Color profile for Leica M (M10, 262) with ColorChecker

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@jaapv - I can't visualize HCB or Robert Frank or even Ralph Gibson preparing special profiles for specific shoots...nor would I ever consider doing that. 

On strictly-defined conditions, a dual daylight-tungsten profile should be sufficient and, as I have seen with the profiles I'm now using, can be substantially better than the Abode profiles and the Leica M10 profile.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[Jeff S]

A dual illuminant profile from ColorChecker similarly suffices for most applications as a better starting point than Adobe.

Jeff

[Guest Nowhereman]

^ I'm sure it does, but I don't know whether the Cobalt-Image profiles are better than the ColorChecker ones. The fact that the Cobalt-Image profiles are made with 600 samples could be compelling — or maybe not: I don't know. All I know is that I like them a lot, and that I don't want to go in for making color profiles.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram 

[Jeff S]

Nor do I. But, if ever curious, it takes minutes to generate a ColorChecker profile… once and done, if desired. All I know is my prints look just as I intend, and ImagePrint further provides custom paper profiles based on different display lighting conditions so that I can potentially reprint a gallery show with little effort even if display lighting is different than at home.  Whatever works… lots of choices.

Jeff

[Guest Nowhereman]

^ Yes, when I print myself I also use ImagePrint; but I haven't wanted to get into making ColorChecker profiles.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Nowhereman said:

@jaapv - I can't visualize HCB or Robert Frank or even Ralph Gibson preparing special profiles for specific shoots...nor would I ever consider doing that. 

On strictly-defined conditions, a dual daylight-tungsten profile should be sufficient and, as I have seen with the profiles I'm now using, can be substantially better than the Abode profiles and the Leica M10 profile.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram

But they don’t have had to deal with a near-incorrigible yellow cast from safari photography on an M240… In less demanding circumstances I use a homemade dual-illuminant one. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

58 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

^ I'm sure it does, but I don't know whether the Cobalt-Image profiles are better than the ColorChecker ones. The fact that the Cobalt-Image profiles are made with 600 samples could be compelling — or maybe not: I don't know. All I know is that I like them a lot, and that I don't want to go in for making color profiles.
_______________________________________
Frog Leaping photobook and Instagram 

I guess they do that to combat metamerism

[Adam Bonn]

If you use the embedded leica profile you're using 2 "color matrices"

If you shoot a colorchecker (under two illuminants) and make a single profile from it, you're using 2 "color matrices"

If you use the adobe profile, you're using 2 "color matrices", two "forward matrices" two "HueSatDelta Tables" and a "LUT"*

If you use a VSCO DCP file you're using 2 "color matrices", two "forward matrices" two "HueSatDelta Tables" a "LUT" and a Tone Curve

If make a profile with dcamprof/lumariver you get you get 2 "color matrices", two "forward matrices" two "HueSatDelta Tables" two "LUTs" and a Tone Curve

I don't know about Cobalt, I've never taken one of their profiles apart, but as they (say they) use dacmprof I suspect the same

 

*as of 2017 anyway, adobe does tweak the recipe from time to time

[philipus]

Two years ago I bought the CG247X which is an amazing display. I very much like that it is self-calibrating. It's just that much more convenient not to have to pull out the Spyder 4. I get exactly the same colour on my prints as what I see on the screen. It's a big step up from the ACD 23. I've also got a Flexscan 2430 (which I actually use vertically for documents) meaning both have the 16:10 ratio. I've calibrated it with the Spyder and it looks similar to the CG but there is a difference in accuracy. And in particular the blacks are less deep, too.

I went for full HD monitors because I really don't see the point of 4k monitors. And apparently the interface of some Adobe products doesn't scale well. I use CS6 and have seen this on my MacBook Pro when I scale the resolution to the highest. And on top of that the photo becomes a lot smaller in Photoshop than on a full HD screen which makes editing more difficult.

Anyway all that to say that I wholeheartedly recommend the CG line of monitors and that I really really like the 247X.

Philip

On 8/5/2021 at 5:08 PM, Jeff S said:

Time flies… this was from 5 years ago….

I’m still using an NEC screen from 2009; about time I look into a newer, better option, although this one has served its role well.  The calibrations are just starting to veer slightly off established targets.  I’ll either stick to NEC or migrate to Eizo. Any model recommendation?

Jeff 

[Jeff S]

Yep, a lot has changed in the 5 years since that  discussion, but Eizo is still at the top of the options, it appears.

Jeff