From: Joey Benton, INTERNET:jwbenton@interactivenet.net
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 2:48 PM
RE: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
With the advent and popularity of digital cameras in newspaper photojournalism a new beast has really reared its head. It seems that unlike film that absorbs light consistently across the spectrum (at least in theory) the digital CCDs on some digital cameras (specifically the Nikon D1) the absorption seems to inconsistent (i.e. skin tones are absorbing more magenta than say wood).I have jumped through some major hoops with the curves and a mixture of plate blending in both RGB and CMYK with sometimes great results and sometimes a horrific outcome.
Trying not to over explain but often time I have, say a jacket, with an appropriate CMYK value and faces with way too much magenta. Short of selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to use the magic wand as little as possible?
Thanks,
Joey Benton
From: Christine Holzmann, INTERNET:tekila@mindspring.com
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 2:57 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
>Trying not to over explain but often time I have, say a jacket, with an
>appropriate CMYK value and faces with way too much magenta. Short of
>selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to
>use the magic wand as little as possible?
>I experience the exact same problem...on one of the digital cameras we use, skin tones seem to take on an excessive amount of cyan......it is very difficult to correct this without ruining the rest of the image, so I have to correct the different objects in the photo selectively. Another digital camera makes the skin tones take on far too much yellow. As you stated, these color casts are not consistent across the image, so correcting the image "universally" does not correct the skin tone.
Crissi
____________________________________
--
DIGITAL/GRAPHIC ARTIST
http://www.crissi.comDESIGN EDITOR @ THE CITIZEN NEWS
http://www.thecitizennews.com
From: Chris Murphy, INTERNET:lists@colorremedies.com
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 3:49 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
>Short of
>selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to
>use the magic wand as little as possible?You can use selective color, or replace color to fix these areas. Alternatively, the camera can be profiled. The resulting profile for the digital camera isn't just based on curves, but is actually a table. This table is capable of allowing conversions from cameraRGB to some other space (either Adobe RGB or your preferred CMYK space) with color-in-color moves similar to what selective color uses. That is magenta would be reduced in skin tones and increased in wood (or whatever the issue is with your specific digital camera).
The results I've had with Kodak Input Profile Builder are quite good, and I think Andrew has had very good results with Gretag Macbeth's solution for making digital camera profiles. While you can use a regular Color Checker for making a good profile, I've seen anywhere from 5% to 30% improvements (camera dependent) using the new Color Checker DC which was specifically designed for profiling digital cameras.
Now what this is going to do is balance the image and get it as close to the original scene as possible. It's not going to fix bad exposures, and won't do color correction, sharpening or image enhancement. It'll just significantly reduce the amount of "hassle color correction" that you use to solve weird camera behavior problems mentioned as examples in two previous posts on this subject.
I understand Pictographics has a new product called inCamera Professional. I haven't had a chance to use it yet. Praxisoft also has a digital camera product as well. Andrew?
Chris Murphy
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 6:49 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
on 1/1/01 1:49 PM, Chris Murphy at lists@colorremedies.com wrote:> I understand Pictographics has a new product called inCamera
> Professional. I haven't had a chance to use it yet. Praxisoft also has a
> digital camera product as well. Andrew?
>The stuff from Pictographics is pretty nice. I like how you can control the number of patches on the new Gretag target to avoid the gloss patches if you wish. They need to clean up the UI but the product seems to work well.
I1ve seen huge improvements in D1 capture by simply creating a custom profile and assigning it then converting to the Working Space. There is an example of some skin tone off a D1 with and without a profile at http://www.digitaldog.net on the tips page. It1s a small download and illustrates how the difference simply describing the color off the D1 (or any digital cameras) provides so much better results.
Andrew Rodney
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 6:26 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ? and the D1
Joey Benton wrote:> (specifically the Nikon D1) the absorption seems to inconsistent (i.e. skin
> tones are absorbing more magenta than say wood).
>
> I have jumped through some major hoops with the curves and a mixture of
> plate blending in both RGB and CMYK with sometimes great results and
> sometimes a horrific outcome.One of the biggest "problems" with the D1 is its choice of color space for its internal processsing. If the photographer shoots with the D1 set to make JPEGs in camera as opposed to shooting raw files... and most photojournalists do because its so much faster and media efficient... then the D1 produces files that should be assumed to be in NTSC RGB space. Since NTSC is quite a bit different from the spaces that most will edit in, it will yield somewhat unusual results if you don't compensate for it. Assuming D1 files are in NTSC won't cure all of your problems, but it should get you started from a better point.
