creative effects requires more advanced ability and it is easy to screw up because the profile is the first fundamental step in the LR workflow that greatly influences everything that comes after. Because of this it is more attractive to buy tried, tested and reviewed alternate profiles. I know of three commercial sources for profiles: VSCO, PSKiss and Huelight. Anybody know of any others? VSCO has many approving reviews. They are also the most expensive. The other two are somewhat pigs-in-pokes. Anybody used them?

Before you run out and get too crazy with all this, make sure your monitor is color calibrated, OR you are using correct ICC profiles for your printer.

I also love the color checker, so still recommend that. I just want to make sure you have your color output covered, as well as your color input.

I do have my monitor calibrated, yes and my prints seem to be very accurate. I always use Bay Photo for printing and they use the correct ICC profiles. I'm just looking for the real colors to transfer over to my RAW files without doubting myself. I generally have to add around 35 on the vibrance slider and around 15 on the saturation slider to obtain more real color in my RAW files using the Adobe Standard profile. Maybe it's my camera I'm not sure, but I'm always shooting with high quality glass

I see now......

Its not the camera. Its you not understanding raw files. Raw files are not necessarily "more accurate". in fact they usually are flatter in contrast and color than any jpeg. But what they have is the depth of information to allow them to be edited a greater amount before you push them too far.

Profiling a camera will not change your raw files, not even a tiny bit. Raw files are just that.... raw data, directly off the sensor. Profiling the camera comes into play when you convert the raw into a edited format. The software then knows the base line it needs to make things accurate. You always adding your 35 and 15, is a manual version of profiling.

Mark1 wrote in post #16811863
I see now......

Its not the camera. Its you not understanding raw files. Raw files are not necessarily "more accurate". in fact they usually are flatter in contrast and color than any jpeg. But what they have is the depth of information to allow them to be edited a greater amount before you push them too far.

Profiling a camera will not change your raw files, not even a tiny bit. Raw files are just that.... raw data, directly off the sensor. Profiling the camera comes into play when you convert the raw into a edited format. The software then knows the base line it needs to make things accurate. You always adding your 35 and 15, is a manual version of profiling.

I guess maybe that's the case.......It just seems like that's adding a lot of color to me