I find the marketing message of the cobalt-image site confusing. Looking at it from the perspective of the two cameras I use, Leica M10 and Ricoh GRIII, I don't see what it will give me compared to other profile/preset packages: better matching between the two cameras as a starting point for further processing, or better film simulation?
For example, I've looked at The Archetype Process ("TAP" f.k.a. C1ick Match) and the RNI packages. While RNI has profiles linked to the camera profiles in CameraRaw/Lightroom (including M10 and GRIII), the RNI profile/preset combination don't seem particularly useful.
On the other hand, the TAP profiles have profiles based on Noritsu and Frontier scanners, which have different color rendering; but have no linking to the camera you are using. While some of the TAP profiles are interesting, they all have excessive reds and oranges when used on M10 files: they may have been tuned for Canon and Nikon files. I’ve asked a couple of times on the TAP FaceBook group about the issue of linking to camera profiles, but the developer has not responded to these questions. In my view this is a major deficiency of TAP, particularly considering the price of the packages. Paradoxically, I usually find the TAP profiles a better starting point than the allegedly "more accurate" RNI profiles/presets.
How do the cobolt-image profiles compare to TAP and RNI packages?
I take it that cobolt-image has no Kodak film simulations except for Kodachrome, although this thread has some examples of Portra and E100G examples, if I remember correctly, What is the status of Kodak film situations?
____________________ Frog Leaping photobook: https://www.frogleaping.org
