Profile Smofile = Big Ripoff!

Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area is a giant scam.

Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however, having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous! What happened to the idea of Standards?

If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!

Now we are camera profiling.

Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!

Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every other product that is sold today!!

alan
 
Alan,

We could get by without profiling ... if you want to buy only OEM inks, and print your images on OEM paper ... IF they make a size and surface that suits you. I need no profiles for my Canon paper, but I do if I use Kodak, Epson, or Red River. Save BIG BUCKS ... I love Canon PPP, but it's just about the most expensive stuff on the market. And I print a lot, thus considering a continuous inking system. Standards would be nice, but they could not be defined closely enough to be useful and still be met with reasonably priced supplies. Profiling is MUCH easier and cheaper!
It's a no brainer!
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.

Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
What happened to the idea of Standards?

If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!

Now we are camera profiling.

Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!

Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every
other product that is sold today!!

alan
 
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.
Actually it is not. With the greatest respect you, as you say, are new to this game and so have a lot to learn.
Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
Why is it ridiculous? Each device has limits as to what colours it can reproduce. None of these limits and ranges (gamuts as they are more properly referred to) are the same. A monitor, for example, cannot display the rage of yellows that a CMYK printer can. A CMYK printer cannot print some of the greens that a monitor can display. One is tnasmissive medium, another is a reflective medium, both are affected by the lighting conditions under which an image is viewed.

Prints differ depending on the paper used. Lay the same ink down in exactly the same way on two different papers and you will get completely different colours simply because of dot gain and paper colour charactersitics. How does a printer know what paper it is going to be fed so that it can print that exact shade of red? It can't, thus the need for a profile.
What happened to the idea of Standards?
Standards are there, it's just that with the complicated matter of colour reproduction things are not as straightforward as you might think.
If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!
If you use the vendor recommended papers and inks then you probably will get reasonable results.

If you learn a little bit about colour correction/management you will get even better results. A printer manufacturer cannot anticipate every use of its product - it is done on a best effort basis for using their own printer supplies (no suprise there!)
Now we are camera profiling.

Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!
Wrong again. Each camera will record light information digitally in a different way from another brand of camera. This is no different from different types of film recording an image differently based upon its own charactersitics. All a camera is doing by attaching a profile is characterising itself. The job of a device profile is to describe the colour capabilities of a device and allow colour management systems to accurately translate this informtaion into other colourspaces.

Again, with the greatest respect, colour management issues are very complicated and really are not capable of the oversimplification that you would like. But as I said if you stick to the complete vendor recommended solution you will generally get reasonable results.

Tony
 
...Each device has limits as to what colours it
can reproduce. None of these limits and ranges (gamuts as they are
more properly referred to) are the same. A monitor, for example,
cannot display the rage of yellows that a CMYK printer can. A CMYK
printer cannot print some of the greens that a monitor can display.
One is tnasmissive medium, another is a reflective medium, both are
affected by the lighting conditions under which an image is viewed.
How can even profile take into account lighting conditions?

-bruce
 
...Each device has limits as to what colours it
can reproduce. None of these limits and ranges (gamuts as they are
more properly referred to) are the same. A monitor, for example,
cannot display the rage of yellows that a CMYK printer can. A CMYK
printer cannot print some of the greens that a monitor can display.
One is tnasmissive medium, another is a reflective medium, both are
affected by the lighting conditions under which an image is viewed.
How can even profile take into account lighting conditions?
Profiles are desinged for a standard daylight-balanced lighting condition. Obviously if you examine prints under different conditions then colours will look different. Tungsten lighting, for example, tends to add an orange cast.

Of course the eye is very good at adjusting for different lighting conditions; it sets, as it were, it's own white point. Ever notice how pictures taken in tungsten lit rooms look more orange than you remember them? That's your eyes adjusting for those lighting conditions. Colour management is even more difficult when you have to accomodate viewing instruments which are themselves interpreting colours as they see fit!

Tony
 
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.
Many people seem to make the mistake of assuming a switch from one media/standard to another such as film to digital should be simple and bring along no extra baggage. What worked before should work now.. and to a degree that is true.

I wonder what the old Black and White photogrpahers felt when they tried to switch to color? New chemicals, new paper, new exposure techniques. Higher cost, etc.. I'm sure some of them thought is was a giant scam while other embraced it and realized that color was new and exciting and that they were pioneers in the field... it's the same with digital.

