Due to architectural limitations, the only way to get the Fuji GFX simulation in C1 is to make specific icc profiles for your camera.
On the site you can find the details of the tailored service.
Due to architectural limitations, the only way to get the Fuji GFX simulation in C1 is to make specific icc profiles for your camera.
On the site you can find the details of the tailored service.
What "architectural limitations"
I have an awful feeling your are taking Fred and his members for a ride.
LeeHUK wrote:
What "architectural limitations"
I have an awful feeling your are taking Fred and his members for a ride.
@LeeHUK - Really? @Ulysseita wrote on page 1 of this thread: As you can see on the website, you have to contact us for "tailored requests". C1 is made in a different way so for any combination camera-emulation we have to follow a custom process.
So, the Cobalt-Image people are lying when they announce this upfront on their website? You're accusing a tiny company, that has been extremely forthcoming to questions and comments in this thread. Also, in an earlier post you stated that you're asking for your money back on whatever you bought from them. Never mind that their website states there can be no refunds, which, in any case, should be obvious considering that these profiles are not copy-protected.
I'm afraid these couple of posts of your's reveal more about yourself than any reflection on Cobalt-Image. Incidentally, I have no connection to Cobalt-Image, and only know the company from this thread.
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
Totally agree with Mitch on this. There is no reason to criticize Cobalt when they have been transparent and responsive as well as creating products that people find are beneficial. If a person does not want the product, then don’t buy it.
I usually don’t comment on irksome posts, but the one stating that Cobalt is taking people for a ride is inappropriate.
Mitch Alland wrote:
@LeeHUK@ - Really? @Ulysseita@ wrote on page 1 of this thread: As you can see on the website, you have to contact us for "tailored requests". C1 is made in a different way so for any combination camera-emulation we have to follow a custom process.
So, the Cobalt-Image people are lying when they announce this upfront on their website? You're accusing a tiny company, that has been extremely forthcoming to questions and comments in this thread. Also, in an earlier post you stated that you're asking for your money back on whatever you bought from them. Never mind that their website states there can be no refunds, which, in any case, should be obvious considering that these profiles are not copy-protected.
I'm afraid these couple of posts of your's reveal more about yourself than any reflection on Cobalt-Image. Incidentally, I have no connection to Cobalt-Image, and only know the company from this thread.
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org...Show more →
I recently started using Cobalt profiles, and overall this has been an interesting and useful experience. However, as they say the grass is always greener on the other side. In this case, in the RAW files from Sony A1. It seems that the Standard profile adds a yellow cast. The Neutral is less affected. I am not sure if this yellow cast is warranted in the Standard profile.
The following are examples produced in DxO Photolab. No corrections have been applied, and the 3000 x 2000 pixels JPGs were produced at 85 quality.
ruthenium wrote:
I recently started using Cobalt profiles, and overall this has been an interesting and useful experience. However, as they say the grass is always greener on the other side. In this case, in the RAW files from Sony A1. It seems that the Standard profile adds a yellow cast. The Neutral is less affected. I am not sure if this yellow cast is warranted in the Standard profile.
The following are examples produced in DxO Photolab. No corrections have been applied, and the 3000 x 2000 pixels JPGs were produced at 85 quality.
Further to the above, something weird is also happening to the reds which seem to be more vibrant in the uncorrected Sony A1 RAW image, and there seems to be more tonal variation (if this is the right way to put this): the butterfly is orange on the outside (bottom side) and there is more red on the inside (upper side). Is this "flattening" of the colors intended in the Cobalt profiles? Am I doing something wrong?
ruthenium wrote:
...It seems that the Standard profile adds a yellow cast. The Neutral is less affected. I am not sure if this yellow cast is warranted in the Standard profile...
As I understand it, the Cobalt Standard profiles are aimed at getting skin tones right — and I would therefore expect Cobalt Neutral to be better for the subject in your examples. Can you post an example with skin tones?
I have mostly been using Cobalt Repro because I've been reprocessing images taken in difficult light and colors, some of them so difficult that I only did them in B&W previously. Similarly, from my Cobalt Films pack, I've been using the Light variant — particularly Portra 800 (Light), which is the emulation that I like the best from this pack; though, often, I've ended up sticking to Cobalt Repro, because I've found this makes it easier for me to end up where I want to be.
