Re: Anyone here profile their cameras? Is it worth it?
The thing you come to realize about color the more you learn to manage it is that the weakest link in the process control chain is human vision. Our vision is so adaptable that it will accept a wide range of color as seeming normal and will only detect small differences in side-by-side comparison, i.e.; pixel peeping.
For a museum trying to document an art work collection using a copy arrangement with consistent lighting conditions it would be worth the effort to profile the camera, but even then the lowest common denominator will be the gamut of whatever is used to display the photos on screen or in print and in many cases the gamut of the pigments used in the artwork might be outside the gamut of camera sensor.
Color management, as it was developed in the printing industry using analogue and digital methods, is focused on managing expectations. A classic example would be a photograph of red lipstick for a cosmetic ad in a mass circulation magazine. There is no way the inks on the web press can match the pigment of the lipstick. By viewing on a RGB monitor or printing on a 12 color ink-jet printer the photographer could get a closer match so show the client, but what the client really needs to know when approving the proof is what it will actually look like in the magazine. Using the profile for the press in a color managed workflow results in a proof on screen or in print which will be a closer match to the smaller gamut of the web press. In that example the color in the magazine would suck compared to the real lipstick placed next to it, but relative to all the other color in the magazine it will probably be the richest and most saturated red in the book and the viewer\'s perception of the color will adapt to the point they accept the illusion that the lipstick is really red, at least to the point they are motivated to go to the store and try it on.
In the type of photos we typically take the goals are different: tweeking as much saturation out of whatever medium is displaying the image. But even then perfectly neutral and technically accurate color is seldom the best choice perceptually. Perception is influenced by many factors on the least of which is context. In a conventional portrait neutral WB looks a bit too cool perceptually. But take the photo outdoors in the winter where you want to create the impression the person is cold and neutral WB will look too warm. Next time you watch a movie notice how skilled the cinematographers are at using the color temp of the lighting to key the emotional mood of the scene. Production designers go to great lengths to do that, coordinating the colors of the setting, clothing and lighting all to evoke whatever emotional response is desired in the mind of the viewer.
That\'s not to say profiling a camera isn\'t a valuable exercise. It will help you understand how the color management process works and its limitations. But in terms of the goal of evoking a particular emotional response in the mind of the viewers of your photo you\'d be better off devoting the time to consciously understanding how various color biases in photo evoke different emotional responses like in the movies and how a color managed workflow will help you anticipate how the color will change when output and viewed different ways. That helps manage your expectations and keep them within the realm of what is technically possible
Chuck
Aug 12, 2009 at 07:37 AM
Previous versions of cgardner's message #7407331 « Anyone here profile their cameras? Is it worth it? »