If you haven't done so already, check out http://www.bibblelabs.com. Its a program for processing D1 raw (NEF) files. It will also help with browsing and color correcting D1 jpegs. Many regular D1 shooters heap loads of praise on this over Nikon's offering. It started as a shareware piece written by a D1 user who like many was not thrilled with the way Nikon handled image processing.
Bob Smith
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 9:02 PM
RE: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
Joey writes (and Crissy similarly),>>With the advent and popularity of digital cameras in newspaper photojournalism a new beast has really reared its head.It seems that unlike film that absorbs light consistently across the spectrum (at least in theory) the digital CCDs on some digital cameras (specifically the Nikon D1) the absorption seems to inconsistent (i.e. skin tones are absorbing more magenta than say wood).>>
The problem seems to be not a defect in the camera itself, but rather that in a lot of these cameras, and Nikon products in particular, there is some very hamhanded, clumsy, and, of course, undocumented, automated color correction going on before we even open the file. In the ones I've looked at, there seems to be no way to defeat this automated "correction."
Much of the time, this "correction" does what it's supposed to. And for a nonprofessional user who hopes to use the image without further correction, it's probably a good idea. For us, however, it can be a real PITA.
In the Nikon case what is happening is that the capture software is forcing a neutral black point to occur no matter what. The CCDs seem to be a lot more sensitive to color in shadows than conventional film is. I will skip the technical discussion but the bottom line is that when an image is dominated by a single color in the shadow area this will often result in a countercast in the midtones. If you are seeing skintones too magenta I'll bet that a lot of these pictures are taken outdoors. Crissy, OTOH, sees skintones too cyan, which suggest different backgrounds.
>>Trying not to over explain but often time I have, say a jacket, with an appropriate CMYK value and faces with way too much magenta. Short of selecting each object with the wrong value is there another way, as I try to use the magic wand as little as possible?>>
Selecting is usually unnecessary. For this category of images ONLY, I find that a preliminary use of Hue/Saturation in RGB can help, because it can specify a particular shade and move that. In this case you would click on the fleshtone and move it in the yellow Hue direction, plus possibly desaturate it. Another alternative when the skintone is too magenta, again in RGB, is to blend the red channel into the green, Lighten mode, at around 20% opacity.
Warning: don't try this with images shot conventionally. Using Hue/Sat prematurely or channel blending to change color is ordinarily a good way to mess things up beyond repair. It's only when you're trying to fix things that have already been messed up by somebody else that the approach makes sense.
The problem is, the preliminary "correction" these cameras make isn't lighting-specific, it's image-specific, so doing something automated like writing a curves script or trying to profile the camera, as Chris suggests will work well with some images and make things worse with others.
Similarly, Bob's suggestion of using a wider-gamut RGB definition works some of the time. It has the impact of making the image darker and more vivid. That isn't likely to be right where the fleshtones are too magenta, but it might be right if they are too cyan. My own experience is that Apple RGB or sRGB is a better choice most of the time, but it really depends on the character of the image.
I think that we're going to be hearing a lot more about this issue in the future.
