How do you make your M240 files punchier?

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I must admin I've been strugling a bit with the color checker. This afternoon is a clear sky in TX, and it was 3.15PM when I went behind the house in a shade.

I put the checker on the floor and take the photo from above.

 

The photo I took with AWB camera set to 6350K and Tint -4. When I check auto in LR it sets it to 6650 and Tint 0, however the instructions tell me I should go to the second patch and white balance it there. This gives me 9000K and Tint +6. I am very confused, and not sure which one to export for the camera profile.

 

Similar happened to the photo taken in the 3PM Texas winter sun. In camera AWB 5600K, -5, Auto 3100, 0, and second patch in the checker gives me 4000, +3.

 

I made one more in the morning, around 10AM when it was fully Cloudy in TX. The AWB gave 5200, -2, Auto 4950,0, and second patch in the checker 5550, 0

 

The tungsten shoot gave me AWB 2900, +3, Auto gave me 2850, +1, and second patch in the Color checker gave me 2550, +11.

 

I would like to create a dual illuminated profile, but I'm not sure which of the checkers to use. What confuses me a lot is a big difference in the temperature that camera and auto give in compariston to the second patch in the color checker.

 

Which of these would you use for creation of dual profile?

I gave it a try with a one other tugnsten and cloudy, and ended up with a bit greenish cast in low temp range.

 

If anyone wanted to check the dngs, I uploaded them as a zip (Colorchecker.zip) or single files to dropbox. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/tmg5c6yhg1z3zjf/viJhiDaf_J

 

 

Any help or suggestion would be highly appreciated.

[Jeff S]

You want to export the ColorChecker patch that is both correctly exposed and white balanced. There are lots of videos, but I think if you follow

, you should be fine. (Alternatively you can WB in-camera by using the grey card with the ColorChecker in advance, but the approach used in the video should suffice just fine.) I suggest that you deal with one profile at a time rather than confuse yourself with dual illuminant profiles for now.

 

Note that this doesn't mean 'perfect' or 'correct' color, but it does mean that you'll be much closer to where you want as a starting point. After that, you're the judge of how you want your pic to look, and that's what all of the LR (or other software) edit tools are designed for.

 

You didn't acknowledge my recommendation on your other post to delve further into color management, but I echo it here, not to offend but to help. It seems, based on your posts, that you'll be happy you did.

 

Jeff

[mirekti]

.

 

You didn't acknowledge my recommendation on your other post to delve further into color management, but I echo it here, not to offend but to help. It seems, based on your posts, that you'll be happy you did.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff, nhf from my side at all. I read about the Color Management before I posted. I was just confused because I thought ICC profiles of both, display and printer were used for display.

 

I will take your advice on setting up the LR profile too. Those variations in temp made me doubt about the process I used.

 

Thanks!!

[01af]

This afternoon is a clear sky in TX, and it was 3.15 PM when I went behind the house in a shade. I put the checker on the floor and take the photo from above.

That's good—provided the walls of the house casting the shadow were white or grey. And your own clothes also should be neutral in colour.

 

 

Similar happened to the photo taken in the 3.00 PM Texas winter sun. In camera AWB 5600K, -5, Auto 3100, 0, and second patch in the checker gives me 4000, +3.

That's good for a Texas winter sun profile but not for a dual-illuminant profile.

 

 

The tungsten shoot gave me AWB 2900, +3, Auto gave me 2850, +1, and second patch in the ColorChecker gave me 2550, +11.

That's good for the Illuminant A shot to create the dual-illuminant profile.

 

For creating the profiles via Adobe DNG Profile Editor, don't bother with white balance. The light you're shooting in provides a colour temperature, and that's it. This should be in the ballpark of Illuminant A for the tungsten shot (2,850 K) and D65 for the daylight shot (6,500 K). The white balance settings in the camera and/or the raw converter don't matter.

[tobey bilek]

I used studio flash with silver reflector for 6500k illumination.

 

Then 2800 k lights for the lower. Normal household bulbs.

 

The I make 3 profiles, one @ 6500 got sin/overcast, one at 2800, and a dual for when I do not know what to use.

 

Set LR to open profile of your choice based on camera serial number, not generic or embedded Leica.

 

You still need to have correct WB.

 

Adjust the profile to your liking if you have a calibrated monitor and save as part of profile.

[mirekti]

Adjust the profile to your liking if you have a calibrated monitor and save as part of profile.

 

This is what I've been doing for the last five days, but not so happy with the results.

I don't have access to any studio and only flash I own is Metz c20.

 

Anyway, two days ago I had an overcast day with uniform grey clouds. The temperature I get from the dng is 6050K. I believe this is quite close to 6500, and there shouldn't be much difference, correct?

 

I used two software's, Adobe's DNG Editor, and X-Rite's Color checker. It's funny how I get different results for two softwares which were supposed to do the same thing. Compared to my colorchecker in hands, X-Rite looks better, especially blue, but going through the photos, and using these profiles, Adobe looks much better. I have to move magenta hue in both cases really strong.

 

What is common for both is too much magenta in red, so I move the hue slider +10 towards orange. Anyhow, even the process is straight forward, getting a good result is not so easy.

 

Would you mind PM me your profiles, please? I would just like to see if I'm doing something wrong, or this is the way camera renders differnt hues, and not much could be done. I won't comment anything in regards to those profiles publicly. Thanks.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder if it would be more accurate if you took a in camera white balance, "AND" then in LR, clicked on the white (with detail) for a further refining of the white balance.

 

Of course, that's the start (as far as I understand) before creating the camera profile with a particular lens and lighting.