EDIT: I didn't see your post on the reds when I posted the above, but would be interested to see the response.
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
Due to architectural limitations, the only way to get the Fuji GFX simulation in C1 is to make specific icc profiles for your camera.
On the site you can find the details of the tailored service.
Thanks. So what would I need to buy for Sony A7rIV to get better colors from it using C1? Is there a demo I can try? Most users here are using LR.
Then, perhaps the naming is confusing. I would think of the "Standard" as oriented toward general photography/subjects; whereas the "Neutral" as being more suitable for skin (portraits). I have done few portraits recently. Here is one, and perhaps not the best, as it was taken 5 min after the sunset; thus, there is a blue color cast. Sorry, I wish I could produce a better example.
Mitch Alland wrote:
As I understand it, the Cobalt Standard profiles are aimed at getting skin tones right — and I would therefore expect Cobalt Neutral to be better for the subject in your examples. Can you post an example with skin tones?
I have mostly been using Cobalt Repro because I've been reprocessing images taken in difficult light and colors, some of them so difficult that I only did them in B&W previously. Similarly, from my Cobalt Films pack, I've been using the Light variant — particularly Portra 800 (Light), which is the emulation that I like the best from this pack; though, often, I've ended up sticking to Cobalt Repro, because I've found this makes it easier for me to end up where I want to be.
EDIT: I didn't see your post on the reds when I posted the above, but would be interested to see the response.
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org...Show more →
Abuttolph wrote:
Totally agree with Mitch on this. There is no reason to criticize Cobalt when they have been transparent and responsive as well as creating products that people find are beneficial. If a person does not want the product, then don’t buy it.
I usually don’t comment on irksome posts, but the one stating that Cobalt is taking people for a ride is inappropriate.
Agree 1000%. I can't even imagine any creator of any consumer product anywhere being this transparent and present with their userbase. Not only is Ulysseita here answering questions and talking folks through using the product on a daily basis, he's also listening to user feedback and making requested improvement sometimes in as little as 24 hours. I always have to laugh when I see people with a months-old account, a dozen posts, and no identifying info come into a successful thread where people are generally happy and try to poo-poo the product.
@Ulysseita, I do have one suggestion. Have you considered making an in-depth video tutorial about how to choose, install, and apply Cobalt from start to finish? Seems like it could pre-empt many of the common questions in this thread and help clear up some of the things that are easier understood when they are seen in practice, rather than reading instructions.
"I always have to laugh when I see people with a months-old account, a dozen posts, and no identifying info come into a successful thread where people are generally happy" is unnecessarily hostile. My (admittedly brief) experience with this forum has been overwhelmingly positive so far, thanks to the members who are generous to share their expertise and are doing this courteously and professionally.
VetraLens wrote:
Agree 1000%. I can't even imagine any creator of any consumer product anywhere being this transparent and present with their userbase. Not only is Ulysseita here answering questions and talking folks through using the product on a daily basis, he's also listening to user feedback and making requested improvement sometimes in as little as 24 hours. I always have to laugh when I see people with a months-old account, a dozen posts, and no identifying info come into a successful thread where people are generally happy and try to poo-poo the product.
@Ulysseita@, I do have one suggestion. Have you considered making an in-depth video tutorial about how to choose, install, and apply Cobalt from start to finish? Seems like it could pre-empt many of the common questions in this thread and help clear up some of the things that are easier understood when they are seen in practice, rather than reading instructions.
I try to be clearer about my previous statement on C1.
The technical limitation on PhaseOne's program is the lack of the ability to build modular profiles.
Obviously there are the Styles, which are the counterparts of the Presets of the Adobe world; but in Styles it is not possible to incorporate a Lut.
The modular architecture possible in Adobe makes things a lot easier; in fact, if on the one hand we had to build specific basic profiles for each camera, to smooth out the differences in characterization and architecture, the next step, transforming a certain camera into another or into a film is relatively simple. Just calculate the right Lut and incorporate it into an xmp profile, the system will automatically combine the right base profile plus the modular, in a completely transparent way.