Dan Margulis
From: INTERNET:jbmmmac@aol.com, INTERNET:jbmmmac@aol.com
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 9:46 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
I know the problem you are talking about as I use D1 to shoot weddings and "Magenta" problem is well known problem particulary to those shooting people pictures. Part of bad skin tones color problem is due to making color corections in wrong color space as in camera color processing use color space close to NTSC characteristics and conversion to CMYK is done from let say AdobeRGB/ColorMatch color spaces. Another problem with D1 files is that CCD sensor has big sensitivity to Ultraviolet and Infrared light what makes properly exposed files contain too much cyan in reds and yellows. If you add not accurate White Ballance settings on some captures (auto WB is very bad so try to set it manualy). As a experiment convert raw D1 file to CMYK from NTSC color space and open the same file into your working space (without asigning NTSC) and change mode to CMYK and you will see big difference beetween those two CMYK files. The best way to deal with Nikon D1 files is to process them by using Bibble or MacBibble software that was created for processing RAW Nef D1 files (without need for expensive Nikon Capture software) but works great with in camera processed JPGs or TIFs as well. For those processing in Photoshop asigning NTSC color space and converting to working color space plus pulling green and red curves can also do the trick. If anyone is using ColorMacth I have to add that adjusting gamma is also neccesary as properly exposed D1 file has gamma closer to 2.2 than native ColorMatch gamma 1.8 Properly adjusted D1 files can have beautiful color if you want to see sample open this image below:
http://janusz.11net.com/D1/001a.jpgHappy New Year
Janusz
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 10:31 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
Dan Margulis wrote:> Similarly, Bob's suggestion of using a wider-gamut RGB definition works
> some of the time.Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose. Kodak Pro cameras output RGB (via std acquire module processing) that very closely approximates ColorMatch RGB. Pull Kodak files straight into ColorMatch RGB and they'll need only minor color tweaking. Pull them into something like Adobe RGB without compensation and you've got a whole different task ahead of you. Even when the camera is set to deliver a finished file, there's no profile embedded in the camera file to describe its RGB space. Why write redundant data to every image when disk space and write speed are at a premium?
Processing in a camera like the D1 is quite different from the auto processing so prevalent in the lower end models. You can put a camera like the D1 or the pro Kodaks into a condition where they auto-processes color, but that's unusual and certainly not generally recommended.
What's needed on the lower end cameras is an option to deliver raw files for those that want to milk these things for all they can do. Access to the raw files allows a tremendous amount of control over what the image looks like. I stayed with Kodak cameras and passed on the D1 mainly because it offered such poor support for handling raw data files. Kodaks (the pro level models) are built around the concept of having the camera deliver raw data and then processing later. Its been fun to watch D1 shooters discover what they can do with raw data. I've seen more than a few who were ready to chunk the camera over color woes. Then they got hold of good piece of software for handling raw data and thought they had a new camera. Raw data files are now available on the new Olympus E-10... a sub $2k model. I bet we see it on more even lower end models in the not too distant future.
Bob Smith
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 12:53 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
Bob writes,>>Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose.>>
I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not better.
But it really depends on the image. I've shot over ten thousand exposures with lower-end Nikons and it's pretty clear that NTSC isn't the right RGB for them, although it may be for the D1 for all I know. OTOH, I was in the hardest-hit county of the northeast storm this Saturday and went out and shot in it when the snow was at its heaviest. Those exposures would have been better opened in NTSC. But the bottom line is that the quality of the data was phenomenal and if I had to produce a printable picture of the blizzard I'd prefer to start with that cheap capture than with a chrome and a drum scan.
>>What's needed on the lower end cameras is an option to deliver raw files for those that want to milk these things for all they can do. Access to the raw files allows a tremendous amount of control over what the image looks like.>>
Agreed.
Dan Margulis
From: INTERNET:jbmmmac@aol.com, INTERNET:jbmmmac@aol.com
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 1:27 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
In a message dated 1/1/01 11:55:01 PM, 76270.1033@compuserve.com writes:>> I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not better. >>
Problem of bad fleshtones is called Magenta problem but in reality it is problem of Reds having too much Magenta and Cyan and not enough Yellow (and Yellows being contaminated with Cyan). The first step to correct this problem is to pull red curve to reduce Cyan in midtones and next puling Green curve to reduce magenta. Combined effect of pulling red and green curves increase yellow and reduce cyan in skin tones, reds and yellows. Converting from NTSC to ColorMatch is helpful to bring other colors and reducing overall dullness due to different gamma of those color spaces. Whenever I tell D1 user he needs to make D1 image redder to make it better he thinks I am joking but I really don't. It is too much CYAN and MAGENTA in flesh tones that make it ugly and the only way to reduce Cyan is to make image temporary more red untill puling green will reduce magenta and increase yellow.
Janus
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 7:08 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
Dan Margulis wrote:> But it really depends on the image. I've shot over ten thousand exposures
> with lower-end Nikons and it's pretty clear that NTSC isn't the right RGB
> for them, although it may be for the D1 for all I know.I bought myself a Coolpix 880 for fun little camera to tuck in my pocket. It was great for the four days it worked before completely dying. I agree that it definitely wasn't targeted at NTSC. I read somewhere a piece from a Nikon tech person explaining the logic for using NTSC in the D1. I can't recall the exact circumstances, but it still seemed kind of convoluted to me.
