Are accurate colours actually accurate?

Pippan wrote in post #19059021
You can create a new profile for different lighting conditions and it will also take into account atmospheric conditionds, sensor characteristics, lens coatings, filters etc. You don't always want accurately corrected colours though. Imagine how boring an accurately corrected sunset would be. I usually take the CCP photo for the profile about midday on a sunny day and then the golden hour colours look about right, i.e. golden, but then I sometimes tweak them anyway.

Yes I didn't mention that. Some create a new profile for each time they shoot or for lighting conditions. Portrait photogs like it use it for each session. For now I'm going to use only one.

FWIW I have never used the color checker products. I have an i1Studio that calibrates the monitor and printer. Using this my prints come out looking just like they do on the monitor, each and every time and with each different paper I create a profile for. As long as the colors on my screen are accurate, I can adjust the color temperature of what I need or the hue of a photo. If I was charging a grand for a couple headshots then I might have a profile set up, but as it stands, the calibration I do is enough.

mikeinctown wrote in post #19059290
FWIW I have never used the color checker products. I have an i1Studio that calibrates the monitor and printer. Using this my prints come out looking just like they do on the monitor, each and every time and with each different paper I create a profile for. As long as the colors on my screen are accurate, I can adjust the color temperature of what I need or the hue of a photo. If I was charging a grand for a couple headshots then I might have a profile set up, but as it stands, the calibration I do is enough.

What is i1 Studio? Is that an X-Rite product?

digital paradise wrote in post #19059351
What is i1 Studio? Is that an X-Rite product?

I looked it up. I figured it was because of the i1 part. Looks like a good tool. If camera to screen to print is not essential then just screen to print works. That profiling is important.

Here is a good blue example. All using LR. Years ago in another site I remember discussions about Canon profiles and some called Canon Standard cartoon colours. They preferred a neutral look to start and work on it. As you can see CCP really saturates compared to but I can't say I dislike it. The skin tones are always good as you can see from the fingers on the steering wheel. Actually when getting into wedding photography Canon Neutral was suggested because Standard tended to mush up the details in a brides dress. This was Canon's DPP profiles, not LR.

Canon Neutral

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2iYL​4wS

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2iYL​4vQ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2iYH​kVB

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2iYM​DsS

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2iYH​tDT

I actually like the CCP image the best there. It appears more like the actual car colors to me, minus smog and haze.

As far as camera to screen to print, since I am essentially developing each photo to suit my individual tastes then there is no need to really have a camera profile, UNLESS I am using presets as a normal develop routine and not tweaking images. Also, no need UNLESS I am using two different cameras to shoot the exact same thing and again editing only using presets.

I do see the point of wanting to have consistent input though I'm just not sure how needed it is for 99.9% of photographers. That said I do have a spydercheckr in my wishlist at Adorama that will get purchased at some point if it goes on discount.

I found Adobe Standard and Camera Standard nice on a 7D. A slight nod to Adobe Standard.
However Adobe Standard on a 5D Mark III is more subdued. I do like the current default Adobe Color on the 5D Mark III.
Camera Standard on a 5D Mark III can be a bit much on skin tones. Too punchy.

Adobe Colour is not all that bad. Somewhere between Camera STD and Camera Faithful. Adobe needed to so something because Adobe Standard is flat by design. You are supposed to tweak, use a camera or custom profile. With more people getting into RAW and developers compared to 10-15 years the competition was showing punchy images out of the box. Sometimes the first look can make a difference.

mikeinctown wrote in post #19059623
I actually like the CCP image the best there. It appears more like the actual car colors to me, minus smog and haze.

As far as camera to screen to print, since I am essentially developing each photo to suit my individual tastes then there is no need to really have a camera profile, UNLESS I am using presets as a normal develop routine and not tweaking images. Also, no need UNLESS I am using two different cameras to shoot the exact same thing and again editing only using presets.

I do see the point of wanting to have consistent input though I'm just not sure how needed it is for 99.9% of photographers. That said I do have a spydercheckr in my wishlist at Adorama that will get purchased at some point if it goes on discount.

I have set CCP as my import default and I'll give it a try for a while.

I was checking out videos, etc and for fun I decided to try the Adobe Profiler Editor and create a profile using the Colorchecker Passport chart. Interesting results. Quite a bit different from the CCP profile. Actually fairly close to the new Adobe Color default, just a tad more punch. Very subtle.

kirkt wrote in post #19058763
And, when you examine the gamut ............... color and your color workflow chain.

kirk

Hosted photo: posted by kirkt in
./showthread.php?p=190​58763&i=i237259235
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Kirk, you may want to check your ICC profile for the Epson, It seems quite exaggerated in relation to aRGB and it in no way exceeds the edges of ProPhoto as indicated.

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #19070217
Kirk, you may want to check your ICC profile for the Epson, It seems quite exaggerated in relation to aRGB and it in no way exceeds the edges of ProPhoto as indicated.

It's the profile supplied by Epson - but you bring up a good clarifying point - remember, this is a 2D projection of the 3D gamut volume - here are ProPhoto and the Epson profile displayed in 3D, with very dark blue/purple and some green of the Epson profile poking through the ProPhoto volume. This is probably meaningless in terms of real printing of very dark tones, but it is how Epson constructed the profile.

kirk

This is the whole thing about colour accuracy. These are the tests. I read and watched a few videos where people suggested to use the Adobe DNG Profiler. It is somewhere between Adobe STD and CPP.

Adobe Standard

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2j6y​329

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2j6v​sEa

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2j6v​sGz

kirkt wrote in post #19070266
It's the profile supplied by Epson -- ......... here are ProPhoto and the Epson profile displayed in 3D, .......... but it is how Epson constructed the profile.

kirk

Hosted photo: posted by kirkt in
./showthread.php?p=190​70266&i=i99344811
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

I think there maybe something wrong with that ICC file, I downloaded the printer driver with the ICC files, the ICC for that paper is dated 8-4-2009, a couple of weeks after your file date, this is the plot of the latter ICC vs Prophoto

A few other interesting bits of info anyone is interested.

https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/post/5824507​9

I found this blog on other sites.

https://petapixel.com …colors-with-every-camera/