X Rite Color Checker Passport, why are my results inconsistent?

[gollywop]

https://translate.google.se/transla...qp-card-och-colorchecker-f-full-koll-p-f-rgen

https://translate.google.se/transla...http://nytestat.se/qpcard/&edit-text=&act=url

https://translate.google.se/transla...librering-och-utskrifter/kalibrera-din-kamera

Those reviews, by the way, prove nothing. I've used all three (X-rite with X-rite and with Adobe DNG Profiler) and QPcard. And the only "speed" advantage QP has is that you don't need to convert the raw file to dng before processing. That advantage is trivial.

And it is more than counteracted with my E-M5II. The QP card software enters the wrong camera name in its profile (it uses something like Olympus EM-5MarkII instead of Olympus E-M5 Mark II) and, as a result, the profile is not recognized by ACR/LR and linked to the camera.

Thus, one must take the QP-generated profile, run it through dcpTool to decompile it, edit the name, and re-compress the file into a .dcp. It's a royal pain to use.

Several people, including myself, have e-mailed the QP support about the matter, to absolutely no avail. They won't even answer, much less correct their software. I've also written them on other matters, again without response.

 

[Iliah Borg]

https://translate.google.se/transla...qp-card-och-colorchecker-f-full-koll-p-f-rgen

https://translate.google.se/transla...http://nytestat.se/qpcard/&edit-text=&act=url

https://translate.google.se/transla...librering-och-utskrifter/kalibrera-din-kamera

Those reviews, by the way, prove nothing. I've used all three (X-rite with X-rite and with Adobe DNG Profiler) and QPcard. And the only "speed" advantage QP has is that you don't need to convert the raw file to dng before processing. That advantage is trivial.

And it is more than counteracted with my E-M5II. The QP card software enters the wrong camera name in its profile (it uses something like Olympus EM-5MarkII instead of Olympus E-M5 Mark II) and, as a result, the profile is not recognized by ACR/LR and linked to the camera.

Thus, one must take the QP-generated profile, run it through dcpTool to decompile it, edit the name, and re-compress the file into a .dcp. It's a royal pain to use.

Several people, including myself, have e-mailed the QP support about the matter, to absolutely no avail. They won't even answer, much less correct their software. I've also written them on other matters, again without response.

From my experience, QP cards are reasonably good, but I use my own software. Still prefer CC DC cards (now phased out, because photographers were not coping with gloss patches) combined with CC SG card.

 

[gollywop]

https://translate.google.se/transla...qp-card-och-colorchecker-f-full-koll-p-f-rgen

https://translate.google.se/transla...http://nytestat.se/qpcard/&edit-text=&act=url

https://translate.google.se/transla...librering-och-utskrifter/kalibrera-din-kamera

Those reviews, by the way, prove nothing. I've used all three (X-rite with X-rite and with Adobe DNG Profiler) and QPcard. And the only "speed" advantage QP has is that you don't need to convert the raw file to dng before processing. That advantage is trivial.

And it is more than counteracted with my E-M5II. The QP card software enters the wrong camera name in its profile (it uses something like Olympus EM-5MarkII instead of Olympus E-M5 Mark II) and, as a result, the profile is not recognized by ACR/LR and linked to the camera.

Thus, one must take the QP-generated profile, run it through dcpTool to decompile it, edit the name, and re-compress the file into a .dcp. It's a royal pain to use.

Several people, including myself, have e-mailed the QP support about the matter, to absolutely no avail. They won't even answer, much less correct their software. I've also written them on other matters, again without response.

From my experience, QP cards are reasonably good, but I use my own software. Still prefer CC DC cards (now phased out, because photographers were not coping with gloss patches) combined with CC SG card.

Yes, Iliah. I'm not complaining about the card (although I can do that too) but the fact that I have to jump though loops to use it and no one will answer my questions or correct the problem.

Further, regardless of the lighting I've used for making the target (I've done it in many different lightings), the profiles all mess up on azure blue (even targets made on cloudless, clear sunlit days). The resulting profile is, for the most part, really very good on all colors, and it does quite well on a variety of shades of blue, except for azure blue. Azure skies come out with too much red (or purple) and not enough aqua. It's rather unpleasant.

The best profile I've found for the E-M5 II for ACR/LR is the Adobe Camera Natural, and with it azure skies do indeed come out azure. But the best job all-round is done by RPP, which does a super job with whatever profile it is using for that camera.