Digital is the future of photography. We are still in the infancy of this change and there will be confusing "standards" and other aspects of digital photography that simply have no counterpart in film.... Just wait until HoloPhotography arrives.. we get to do it all over again.. in the meantime..

Embrace digital imaging, expriment, learn, and grow.... or stay with film.

You pretty much said it all when you stated that you are "new to digital imaging". You probably haven't had the time or experience to understand the impact and ramifications of going digital and have brought along extra film baggage you should have checked at the door.

Jim
 
I agree with Jim and can also add that we have always
'profiled', even with color film processing. All batches of
film and color photo paper have their own characteristics.
Anyone who has worked in a color darkroom can verify
that every time a new batch of paper was purchased (even
from the same manufacturer) a new series of test had to be
made in order to balance the color to previous results.

In this new digital age, the phtotgrapher is blessed with the
new responsibility of "balancing" in his digital darkroom. This
process can be kept very simple or, to the more avid among
us, very complicated. Usually, the more effort you put into it,
the better the final print.

Just my 2¢.

Lou
 
Thanks for all the feedback.
I am new and YES I am trying to learn all I can.
In my case, my frustration lies with the following, which I use:

Olympus c700 (sure it's a snapshot camera - but I am quite satisified.)
Epson 785epx
Photoshop
Qimage
Epson inks and paper

With the above, I should be able to print with no need of adjustments.

NO CAN DO - I having to make several color modifications to get close.

I got these from other DPReview members.

I downloaded the Epson profile for this printer off their website - what a joke! Prints looked like a grape slushie! Thank you Adobe for that profile!!

As for camera profiles - I still say it should be up to the manufacturer to output a decent image.

The idea that this is just a negative to work with is pretty lame to me.

Thanks again!

alan
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.

Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
What happened to the idea of Standards?

If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!

Now we are camera profiling.

Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!

Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every
other product that is sold today!!

alan
 
Alan,

The next time you shoot some 35mm ... and make sure you shoot indoors, under flourescent and incandescent, then some outdoor stuff ... take the film to a friendly one-hour and have them make prints with no exposure or color compensation. You've been getting adjustments all along ...
With the above, I should be able to print with no need of adjustments.
 
canon for example would include valid settings (profiles) for at least common generic papers.. lets say kodak for example.. or even commonly used none generics like epsom..

bear in mind epsom would be expected to return the favour...

but in this "rip-off" anything goes if u can get away with it world they dont.. personally i agree with the thread starters comment.. it is a rip-off and it dosnt do us.. the end users.. any favours..

and pointing it out will not do us (the end users) any harm either...

trog100
  1. #
very well put explanations of light, color, reflection, and
absorption. thanks jan
 
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.
Okay it's a scam, now what:-)
Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
What happened to the idea of Standards?
The problem, most people don't have your ability to dial a monitor in perfectly and need the benefit of a color desitometer to help them out. The standards are out there, they're called ICC but the vagarities of the manufacuring process will skew final output sufficently to where profiling becomes a necessity, not a scam luxury.
If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!
Most printers DO have the ability to give us a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that there are a group of people that demand better.
Now we are camera profiling.
Only if you want everything to match. It's not a requirement and standards are never across the board for any product manufactured.

Tires, cosmetics, fertilizers, manufacturing plant requirement, business practices, medical practices, art, poetry, jet design, they all have varying design standards and there's differences as to how the differences are applied to the differing situations.
Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!
The camera's color profile gives the camera a standard in which it can interact with the printer. No profile, then they won't have a common denominator in which to interact. There are different standards for different situations, therefor, different profiles are called for. One size doesn't fit all.
Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every
other product that is sold today!!

alan
Sure you do, you've just become accustom to the differences and don't realize how accepting you've become.

Let's see.

How about VCR's are they all the same? Are there quality differences between the models? Do they all program the same. Would it be nice if they all did things the same so you didn't have to read the instruction book?

Doctors, are they all the same or do they have different procedures to correct for the same problem?

Buildings, are they all built to the same standards and isn't there flexibility as to minimum standards Vs what a person is willing to pay to beef the standards up to a higher level?

Don't roads vary to the differing communities?

Are all digital cameras the same when it comes to the type of memory they use? Doesn't SONY use their very own memory stick which won't work in a Canon product.

Haven't the standards of computers changed over just the last five to ten years?

The examples are endless as to a perceived lack of "Standards" within any industry.

