tom0511 Posted June 21, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 21, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I convert dng in c1pro with the latest profiles (M8+IRCUT) colors still look different than those from the M8-internal jpgs. Shouldnt Leica supply a profile which would lead to the same results as the internal processor? I kind of have the feeling that internal jpg processor color and tones are pretty good, but want the freedom to correct whitebalance and exposure afterwards and therefore shoot raw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 21, 2007 Posted June 21, 2007 Hi tom0511, Take a look here jpg-colors vs converted dng colors. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
grober Posted June 21, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 21, 2007 Thanks for raising the issue. The colors from M8 DNG files that seem aceptable in C1 turn muddy when I open them as a JPG file in Photoshop Elements 4.0. I haven't figured out a reason for this yet. This is causing me a lot of extra work to correct. Our issues may be entirely different but I sure wish what I see on the screen in C1 could be repeat when I open the resulting JPG file in PE4 -- all on the same compuer! Any ideas? -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elopezso Posted June 22, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 22, 2007 I haven't seen the same problem but I will tell you that I find the colors in the JPEG more accurate than the C1, Lightroom, Silkypix, etc., conversions and I've made prints and then gone out and compared. I need to work extremely hard to match the color accuracy in JPEG mode when I nail the white balance. So, I too would like a way to within C1 adjust white balance! Enuf said. Jono, where are you? Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted June 22, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 22, 2007 I haven't seen the same problem but I will tell you that I find the colors in the JPEG more accurate than the C1, Lightroom, Silkypix, etc., conversions and I've made prints and then gone out and compared. I need to work extremely hard to match the color accuracy in JPEG mode when I nail the white balance. So, I too would like a way to within C1 adjust white balance! Enuf said. Jono, where are you? Ed Hi Ed. I'm here - wondering how to say "I told you so" politely! I've always thought that Aperture does best out of the raw converters for greens, and I still think so after they have added 'official' suport, but none are as good as the jpg. The real tragedy, is that if they just compressed them a bit less (like Olympus did with the E1) so that the files come out at around 10mb, then one could really use jpg. White balance in mixed lighting is always going to be a matter of opinion rather than truth, so I tend to use 'daylight' and 'cloudy' respectively, and that nearly always gets you close enough for the Aperture tweaking to work okay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 22, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 22, 2007 Thanks for raising the issue. The colors from M8 DNG files that seem aceptable in C1 turn muddy when I open them as a JPG file in Photoshop Elements 4.0. I haven't figured out a reason for this yet. This is causing me a lot of extra work to correct. Our issues may be entirely different but I sure wish what I see on the screen in C1 could be repeat when I open the resulting JPG file in PE4 -- all on the same compuer! Any ideas? -g Why don't you export the C1 files to PSE instead of opening it again? You can do it as a batch and save yourself a lot of work...I do it as TIFF's andd get much better results than by using ACR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted June 22, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 22, 2007 Unless you are using a color-corrected workflow, it is not possible to expect the same rendition of a file displayed in different ways: on the camera, on screen from one program or a different one, or in print. A color-corrected workflow requires hardware-profiled devices (the camera, probably, and certainly the monitor and printer). And then any software must utilize these profiles for the translations. With properly profiled equipment, Photoshop will provide the file-screen-print conversions using the ICC profiles. I am not sure that ACR uses screen profiles (though I think it uses that used by PS itself), and I do not know about CI, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. The color management used by PS is one of the big reasons that it is the professional program among the options. So, your request of Leica is probably not possible without accounting for all the other equipment and software involved. Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell Posted June 22, 2007 Share #7 Posted June 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I read somewhere that the best is just to use sRGB space. It seems most monitors can only handle sRGB so rather than guessing where the extra color from the wider color spaces go, just use a little less color space and be happier, quicker, and more compatible with sRGB. Plus it'll match the web... I dunno, I'm not the expert so I'm more repeating other people's words here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted June 22, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 22, 2007 I read somewhere that the best is just to use sRGB space. It seems most monitors can only handle sRGB so rather than guessing where the extra color from the wider color spaces go, just use a little less color space and be happier, quicker, and more compatible with sRGB. Plus it'll match the web... I dunno, I'm not the expert so I'm more repeating other people's words here... That's fine if you want to only do web based imagery or one hour style lab prints. For inkjet prints or potential conversion to CMYK one needs to use Adobe RGB or ProPhoto spaces. In Photoshop I always work in Adobe Rgb because I do both of those things but I use the "save-for-web" function when making jpegs as it automatically changes them to sRGB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share #9 Posted June 22, 2007 Hi Ed.I've always thought that Aperture does best out of the raw converters for greens, and I still think so after they have added 'official' suport, but none are as good as the jpg. The real tragedy, is that if they just compressed them a bit less (like Olympus did with the E1) so that the files come out at around 10mb, then one could really use jpg. White balance in mixed lighting is always going to be a matter of opinion rather than truth, so I tend to use 'daylight' and 'cloudy' respectively, and that nearly always gets you close enough for the Aperture tweaking to work okay. Jono,soyou are just using out og camera jpg mainly? Cheers, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted June 22, 2007 Share #10 Posted June 22, 2007 Jono,soyou are just using out og camera jpg mainly? Cheers, Tom You Tom No - I mostly shoot DNG - basically because of the compression of the jpgs - just a tweak from Leica, and I'd certainly use them (I'm sure others would too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elopezso Posted June 22, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 22, 2007 Ditto! Though when I get the white balance right I use the jpeg as long as I am not making a super duper sized print. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted June 22, 2007 Share #12 Posted June 22, 2007 Why don't you export the C1 files to PSE instead of opening it again? You can do it as a batch and save yourself a lot of work...I do it as TIFF's andd get much better results than by using ACR. More please ... PSE5 may be able to read M8's DNG but now I need to convert DNG in C1 before I can use PSE4. (So I can't live without C1, for now.) Also, what is ACR? Thanks for the help. As it is now, I'm very dis-heartened about producing good, consistent color and am thinking of permanently dwelling in B&W-land. Heck, with my M7, good color was easy and B&W was hard (due to the availability of materials and local labs.) Now with the M8, the reverse seems to be true. You should see the hours I labor at my Photoshop computer trying to make sense of the files that the M8 delivers. With film, I'd scan it in through my trusty Nikon scanner, tweak the colors, contrast and saturation a bit and print out stunningly consistent 11x17 inch prints. I made the investment leap to the M8 for this? (Yes, I know: film is going away.) -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.