Are accurate colours actually accurate?

Since we still continue have some time I thought I’d bring this subject up.

Aside from using Canon colour profiles I was never really interested in much else. I was wondering what peoples general consensus about this is. I have ColourChecker Passport (CP) but never really liked it. I find the blues are too saturated. I did bunch of tests and one included my wife wearing a teal sweater. Using CP it came out blue. Using Canon’s DPP it came out teal. I even asked my wife which file looked like her sweater and she immediately pointed to DPP.

C1 Pro is known for it’s colour yet (I think in version 12) introduced the ability it use CP profiles. If C1 Pro's to claim to fame is colour why did they need to introduce CP profiles? Same as DXO. It has it’s own version which people really like based on threads here but also introduced using ICC/DCP profiles in version 2. Adobe now has Adobe Colour as others have their own take.

Many years ago when I got CP I was under the impression it provided accurate colour which was an industry standard. However pros use C1 Pro, LR, etc or a camera’s manufacturer profiles on a regular basis. I’m aware of colour models we developed to define colour. A friend who worked in print media sales used to say if customer wanted light green they may as well asked how long is a piece of string.

So pleasing colours or accurate colours, if they exist? I have read people suggest a profiler like CP or similar colour chart to obtain accurate colour. Seems to me that is just for profiling so you can use 5 different cameras and colour will match between them all. Another example would include several photographers working for one company that needs matching profiles, etc.

A. Did you include a photo of the gray wedge on the Colorchecker in the same light, and use the WB eyedropper sampler on the 4th patch from the left (18% gray density)?

B. Or did you try to set up a profile for your specific camera and lighting?

My specific camera and lighting.

I started this because of another forum a few months ago where this person posted about this subject. I purchased his book about 10 years ago out of curiosity but it turned out to be too much for my needs. Besides due to costs I stopped printing shortly after and just used local labs. I have been thinking about getting back into printing perhaps due to the boredom from the last several weeks.

There were times I felt was missing out not using "accurate" colours but surprisingly he supports pleasing colour. He is member of the PixelGenius group.

http://www.digitaldog.​net

Here is his take. I just did random search using his name and accurate vs pleasing colour.

http://digitaldog.net/​files/AccurateColor.pd​f

OK, so maybe somebody else can contribute, as I have never bothered to create a Colorchecker profile for my camera in different lighting. If I was still doing commercial product shoots for picky clients, I might have been more inclined to take the effort.

Generally speaking there seem to be not much user complaint. Here is one thread about some of the issues folks encountere with different software with the profile they created with Colorchecker.
https://support.captur​eone.com …ith-ColorChecker-Profiles

Then in Jan 2019, an article mentions 'finally compatible with Capture One'
https://www.diyphotogr​aphy.net …patible-with-capture-one/

I titled this do accurate colours exist. They do measure LAB values for that. The interesting part is the Digital Dog says accurate colours tend not to be pleasing. Of course humans viewing colour is subjective which is why they created colour models. Both of us couldn't have been wrong with that sweater example. I took the standard colour tests at work and I have no deficiencies. They are also available on line.

After putting CP away for a few years in 2018 decided to try it again. I created a daylight profile for my 5D4 and shot a show with knights on horses which were very colourful. Again the blues were more saturated compared to DPP or LR.

I decided to start this because of some recent software tests. There is nothing wrong with pleasing colours no matter what level you work at. If you profile your camera to the screen and printer then you get the expected results. Since I'm not a colour expert I was curios what others thought. Either way I'm comfortable with using camera or software profiles even though I know my two bodies won't match 100%. That is not critical with what I do.

I use a ColorChecker Passport and profiles all the time (and a calibrated screen). It's so much easier than frigging around for ages with sliders and thinking you've got it right, then you come back later and it looks all wrong. Because your eye/brain has built in colour balancing it's really hard to know what's right. It takes seconds to take a photo of the CP in the light you're shooting in, and just a few more seconds to create a profile in my raw converter of choice (PhotoNinja). And the colours nearly always look spot on, certainly better than what the camera tells the raw converter. And if I want to change them for whatever pleasing reason, at least they start off accurate. But I like my flower photos especially to look right and doing it this way is, for me, the easiest and quickest way to do it.

digital paradise wrote in post #19057271
I started this because of another forum a few months ago where this person posted about this subject. I purchased his book about 10 years ago out of curiosity but it turned out to be too much for my needs. Besides due to costs I stopped printing shortly after and just used local labs. I have been thinking about getting back into printing perhaps due to the boredom from the last several weeks.

There were times I felt was missing out not using "accurate" colours but surprisingly he supports pleasing colour. He is member of the PixelGenius group.

http://www.digitaldog.​net

Here is his take. I just did random search using his name and accurate vs pleasing colour.

http://digitaldog.net/​files/AccurateColor.pd​f

Digital.
I have been printing quite a bit over the last couple of months. I have the Canon PRO-10 and has been working here since 2013. Like Math class over the years, being able to print from home allows us to “check our work”.
It’s a great way to learn to “Develop” in LR or whatever program you use.