Is it frustrating? Absolutely! Is it a pain in the patootie? Oh, you betcha! Is it something that a neophyte has to get use to? Sadly, yes:-)

Hope the above ramblings help in your adjustment period:-)

Good Luck!
 
Thank the comments all of you have contributed.

After all the discussion and my re-thinking, the conclusion I have made is that there will always be smaller third-party companies who make improvements to what the larger companies are doing.
Example - There is a lot of discussion on this forum about D60 linear profiles.

People want them from a third party because they improve on what Canon has not been able to do - make a raw file look good out of the camera. You don't hear much about JPEG’s, so I assume they look good out of the camera.

OK - I retract my "SCAM" label. That was really made out of jest.

So basically an ICC profile is a Photoshop action (in the case of a camera profile) - it takes a bad image and makes it better with software.

Am I correct in that assumption or am I still missing the big picture?

Thanks...alan
====================================
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.
Okay it's a scam, now what:-)
Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
What happened to the idea of Standards?
The problem, most people don't have your ability to dial a monitor
in perfectly and need the benefit of a color desitometer to help
them out. The standards are out there, they're called ICC but the
vagarities of the manufacuring process will skew final output
sufficently to where profiling becomes a necessity, not a scam
luxury.
If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!
Most printers DO have the ability to give us a reasonable
interpretation. The problem is that there are a group of people
that demand better.
Now we are camera profiling.
Only if you want everything to match. It's not a requirement and
standards are never across the board for any product manufactured.

Tires, cosmetics, fertilizers, manufacturing plant requirement,
business practices, medical practices, art, poetry, jet design,
they all have varying design standards and there's differences as
to how the differences are applied to the differing situations.
Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!
The camera's color profile gives the camera a standard in which it
can interact with the printer. No profile, then they won't have a
common denominator in which to interact. There are different
standards for different situations, therefor, different profiles
are called for. One size doesn't fit all.
Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every
other product that is sold today!!

alan
Sure you do, you've just become accustom to the differences and
don't realize how accepting you've become.

Let's see.

How about VCR's are they all the same? Are there quality
differences between the models? Do they all program the same.
Would it be nice if they all did things the same so you didn't have
to read the instruction book?

Doctors, are they all the same or do they have different procedures
to correct for the same problem?

Buildings, are they all built to the same standards and isn't there
flexibility as to minimum standards Vs what a person is willing to
pay to beef the standards up to a higher level?

Don't roads vary to the differing communities?

Are all digital cameras the same when it comes to the type of
memory they use? Doesn't SONY use their very own memory stick
which won't work in a Canon product.

Haven't the standards of computers changed over just the last five
to ten years?

The examples are endless as to a perceived lack of "Standards"
within any industry.

Is it frustrating? Absolutely! Is it a pain in the patootie? Oh,
you betcha! Is it something that a neophyte has to get use to?
Sadly, yes:-)

Hope the above ramblings help in your adjustment period:-)

Good Luck!
 
Alan,

One source of your confusion may lie in understanding exactly what a "profile" is. It ISN'T a Photoshop action.

The D60 is an unusual camera in that it offers the option of outputting both a linear and linear type of file. It is true, Canon has NOT done a good job of publically documenting the linear format. But, on the other hand, this format isn't even available on most other digicams. Some savvy third parties have reverse-engineered the format in order to extract the best quality file possible from all 12 bits of data. The users have programmed actions to FACILITATE the application of the custom profile to the linear image.

A non-linear file from a Canon digital camera is just like any other. The colors from it are unique to it because of its construction and design. So long as the images function within that piece of hardware, they will look pretty accurate. However, if we want them to interact with other hardware, little pieces of software, called profiles, are required so that they all understand each other.

Would a single standard be nice? Sure. And that's what sRGB, Bruce RGB, Adobe 1998 RGB and other colorspaces attempt to do. But, they are each designed for certain needs. For example, sRGB is an ideal colorspace for web viewing. Since the gamut is so small, however, it's NOT ideally suited for high end printing.

As I mentioned in the other forum, it's a COMPLEX topic. I'm quite familiar with the subject and use these tools everday, and I STILL am baffled by much of it.

M
Thank the comments all of you have contributed.

After all the discussion and my re-thinking, the conclusion I have
made is that there will always be smaller third-party companies who
make improvements to what the larger companies are doing.
Example - There is a lot of discussion on this forum about D60
linear profiles.

People want them from a third party because they improve on what
Canon has not been able to do - make a raw file look good out of
the camera. You don't hear much about JPEG’s, so I assume they look
good out of the camera.