--
gollywop
I am not a moderator or an official of dpr. My views do not represent, or necessarily reflect, those of dpr.

http://g4.img-dpreview.com/D8A95C7DB3724EC094214B212FB1F2AF.jpg

 

[Iliah Borg]

I'm not complaining about the card (although I can do that too)

There is some sample variation, I measured several. The card design is somewhat of a trade-off, allowing for flat-fielding using the gaps between the patches for the price of increased flare; one needs to be really careful with lights and sample only the central portion of the card. Making the substrate matt dull grey would help.

but the fact that I have to jump though loops to use it and no one will answer my questions or correct the problem.

I understand that.

the best job all-round is done by RPP, which does a super job with whatever profile it is using for that camera.

Thank you. It is a simple matrix profile with gamma close to 2.35. I'm always happy to improve the profile if you have samples where it fails.

 

[Mikael Risedal]

https://translate.google.se/transla...qp-card-och-colorchecker-f-full-koll-p-f-rgen

https://translate.google.se/transla...http://nytestat.se/qpcard/&edit-text=&act=url

https://translate.google.se/transla...librering-och-utskrifter/kalibrera-din-kamera

Those reviews, by the way, prove nothing. I've used all three (X-rite with X-rite and with Adobe DNG Profiler) and QPcard. And the only "speed" advantage QP has is that you don't need to convert the raw file to dng before processing. That advantage is trivial.

And it is more than counteracted with my E-M5II. The QP card software enters the wrong camera name in its profile (it uses something like Olympus EM-5MarkII instead of Olympus E-M5 Mark II) and, as a result, the profile is not recognized by ACR/LR and linked to the camera.

Thus, one must take the QP-generated profile, run it through dcpTool to decompile it, edit the name, and re-compress the file into a .dcp. It's a royal pain to use.

Several people, including myself, have e-mailed the QP support about the matter, to absolutely no avail. They won't even answer, much less correct their software. I've also written them on other matters, again without response.

 

[gollywop]

I'm not complaining about the card (although I can do that too)

There is some sample variation, I measured several. The card design is somewhat of a trade-off, allowing for flat-fielding using the gaps between the patches for the price of increased flare; one needs to be really careful with lights and sample only the central portion of the card. Making the substrate matt dull grey would help.

I'll try that. I've always included the black border. We'll see. Thanks.

but the fact that I have to jump though loops to use it and no one will answer my questions or correct the problem.

I understand that.

the best job all-round is done by RPP, which does a super job with whatever profile it is using for that camera.

Thank you. It is a simple matrix profile with gamma close to 2.35. I'm always happy to improve the profile if you have samples where it fails.

It hasn't yet.

 

[gollywop]

https://translate.google.se/transla...qp-card-och-colorchecker-f-full-koll-p-f-rgen

https://translate.google.se/transla...http://nytestat.se/qpcard/&edit-text=&act=url

https://translate.google.se/transla...librering-och-utskrifter/kalibrera-din-kamera

Those reviews, by the way, prove nothing. I've used all three (X-rite with X-rite and with Adobe DNG Profiler) and QPcard. And the only "speed" advantage QP has is that you don't need to convert the raw file to dng before processing. That advantage is trivial.

And it is more than counteracted with my E-M5II. The QP card software enters the wrong camera name in its profile (it uses something like Olympus EM-5MarkII instead of Olympus E-M5 Mark II) and, as a result, the profile is not recognized by ACR/LR and linked to the camera.

Thus, one must take the QP-generated profile, run it through dcpTool to decompile it, edit the name, and re-compress the file into a .dcp. It's a royal pain to use.

Several people, including myself, have e-mailed the QP support about the matter, to absolutely no avail. They won't even answer, much less correct their software. I've also written them on other matters, again without response.

 

[Iliah Borg]

I'm not complaining about the card (although I can do that too)

There is some sample variation, I measured several. The card design is somewhat of a trade-off, allowing for flat-fielding using the gaps between the patches for the price of increased flare; one needs to be really careful with lights and sample only the central portion of the card. Making the substrate matt dull grey would help.

I'll try that. I've always included the black border. We'll see. Thanks.

I was unclear. I meant the gaps between the patches are better if matt dull grey. Meaning, target re-design.

the best job all-round is done by RPP, which does a super job with whatever profile it is using for that camera.