> But the bottom line is that the quality of the > data was phenomenal and if I had to produce a printable picture of the > blizzard I'd prefer to start with that cheap capture than with a chrome and > a drum scan.
hushhhhhh! don't say that too loudly. I'm already losing a pile of bread and butter business to clients that have taken a greater portion of their basic photo work in-house because of what these things can do. These cameras really are quite amazing in their capabilities and more and more people are starting to figure that out. They still hire me for those jobs where my special skills bring something unique to the image, but more and more of the really simple (and very profitable) work is being taken in-house.
Bob
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 8:55 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
on 1/1/01 10:50 PM, Dan Margulis at 76270.1033@compuserve.com wrote:> I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say
> for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
> assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
> better.Nikon claims the D1 shots into NTSC but I don't know if Nikon really has a clue either way. I can tell you with a custom input profile for the D1, the problem skin tone issues disappear. And not just the magenta but a problem with highlights blocking up (or I should say appearing to block up). Bringing a file into Photoshop assuming it1s one RGB space when it1s a mile away from that space makes a profound impact on what we see and what we eventually get when converting to an output space. Simply assigning the correct profile in Photoshop 6 makes this all disappear (because in reality, it1s not really there). The files appear magenta and print poorly because we are making a very bad assumption about the RGB we have. It1s as if we had a file in SWOP Uncoated newsprint but viewed it as if it were SWOP coated glossy stock. The preview would be wrong, the file would output wrong with that incorrect tag to SWOP coated. Take the file and output on the right device (or Assign the correct profile) and the preview and output are fine and dandy!
Andrew Rodney
From: "Rob Outlaw", INTERNET:routlaw@IMT.NET
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 9:02 AM
RE: [colortheory] Re: By the numbers ? and the D1
> Bob writes,> Its not a matter of being wider. Its a matter of matching what Nikon was
> targeting their output to. Why, I don't know... but Nikon has said that
> Nikon D1 in camera processing is done with output to NTSC rgb in mind. It
> has to be going to some definition of RGB and that's what Nikon chose.>>Actually as I understand it Nikon has only "chosen the NTSC working space as a color characteristic" but has not embedded, tagged, or otherwise forced the issue of using this as a working space or profile.
Dan writes:
> I have played with a D1 but don't claim any expertise in it. What I can say
> for sure is, if the problem is that fleshtones are too magenta, then
> assuming that the files are NTSC is going to make that problem worse, not
> better.You are so right here Dan. If one looks at the color points on a color gamut map it is clear to see that the NTSC working space has a red point that is virtually passed human vison and certainly passed Adobe RGB let alone Colormatch. By utilizing the NTSC as part of your workflow whether converting from or into regardless of the space that you do this from, will only exacerbate the red flesh tone problem. I have spent literally dozens of hours experimenting with this situation. My conclusions are that totally ignoring NTSC in any shape form or fashion is a better solution at least for flesh tones anyway.
Over the last year I have had the opportunity to shoot some four or five assignments where the decision was made to shoot D1 images alongside film (in this case Astia and Provia F my films of choice). In not one of those assignments did the film outperform the color of my D1, capturing images in raw mode and converting with Nikon Capture, while totally ignoring the NTSC working space. All files were opened in PS 5.5 into the Adobe RGB space without any other conversions taking place and saved as such. I am not saying that some minor tweaking of the color in some cases was not needed and most of that was done in the Hue and Sat window where I could selectively edit colors (mainly red channel for flesh tones and the yellow channel for overly green yellows) in 16 bit mode.
Having said all that I will admit to the fact that this situation for bad flesh tones with the D1 seems to be worse for jpeg files as opposed to raw file capture. I have no idea why this is the case either. However I am not sure it is worse for outdoor shots as compared to on camera flash, but the placement of a UV filter over the flash unit does help while not completely eleminating the overly red/magenta flesh tones.
Rob Outlaw
From: Bob Smith, INTERNET:rmsmith@calpha.com
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 9:36 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Re: By the numbers ? and the D1
Rob Outlaw wrote:> D1, capturing images in raw mode and converting with Nikon Capture, while
> totally ignoring the NTSC working space.which is exactly how it ought to be done. NTSC is just an issue for camera processed files. My experience with D1 jpegs is nil... just going by experiences of others that I trust and my very few efforts at trying to help someone with some D1 jpegs. Except possibly on some studio type rigs, I don't think any digital camera images from any company are tagged coming out of the camera. It makes no sense to waste precious writing speed and disk space on data that would be exactly the same for every image... especially on a camera who's main claim to fame is photojournalistic use.