OK - I retract my "SCAM" label. That was really made out of jest.

So basically an ICC profile is a Photoshop action (in the case of a
camera profile) - it takes a bad image and makes it better with
software.

Am I correct in that assumption or am I still missing the big picture?

Thanks...alan
====================================
 
Thank the comments all of you have contributed.

So basically an ICC profile is a Photoshop action (in the case of a
camera profile) - it takes a bad image and makes it better with
software.

Am I correct in that assumption or am I still missing the big picture?

Thanks...alan
====================================
You're missing the bigger picture:-)

The following links might help you.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/image_matching.htm

http://www.rgbnet.co.uk/ilyons/

http://www.color.org/

Enjoy the read.
 
After all the discussion and my re-thinking, the conclusion I have
made is that there will always be smaller third-party companies who
make improvements to what the larger companies are doing.
true
You don't hear much about JPEG’s, so I assume they look
good out of the camera.
I wouldn't dream of using a jpeg - photographic equivalent of scanning a print made at a photo booth instead of the neg - i.e. you've already lost some detail somewhere
So basically an ICC profile is a Photoshop action (in the case of a
camera profile) - it takes a bad image and makes it better with
software.
no no no no!

A profile describes a colour space. Note there are two kinds of colour space, device-dependant and device-independant. Device dependant is say RGB, CMYK etc. the values of these things don't mean anything useful, the actual colour is determined by the device from this discreet value.

It is the equivant of say me asking you how loud your stereo is and you saying 'the volume is on 5'. it means something in your context but say on my stereo 5 might be a lot louder.

device-independant spaces are say LAB (in photoshop) or the general standard is XYZ space. (in the above example, it would be measuring the sound pressure in decibels)

ICC profiles describe the colour space of a file and basically describe a way of mapping the device-dependant values to a device independant space.

so when finally you go to print at a basic level the software is saying 'for this image, the RGB value of 92,12,232 is equal to this device dependant value x' then 'for this printer, to print the colour x, it is going to correspond to the CMYK value y,y,y,y'
 
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.

Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
What happened to the idea of Standards?

If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!

Now we are camera profiling.

Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!

Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every
other product that is sold today!!

alan
Call it what you want, if you are trying to print out an image from your monitor that is showing an image from your camera, the three devices were not made to work together. At least if you want the print to duplicate what you see on the monitor. This may be OK for consumer digital, but pros and those of us who aspire to that must profile each different device to make them work together so output is equal to input.
Suggest you see http://www.robgalbraith.com for more information.

--
DigitalDoc
 
I am sorry you are having such difficulties. But in my experience so far my first prints were mush. I did not have to do much though. I found that I had to just select the proper settings and all was right. Ihave made prints from the E-10, Fuji 602 and a kodak camera forget the model with no profiles and all were fine. It is a misconception that because it is digital that all one does is push a button. There are many variables that have to be accounted for. With some practice and testing you will find that you will get what you want. Even with traditional photography you have to have custom setups. Film speeds are adjusted for each camera, and development times in BW are even not a standard.
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.

Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
What happened to the idea of Standards?

If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!

Now we are camera profiling.

Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!

Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every
other product that is sold today!!

alan
 
I just found this thread and thought it very relevent to this one.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=2853221
I am new to digital imaging and I think this whole "profile" area
is a giant scam.

Having your monitor adjusted correctly is a no-brainer; however,
having to profile a printer to match a static image is ridiculous!
What happened to the idea of Standards?

If the printer can't print a reasonable interpretation of the
image, then the printer is not worth buying - unfortunately for
most of us WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE BOUGHT!

Now we are camera profiling.

Once again, if a camera has to have a profile attached for the
colors to make sense - then the camera manufacturer has succeeded
in selling a product that was released PREMATURELY!

Thank goodness I do not have to go through all this mess with every
other product that is sold today!!

alan
 
Whats the big deal about profiling anyways I downloaded the Epson made ones for their paper and woopdy doo some of the papers are dark and have a green color to it. Now if I use that profile most likely my printer will print out a green dark picture rather then what I want. I'm using the Epson Stylus Photo 1280 and 785EPX profiles (same thing) and the prints come out perfect no need for profiles on papers.

I think it is a big scam use the Epson profiles if u have a stylus photo and thats it. If not use the sRGB or Apple profile.

I really dont get it, not for 2 years now I see a green picture so what does'nt look good so I dont use it for print.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top