Thank you. It is a simple matrix profile with gamma close to 2.35. I'm always happy to improve the profile if you have samples where it fails.

It hasn't yet.

Well, I never saw a profile that would not fail under some conditions

 

[Mikael Risedal]

https://translate.google.se/transla...qp-card-och-colorchecker-f-full-koll-p-f-rgen

https://translate.google.se/transla...http://nytestat.se/qpcard/&edit-text=&act=url

https://translate.google.se/transla...librering-och-utskrifter/kalibrera-din-kamera

Those reviews, by the way, prove nothing. I've used all three (X-rite with X-rite and with Adobe DNG Profiler) and QPcard. And the only "speed" advantage QP has is that you don't need to convert the raw file to dng before processing. That advantage is trivial.

And it is more than counteracted with my E-M5II. The QP card software enters the wrong camera name in its profile (it uses something like Olympus EM-5MarkII instead of Olympus E-M5 Mark II) and, as a result, the profile is not recognized by ACR/LR and linked to the camera.

Thus, one must take the QP-generated profile, run it through dcpTool to decompile it, edit the name, and re-compress the file into a .dcp. It's a royal pain to use.

Several people, including myself, have e-mailed the QP support about the matter, to absolutely no avail. They won't even answer, much less correct their software. I've also written them on other matters, again without response.

 

[gollywop]

I'm not complaining about the card (although I can do that too)

There is some sample variation, I measured several. The card design is somewhat of a trade-off, allowing for flat-fielding using the gaps between the patches for the price of increased flare; one needs to be really careful with lights and sample only the central portion of the card. Making the substrate matt dull grey would help.

I'll try that. I've always included the black border. We'll see. Thanks.

I was unclear. I meant the gaps between the patches are better if matt dull grey. Meaning, target re-design.

Ah. An altogether different story.

the best job all-round is done by RPP, which does a super job with whatever profile it is using for that camera.

Thank you. It is a simple matrix profile with gamma close to 2.35. I'm always happy to improve the profile if you have samples where it fails.

It hasn't yet.

Well, I never saw a profile that would not fail under some conditions

True, but I can temper justice with mercy.

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

From my experience, QP cards are reasonably good

only QP203, not QP202... QP202 (the big one) can't be considered good at all the way patches are made vs QP203... and QP203 shall be noted is better purchased not inside the book, but as a separate list.

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

IR light corses an error of 005+- dE when using color checker, qp 203 compare to perfectly d50, hardly one of the biggest problem with color calibration

you mean dE-whatever = 5.0 (+/-) ... max ? average/mean ?

and what is the exact method of comparison ? you build profile off IR CC24 Classic shot and then measure your QP203 with your own spectrophotometer, make a shot of QP203 (under which illumination ?), convert your raw using profile build off IR raw and then compare your conversion vs measured QP203 data ?

 

[Iliah Borg]

IR light corses an error of 005+- dE when using color checker, qp 203 compare to perfectly d50, hardly one of the biggest problem with color calibration

you mean dE-whatever = 5.0 (+/-)

0.05

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

IR light corses an error of 005+- dE when using color checker, qp 203 compare to perfectly d50, hardly one of the biggest problem with color calibration

you mean dE-whatever = 5.0 (+/-)

0.05

hard to believe whatever it is !

 

[Iliah Borg]

IR light corses an error of 005+- dE when using color checker, qp 203 compare to perfectly d50, hardly one of the biggest problem with color calibration

you mean dE-whatever = 5.0 (+/-)

0.05

hard to believe whatever it is !

Agree.

 

[Mikael Risedal]

Where can I upload it?

Google Drive, WeTransfer,...

What would you look for in the Raw file that I can look for and relay onto you?

There are many things that may went wrong, and not only with the raw file, but also with the workflow while creating a profile.

easier, faster to use qp-card and qp-software

Not so sure. To begin with, one needs to set lights correctly when shooting targets. Even IR and DPR do not get that part good enough.

no problems at all. used it since many years for my Canons and Nikons

what do you mean with even IR and DPR do not get that part good enough?

Lighting setup.

what about lighting set up?

It is wrong and inconsistent. Exposure is also not suitable for obtaining optimal results.

what do you mean ?

Mikael, but I said what I mean. No offense, but I'm not sure how to make it clearer.