Bob Smith
From: "Rob Outlaw", INTERNET:routlaw@IMT.NET
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 10:05 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
Dan writes:> The problem seems to be not a defect in the camera itself, but rather that
> in a lot of these cameras, and Nikon products in particular, there is some
> very hamhanded, clumsy, and, of course, undocumented, automated color
> correction going on before we even open the file. In the ones I've looked
> at, there seems to be no way to defeat this automated "correction."This seems like a case for implementing digital camera profiles after all, be it from Profile Maker or the Praxisoft solution. FWIW in a direct comparison between the D1 and Phase One Lightphase this summer in my studio, I found the LightPhase captures without utilizing the canned profiles from Phase One to be extremely dead with some fairly drab color. In fact some colors on a simple Kodak color chart did not even show up regardless of how I captured and what profile that used. Trying to make something out of the Lightphase raw captures (files that had not been converted with their canned profiles) was way more trouble than it was worth in my experience. Even after implementing the profiles from Phase One I found that I had to edit the images considerably more than with a D1 image.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that you can not get spectacular images from the more expensive cameras, its just that it is not always the cake walk many of these manufacturers would have you believe. Its sort of like we are still in the Wild West Days of digital imaging and I think this makes a strong case for Color Management in order to obtain some sort of standard so that we are all playing on level field. At least for me thats the promise that I see with CM, though it may not be there 100% yet.
> Selecting is usually unnecessary. For this category of images ONLY, I find
> that a preliminary use of Hue/Saturation in RGB can help, because it can
> specify a particular shade and move that. In this case you would click on
> the fleshtone and move it in the yellow Hue direction, plus possibly
> desaturate it. Another alternative when the skintone is too magenta, again
> in RGB, is to blend the red channel into the green, Lighten mode, at around
> 20% opacity.In addition I have also found that shooting with the D1 with the low contrast setting (and then adjusting for contrast later in PS) yields a better image with less flesh tone problems.
> The problem is, the preliminary "correction" these cameras make isn't > lighting-specific, it's image-specific
Although a number of users tend to have more problems while using the SB28dx flash unit with the camera. A UV filter placed over the flash will help here but not totally eliminate the problem.
> My own experience is that Apple
> RGB or sRGB is a better choice most of the time, but it really depends on
> the character of the image.I still will stick with Adobe RGB space since it has given me little
problems even with the D1.Rob Outlaw
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 10:23 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Re: By the numbers ? and the D1
on 1/2/01 6:59 AM, Rob Outlaw at routlaw@IMT.NET wrote:> Actually as I understand it Nikon has only "chosen the NTSC working space as
> a color characteristic" but has not embedded, tagged, or otherwise forced the issue
> of using this as a working space or profile.If indeed this is true on Nikon's part, they don1t need to embed a profile (be nice). We only need to assign the NTSC profile to the data provided for conversion into another space. FWIW, the gamut map I have of the D1 from a custom profile doesn1t look to me like NTSC!
Nikon has forced the issue. The camera is producing some kind of RGB. I1d be inclined to always use the RAW mode of capture to get to that color. As Bob pointed out, the Kodak DCS line of cameras is much more savvy when it comes to dealing with raw captures. The Linear 12 bit capture is ideal for profiling and truly does provide the user with a raw color file. It looks just awful when you bring it into Photoshop and you are viewing it with some preset Working Space. But it1s untagged and as soon as you Assign the proper profile (easy to do in Photoshop 6) the preview instantly changes and looks fantastic. A further illustration of how viewing a file without a proper tag can be a recipe for disaster!
> You are so right here Dan. If one looks at the color points on a color gamut
> map it is clear to see that the NTSC working space has a red point that is
> virtually passed human vison and certainly passed Adobe RGB let alone
> Colormatch.That's not an indication alone we have an issue with reds only that the camera has a wide gamut falling into reds. Again, with a proper profile assigned, there is no red/magenta issue. In the gamut map I have of the D1, the blues fall off the CIE chart!