Nick5 wrote in post #19057537
Digital.
I have been printing quite a bit over the last couple of months. I have the Canon PRO-10 and has been working here since 2013. Like Math class over the years, being able to print from home allows us to “check our work”.
It’s a great way to learn to “Develop” in LR or whatever program you use.

Thanks for the info.

Thinking about this a bit, it would seem that 'accurate color' is possible. You have in the Colorchecker Pro not simply the saturated patches of the original Macbeth Colorchecker, but also the very low saturation subject color patches which would better exhibit deviation from accurate color match. That, in combination with monitor calibration for visualiztion and printer profile calibrations for output, seems to provide you with the necessary tools to achieve accuracy...certainly better accuracy than the search for the best color transparency emulsion we had to seek in the past! The relative scarcity of web discussions by folks seeking remedy for different problems seems to lend credence to the validity of the approach espoused in the Colorchecker Pro with user obtained profiles. I have seen enough testimony on POTN from professional shooters to think using it has benefits, and it apparently was not all that complex to set up and use.

Since matching the expectations of the pickiest textile manufacturer or Art Director are not what I need to bother with now, I find that basic monitor Brightness and Contrast adjustments on an IPS monitor are all I need!
No need to 'polish the turd' so to speak, no need to do any more than please my eye, fortunately.
Over the years I have seen some of the deep consternation that some folks fall into when monitor calibration profiling or printer profiling go off the reservation, so keeping life simple with 'good enough' (even if not 'perfect') saves me a lot of headache and upset stomach!

Perhaps your issue is caused by some fundamental error in the overall process, rather than inherent problem in using Colorchecker with your own profiles...in medicine it is called 'iatrogenic', induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures

digital paradise wrote in post #19057228
So pleasing colours or accurate colours, if they exist?

I don't think it's an either/or choice. Sometimes colors are pleasing and accurate, other times pleasing but not accurate -- and sometimes accurate but not pleasing. But as to what is "accurate," beware of trusting your memory. I've heard photographers declare that their photo shows colors "exactly the way they were" when the picture was taken. They're under the illusion that they can accurately remember colors.

Memory Of Color Shades: Why The Human Brain Struggles To Remember Color

How good is your color memory? Let’s do a short test!

Can you name this color? And can you remember it correctly?

Shady Science: How the Brain Remembers Colors

Peano wrote in post #19057581
I don't think it's an either/or choice. Sometimes colors are pleasing and accurate, other times pleasing but not accurate -- and sometimes accurate but not pleasing. But as to what is "accurate," beware of trusting your memory. I've heard photographers declare that their photo shows colors "exactly the way they were" when the picture was taken. They're under the illusion that they can accurately remember colors.

Memory Of Color Shades: Why The Human Brain Struggles To Remember Color

How good is your color memory? Let’s do a short test!

Can you name this color? And can you remember it correctly?

Shady Science: How the Brain Remembers Colors

I was just going to reply to Wilt so this is for both or anyone else reading. I'm aware of all that, how the eyes cones and rods work, etc. I worked in print media and used to facilitate customer colour workshops. Before getting monitors that represented print more accurately they would often complain about a printed product not matching what they saw on a monitor. Workshops were CMYK and reflected light vs RGB and additive light. My favourite bit I created 4 squares on a monitor - Red, Green, Blue and a white one. I got them to look through a 50X magnifier each colour squares first and then the white. I liked their reactions to that. Most forgot this from high school physics. What I find freaky deaky is outside of our brains the world is just a bunch of light waves. Just like the old if a tree falls in a forrest and no one is there to hear it does it make a noise. If there are no eyes to process lightwaves what does it look like? Obviously we instruments for that.

Maybe I should have titled this what does colour accuracy mean to you and/or is it important to you. I was doing a bunch more reading and an interesting comment was unless there are industry or specific customer requirements the general public does not care about accuracy it or how the colours were achieved, as long as they find the image/s pleasing. If accuracy is important to your personal workflow that makes it pleasing to you.

The Color Checker Passport (CCP), or similar color targets, contain calibrated patches of reference colors - they do not provide any inherent profile for your specific camera or raw conversion software. What you use to sample the patches (your camera, scanner, etc.) and how you use that sampling data to construct something meaningful for the sampling device to interpret color depends on many factors, including the target illumination, the sampling device's response to light, the exposure of the target, the software used to analyze the resulting data, the purpose and intent of the device's interpretation of color, etc.