A similar feature has been requested by the C1 user base for a long time ... but for now, nothing to do.
Trying to replicate a Lut, derived from precise calculations, by manually moving the controls of C1 to obtain a Costyle is mere illusion. Of course we could try and try again until we get something vaguely passable, but I wouldn't feel like I'm doing a good job.
So, we decided to take the long way: merge the basic profiles with the necessary Luts. The unfortunate fact is that this involves an exponential expansion of variants.
For example, if an emulation package is composed of 10 profiles, then it means that they must be mounted on the base profiles of C1, in the two illuminants, D65 and StdA, resulting in 20 profiles, multiplied by a camera base of .. 300? we get 6000 profiles, and that's just for one of the emulation packages.
Do all of them and make them all immediately available for purchase? Possible, but not addressable by Cobalt's current technical staff. That is .. me, and only me.
This is the pure reason why C1 is made to order.
Obviously I very much hope that in PhaseOne they will listen to our pleas, they would make a poor technician very happy.
I've looked at your examples. If I do not misinterpret, in case I apologize, the photos called "uncorrected RAW" are in effect photos that have not undergone the characterization phase.
Therefore the colors are distorted and cannot constitute a reference.
It might seem counterintuitive, but linear transformation with a Raw coordinate identity matrix produces plausible colors under a variety of illuminants, especially the more common ones, such as sunlight. Plausible, but precisely not characterized and therefore not correct.
ruthenium wrote:
"I always have to laugh when I see people with a months-old account, a dozen posts, and no identifying info come into a successful thread where people are generally happy" is unnecessarily hostile. My (admittedly brief) experience with this forum has been overwhelmingly positive so far, thanks to the members who are generous to share their expertise and are doing this courteously and professionally.
I agree with you! I hope it didn't sound like I was implying that all new members are negative, because I meant quite the opposite. I don't like when a new account comes in and makes accusations like
another forum member "taking us for a ride." Especially because these forums are so courteous and, in this instance, the Cobalt crew and product was welcomed by Fred himself and so far has been enjoyed by lots of members.
Also, my memory of printing from negatives or slides showed a difference depending on where I had them printed and the paper used.
Plus, everyone that shot film has a different feeling of it. When I use to shoot porta, I'd usually overexpose to wash out backgrounds. I'd sometimes push it too for a certain look. There's no profile that's exact to every scenario. A lot of these profiles need tweaking. Never understood the anger some film shooters have towards these things though. Nostalgia vs contemporary photography I guess
Makten wrote:
Memories are unfortunately not a good measure of how things actually looked back then. Also, doesn't the dyes fade and the colors alter with pure age of the film?
I've looked at your examples. If I do not misinterpret, in case I apologize, the photos called "uncorrected RAW" are in effect photos that have not undergone the characterization phase.
Therefore the colors are distorted and cannot constitute a reference.
It might seem counterintuitive, but linear transformation with a Raw coordinate identity matrix produces plausible colors under a variety of illuminants, especially the more common ones, such as sunlight. Plausible, but precisely not characterized and therefore not correct.
Dear Raamiel, I am sorry, I don't have your expertise. I don't know whether the colors of a Sony A1 RAW file get distorted when the file is opened in DxO Photolab with explicit "No correction" applied. I simply presented observations of how the colors of the Sony ILCE-1 Cobalt Standard profile differed from the colors of what was presented as the uncorrected RAW image. I thought this might be of interest to other users of DxO Photolab on this Forum. I hope my comparisons might also be of some use to Cobalt Image. Thank you for your quick response! By the way, I do find your Neutral profile useful in some cases.
I have an awful feeling your are taking Fred and his members for a ride.
What an obnoxious and ill-informed post.
On a related topic, I don't understand why so many people are posting their customer service queries on this thread. This isn't the cobalt images customer support forum. I think people should be raising customer support issues directly with cobalt images, not by posting here.
Archive 2021 · Cobalt Profiles
Also, doesn't the dyes fade and the colors alter with pure age of the film?