> In not one of those assignments did the film outperform
> the color of my D1, capturing images in raw mode and converting with Nikon Capture,
> while totally ignoring the NTSC working space. All files were opened in PS 5.5 into the
> Adobe RGB space without any other conversions taking place and saved as such.I suspect when you use the Nikon Capture (shame they have to charge for it), you may not get NTSC but indeed the raw RGB. I'm guessing that when using other than RAW, Nikon *may* be forcing the raw RGB into NTSC although I suspect this is may not be that accurate but convenient for Nikon to simply suggest to users. Of all the companies making digital cameras and scanners, Nikon's track record for dealing with color issues is pretty bad.
Andrew Rodney
From: Dan Margulis, INTERNET:76270.1033@compuserve.com
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 10:43 AM
RE: Re: [colortheory] By the numbers ?
Bob writes,>>hushhhhhh! don't say that too loudly. I'm already losing a pile of bread and butter business to clients that have taken a greater portion of their basic photo work in-house because of what these things can do. These cameras really are quite amazing in their capabilities and more and more people are starting to figure that out. They still hire me for those jobs where my special skills bring something unique to the image, but more and more of the really simple (and very profitable) work is being taken in-house.>>
This particular genie is not going back into the bottle. The negative impact on professional photographers is already large and it's going to get worse. Those head-in-the-sand folk who say, "I'm a photographer, what I do is shoot pictures, let somebody else worry about what happens next" have had a rough few years already, and now they're really going to pay the price for their lack of foresight. It's the people like yourself who have made a serious effort to adjust to the technology and be more full-service who have a good chance to survive.
The impact as I see it is not merely the loss of certain jobs but that prices are being driven down for what remains. I assume that the culprits for this phenomenon are those desperados who have been forced to bid for the work at any price by the shrinking demand for their services.
I'm planning to write a column about this in April, which is the 5th anniversary of a similar column I wrote warning of this very thing, which was much pooh-poohed at the time by professional photographers.
Dan Margulis
From: "Rob Outlaw", INTERNET:routlaw@IMT.NET
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 12:38 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Re: By the numbers ? and the D1
Andrew wrote:> If indeed this is true on Nikon's part, they don1t need to embed a profile
> (be nice). We only need to assign the NTSC profile to the data provided for
> conversion into another space. FWIW, the gamut map I have of the D1 from a
> custom profile doesn1t look to me like NTSC!Perhaps I should elaborate on what Nikon claims if that is possible. This info came from the D1 discussion list moderated by Juergen Specht, and was a reply not only from Bill Pekala but also Stephen Pont of Nikon back when they were responding on that digest. At any rate their claim was that "Nikon did not embed this profile but only designed the NTSC working space as a color characteristic". Your guess is as good as mine as to what this really means technically, but as long as we have to assume things since Nikon does not let the general public in on what they really are thinking, my assumptions would be that they have somehow within their RGB capture used the x & y color coordinates of the NTSC working space as the color gamut for the raw capture.
So with that in mind and for those having trouble with flesh tones with the D1, I still argue for a total elimination of NTSC from a given workflow, since it does have an extended red point on the color map. Taken a step further anytime that I have completed a P2P from say NTSC to Adobe RGB or Colormatch RGB (while working in that space) reds do become more saturated and it is very clear to see this on my monitor, again exacerbating any problems that exist with overly red/magenta flesh tones.
> That's not an indication alone we have an issue with reds only that the
> camera has a wide gamut falling into reds. Again, with a proper profile
> assigned, there is no red/magenta issue. In the gamut map I have of the D1,
> the blues fall off the CIE chart!Fundamentally I can not argue with this, makes perfect sense, but
unfortunately probably the vast majority of D1 shooters out there do not have an adequate custom profile, but have relied on Nikon to provide them with an out of the box camera with perfect color. I think it is safe to say Nikon let them down.I hope I do not sound like a broken record here, one can get really good color without the profile and with a few minor adjustments in PS with the raw files at least, but only if eliminating the NTSC issue. That has been my experience with the camera.
> I suspect when you use the Nikon Capture (shame they have to charge for it),
Don't even get me started on this one! While I use it all the time it has to be the worst $450.00 I have ever spent in photography.