IR light corses an error of 005+- dE when using color checker, qp 203 compare to perfectly d50, hardly one of the biggest problem with color calibration

Compute a profile from CC24 on an IR shot, apply it to CC SG from the same shot, see dE2000 protocol.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Where can I upload it?

Google Drive, WeTransfer,...

What would you look for in the Raw file that I can look for and relay onto you?

There are many things that may went wrong, and not only with the raw file, but also with the workflow while creating a profile.

easier, faster to use qp-card and qp-software

Not so sure. To begin with, one needs to set lights correctly when shooting targets. Even IR and DPR do not get that part good enough.

no problems at all. used it since many years for my Canons and Nikons

what do you mean with even IR and DPR do not get that part good enough?

Lighting setup.

what about lighting set up?

It is wrong and inconsistent. Exposure is also not suitable for obtaining optimal results.

what do you mean ?

Mikael, but I said what I mean. No offense, but I'm not sure how to make it clearer.

IR light corses an error of 005+- dE when using color checker, qp 203 compare to perfectly d50, hardly one of the biggest problem with color calibration

Compute a profile from CC24 on an IR shot, apply it to CC SG from the same shot, see dE2000 protocol.

Why make reference from the limited card, and then to attend to the more complex card? does the opposite

Because of what you said above, referring to CC24. Do it the other way around if you wish. I can guarantee you the results will be worse, and not even close to your estimation above.

Please show your own shooting and both cards in the picture, where you get a lot better results than IR

I'm afraid you can't realistically judge the results.

The value of the SG card (measurements) is true only for a single precise integration angle (how big the light box is that illuminates the card). If you use a single-point light spotlight you get a difference, compared to using a "perfect" 180 degrees soft light from all sides there still are a difference, but another difference. This is the problem of gloss / semigloss

So, you are saying SG card is useless for profiling, as the reference is meaningless. Just great. You know, with all due respect, I do not want to discuss this subject with you any further. Sorry again.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[exdeejjjaaaa]

Please show your own shooting and with both cards in the picture, where you get a lot better dE results than IR

don't you think that you need to actually show first those dE results ? no - "0.05" of whatever is not a result - it is a claim, even w/o specifying what it is and how it was obtained...

 

[Iliah Borg]

Please show your own shooting and with both cards in the picture, where you get a lot better dE results than IR

don't you think that you need to actually show first those dE results ? no - "0.05" of whatever is not a result - it is a claim, even w/o specifying what it is and how it was obtained...

Just put it to rest. Pretty please.

 

[Mikael Risedal]

Where can I upload it?

Google Drive, WeTransfer,...

What would you look for in the Raw file that I can look for and relay onto you?

There are many things that may went wrong, and not only with the raw file, but also with the workflow while creating a profile.

easier, faster to use qp-card and qp-software

Not so sure. To begin with, one needs to set lights correctly when shooting targets. Even IR and DPR do not get that part good enough.

no problems at all. used it since many years for my Canons and Nikons

what do you mean with even IR and DPR do not get that part good enough?

Lighting setup.

what about lighting set up?

It is wrong and inconsistent. Exposure is also not suitable for obtaining optimal results.

what do you mean ?

Mikael, but I said what I mean. No offense, but I'm not sure how to make it clearer.

IR light corses an error of 005+- dE when using color checker, qp 203 compare to perfectly d50, hardly one of the biggest problem with color calibration

Compute a profile from CC24 on an IR shot, apply it to CC SG from the same shot, see dE2000 protocol.

Why make reference from the limited card, and then to attend to the more complex card? does the opposite

Because of what you said above, referring to CC24. Do it the other way around if you wish. I can guarantee you the results will be worse, and not even close to your estimation above.

Please show your own shooting and both cards in the picture, where you get a lot better results than IR

I'm afraid you can't realistically judge the results.

The value of the SG card (measurements) is true only for a single precise integration angle (how big the light box is that illuminates the card). If you use a single-point light spotlight you get a difference, compared to using a "perfect" 180 degrees soft light from all sides there still are a difference, but another difference. This is the problem of gloss / semigloss

So, you are saying SG card is useless for profiling, as the reference is meaningless. Just great. You know, with all due respect, I do not want to discuss this subject with you any further. Sorry again.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

where do I say SG card is useless for profiling? , read agin.

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar,Zeiss, Sony . Phantom 2+