See this:
blog.kasson.com
If we're going to get technical, I consider color science a branch of psychology, and what most people call color science, I'd like people to call color engineering. In that regard, I'm with Jim King of Adobe, who passed out buttons with "I'm a color engineer" written on them at a SPIE conference. I still have mine around somewhere.
It still matters. But not as much as the raw development.
and I am assuming almost everyone buying into multi-K MF systems does some post processing of colors and in that sense I was asking if in-camera color science even matters (this assumes you are a hobbyist with unlimited time to process the RAWs to your liking)
Jim is always talking science and I respect and admire that deeply. IMHO science should be his middle name
With Adobe Color Profile, there's not a whole lot of difference in the Caucasian skin tones of Sony, Nikon and Fuji.
blog.kasson.com
Agreed, the same goes for optimal exposure and other post-processing techniques.
So would you consider raw development and PP a significant first order effect for determining final color output and in camera color science as a minor second order effect? I am still trying to grasp where color science comes in order of priority when choosing a system.
--and I am assuming almost everyone buying into multi-K MF systems does some post processing of colors and in that sense I was asking if in-camera color science even matters (this assumes you are a hobbyist with unlimited time to process the RAWs to your liking)
Jim is always talking science and I respect and admire that deeply. IMHO science should be his middle name
https://blog.kasson.com
D'accord.
I consider raw development and PP a first order effect for determining final color output and in camera spectral sensitivity as a second order effect. The minor/significant part is situational. It is not necessary or useful -- in my opinion -- to use the term color science in that sentence, although the spectral sensitivities are determined by color engineers.
The camera contributes to color science, as do the tools. You may have read that many prefer the colors from Phocus to colors from Adobe, even though the camera (X2D) is the same.
In my book using the term science for the initial look is like using the word genius in Apple stores ;-). However, it is important that we agree on what it means.
To me, this is what color science is about:
https://blog.kasson.com/category/color-science/
IMHO once you start processing the RAW file the color science of the camera no longer matters and I am assuming almost everyone buying into multi-K MF systems does some post processing of colors and in that sense I was asking if in-camera color science even matters (this assumes you are a hobbyist with unlimited time to process the RAWs to your liking)
Jim is always talking science and I respect and admire that deeply. IMHO science should be his middle name
if two cameras were color calibrated and white balanced would the color outputs be close enough that they can be matched with marginal effort?
Yes, agreed.
And finally, few have the skills to "equalize" the colors.
In my book using the term science for the initial look is like using the word genius in Apple stores ;-). However, it is important that we agree on what it means.
To me, this is what color science is about:
https://blog.kasson.com/category/color-science/
IMHO once you start processing the RAW file the color science of the camera no longer matters and I am assuming almost everyone buying into multi-K MF systems does some post processing of colors and in that sense I was asking if in-camera color science even matters (this assumes you are a hobbyist with unlimited time to process the RAWs to your liking)
Jim is always talking science and I respect and admire that deeply. IMHO science should be his middle name
It is possible, but frankly, I do not know as I never did go to that trouble. It is best to pick a camera with the initial colors that suit you. If you do not like the initial colors, convert it to B&W. Just kidding ;-).
Yes, agreed.
And finally, few have the skills to "equalize" the colors.
In my book using the term science for the initial look is like using the word genius in Apple stores ;-). However, it is important that we agree on what it means.
To me, this is what color science is about:
https://blog.kasson.com/category/color-science/
IMHO once you start processing the RAW file the color science of the camera no longer matters and I am assuming almost everyone buying into multi-K MF systems does some post processing of colors and in that sense I was asking if in-camera color science even matters (this assumes you are a hobbyist with unlimited time to process the RAWs to your liking)
Jim is always talking science and I respect and admire that deeply. IMHO science should be his middle name
Yep, Adobe Color is the "great equalizer" if shooting raw. There may be subtle differences but you can use pretty much any brand.
After all that has been stated, what if one is colorblind in one of the four ways??? And another thing, what about chromotherapy?
I usually use either auto or daylight. Since I allways shoot raw + jpg its easy to adjust wb later in case it doesnt look right. I am not talking about wb differences, more about overall color, given that wb is ok.
Then color management won't work for you.
That is unrelated to the topic under discussion, I think.
How can you have an overall yellowish tint if the WB is right?
Did you see my examples earlier in this thread? And which Sony?
What?!?!?!? Was it the cameras firmware?? Viewing the same photo taken with a Canon A80 some years ago, the rendering looked way better in M'Soft's photoviewer as opposed to Canon's software. What you view is a function of the software under which you're viewing.