> you may not get NTSC but indeed the raw RGB. I'm guessing that when using
> other than RAW, Nikon *may* be forcing the raw RGB into NTSC although I
> suspect this is may not be that accurate but convenient for Nikon to simply
> suggest to users.If this were true with non raw data files when opened in PS 5.5 or later would I not be asked about converting from NTSC to Adobe or whatever? I can't think of once that this has happened for me, and I do have PS setup so that would happen if a profile were embedded or attached.
>Of all the companies making digital cameras and scanners,
> Nikon's track record for dealing with color issues is pretty bad.I do not doubt this for a second.
Rob
From: Andrew Rodney, INTERNET:andrew@digitaldog.net
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001, 1:47 PM
RE: Re: [colortheory] Re: By the numbers ? and the D1
on 1/2/01 10:35 AM, Rob Outlaw at routlaw@imt.net wrote:> At any rate their claim was that "Nikon did not embed this
> profile but only designed the NTSC working space as a color characteristic".Which is fine IF that's really the case. I don't need an embedded profile (it's nice). Having an untagged file that I KNOW is in a certain space and having a profile to now assign to that file is all I need. As soon as I Assign this profile, the preview in Photoshop 6 alters based on this new information. The image looks really good! And when I convert to Adobe RGB, it's a correct conversion because the source used to get to Adobe RGB is correct. If I assume a different space, the conversions as well as the previews undergo some degree of being hosed. So again, the question is, is the file off the D1 really in NTSC space?
> since Nikon does not let the general public in on what they really are
> thinking, my assumptions would be that they have somehow within their RGB
>capture used the x & y color coordinates of the NTSC working space as the color
>gamut for the raw capture.The real scary part here is what you said about Nikon not letting the general public in on the color the unit produces. What are they thinking? If you are going to force the non raw files into a colorspace, why NTSC? At least with the S1 Pro, assuming ColorMatch RGB produces a very acceptable preview because the file is massaged towards this space. If you don't use Photoshop 5 or 6, the image still looks pretty good in non color managed products. At least they didn't go sRGB.
> So with that in mind and for those having trouble with flesh tones with the
> D1, I still argue for
> a total elimination of NTSC from a given workflow, since it does have an
> extended red point
> on the color map.Actually IF the files really were in NTSC RGB and assigning this profile produced good previews and conversions, I'd be OK with it. I question whether the files are in NTSC RGB as described in the Working Space of that name in Photoshop 5 or not.
> Taken a step further anytime that I have completed a P2P
> from say
> NTSC to Adobe RGB or Colormatch RGB (while working in that space) reds do
> become
> more saturated and it is very clear to see this on my monitor, again
> exacerbating any problems
> that exist with overly red/magenta flesh tones.Photoshop 5? You are changing your Working Space to now match up with the file right? The previews should NOT change a lick. In Photoshop 6 they don't because of the Document Specific Color and new preview pref's. In Photoshop 5 the preview would change after PtoP but as soon as you loaded that profile you used in the PtoP, the preview would change back (and match) what you saw prior to PtoP. Photoshop 6 makes all this so much easier!
> Fundamentally I can not argue with this, makes perfect sense, but unfortunately > probably the vast majority of D1 shooters out there do not have an adequate > custom profile, but have relied on Nikon to provide them with an out of the box > camera with perfect color. I think it is safe to say Nikon let them down.
Nikon (and all manufacturers) have only a few options:
1. Pick a "common" RGB space and despite the gamut abilities of my sensor, funnel the color into this space. In the case of the Nikon, we are told it's NTSC RGB (I don't necessarily buy that but perhaps). Others could pick sRGB. The upside is we can define the color without doing a thing (assuming the color really does get funneled to that space). Downside is you get funneled data which for some uses is just fine and for other cases not good.
2. Pick a non common, non profiled RGB. Now things get dicy. We don't have a clue what the color really is. Yet in Photoshop, we have to tell it something about the color of the file so we can preview it and make conversions. We don't have a profile so we have to guess. Guess the RGB is the name of this game. Pick one that's close to the reality of the file and you'll do pretty well. Pick on that's not close and you'll get all kinds of nasty previews and output. That magenta skin stuff for the D1 is an example.
3. Pick a non common but profiled space. So you buy a PhaseOne back and you get a bunch of camera profiles. Are they any good? Not bad. At least we are somewhat dialed into the color of the chip or the color the software gets. Better yet, make a custom profile.
Andrew Rodney
Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.