There may be reasons why your homegrown profile causes teals to become blues, but it is not an inherent fault with the CCP - it could be due to the device's sensor, the software that you use to make the profile, their method for creating profiles, etc. If you feel that you are getting results that do not create color that is what you want ("accurate") then the tool chain needs to be examined. Are you exposing the target properly? Are you using an illumination that is appropriate? Is the profile creation software permitting you to control for issues behind the scenes that are causing the rendering to be off? Is your raw converter able to take advantage of the profile that you create in a way that optimizes the rendering of the raw file?

You can produce "accurate" colors if you take a scientific approach to image analysis and use a sensor that responds to light appropriately - however, this is likely not so useful for general photography (as opposed to, say, historic art preservation and documentation). Even for general photography, you may find that canned profiles always produce blues that are too purple, or reds that are too orange, and you find yourself always having to make changes in your raw converter to undo the application's default rendering. This may be a case for making your own profile.

Take a look at the user manual for Lumariver Profile Designer:

http://www.lumariver.c​om/lrpd-manual/

Even if you choose not to try the software, the author has spent A LOT of time explaining the purpose and workflow behind profile creation and use. It is not as straightforward as shooting a target and pushing a button to make the profile, but, with some understanding of what the purpose and intent of the profile is, you can get the results you are after - namely, taking charge of color in the applications you use so that you do not have to fight those applications to get the results you want.

Many raw converters have adopted some sort of built-in or compatible custom profile workflow because their user base demands it. A canned profile in a raw converter is not pure science - they are providing a profile that is generally "pleasing" based on who knows what. That may work for many people, but for those who do not want to adopt their interpretation of color, they have provided a path to use other profiles. Film is essentially a color profile that is provided to the user based on what the film manufacturer has determined is pleasing, or appropriate for the intent of the film's use. Same thing with modern, canned camera profiles.

Kirk

Just thought of something else. General offset printing uses Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black inks. As these inks are layed down they have to be properly aligned which is called register. The final product is either in or out of register. There is some slight deviation but copies were discarded when badly out of register.

To print a red banner you apply yellow and magenta on top of each other. One time we got a flyer and those two colours were out of alignment by about 1/2 of an inch. So it was like having a yellow or magenta silhouette depending on which side you looked. I went wow when I saw that. My wife thought it was intentional to catch your eye Our customers often requested all types of unusual things so their customers would pick their flyer up first. Of course that bad print job did not come from of our plant

A few out of register print examples from the web. Image 2. Sorry for the small size.

kirkt wrote in post #19057610
The Color Checker Passport (CCP), or similar color targets, contain calibrated patches of reference colors - they do not provide any inherent profile for your specific camera or raw conversion software. What you use to sample the patches (your camera, scanner, etc.) and how you use that sampling data to construct something meaningful for the sampling device to interpret color depends on many factors, including the target illumination, the sampling device's response to light, the exposure of the target, the software used to analyze the resulting data, the purpose and intent of the device's interpretation of color, etc.

There may be reasons why your homegrown profile causes teals to become blues, but it is not an inherent fault with the CCP - it could be due to the device's sensor, the software that you use to make the profile, their method for creating profiles, etc. If you feel that you are getting results that do not create color that is what you want ("accurate") then the tool chain needs to be examined. Are you exposing the target properly? Are you using an illumination that is appropriate? Is the profile creation software permitting you to control for issues behind the scenes that are causing the rendering to be off? Is your raw converter able to take advantage of the profile that you create in a way that optimizes the rendering of the raw file?

You can produce "accurate" colors if you take a scientific approach to image analysis and use a sensor that responds to light appropriately - however, this is likely not so useful for general photography (as opposed to, say, historic art preservation and documentation). Even for general photography, you may find that canned profiles always produce blues that are too purple, or reds that are too orange, and you find yourself always having to make changes in your raw converter to undo the application's default rendering. This may be a case for making your own profile.

Take a look at the user manual for Lumariver Profile Designer:

http://www.lumariver.c​om/lrpd-manual/

Even if you choose not to try the software, the author has spent A LOT of time explaining the purpose and workflow behind profile creation and use. It is not as straightforward as shooting a target and pushing a button to make the profile, but, with some understanding of what the purpose and intent of the profile is, you can get the results you are after - namely, taking charge of color in the applications you use so that you do not have to fight those applications to get the results you want.

Many raw converters have adopted some sort of built-in or compatible custom profile workflow because their user base demands it. A canned profile in a raw converter is not pure science - they are providing a profile that is generally "pleasing" based on who knows what. That may work for many people, but for those who do not want to adopt their interpretation of color, they have provided a path to use other profiles. Film is essentially a color profile that is provided to the user based on what the film manufacturer has determined is pleasing, or appropriate for the intent of the film's use. Same thing with modern, canned camera profiles.

Kirk

Good points. I used CPP and the ColourChecker software. My monitor is calibrated via i1 Display. Some may like that richer look and there is nothing wrong with that but it threw me off. Out of boredom I'll try it again with my R. Shooting has been a little slow lately but our local bird sanctuary is opening this week wis I'm looking forward to.