There is an argument to be made that unless you're shooting product ads, the most accurate color is often not the best color. Think of the deliberate manipulation of white balance people do to
I think that applies more to white balance, but I'd argue that starting with the correct colors is good, you can always adjust from there... They show several good examples in the webinar, the most glaring of which is the model with the multi-colored dress, some of the non-profiled shots show a completely different color.
enhance their images. When you shoot JPG in your camera, it applies its own color profile to the image giving it a distinctive look. Switch to RAW and you will notice the coloration to be quite different (unless you use the manufacturer's RAW converter, like Nikon CaptureNX which uses the same color profiles that Nikon loads into their cameras).
While NX has the ability to use the same profiles and apply the in-camera settings, you don't have to use it that way. But either way, being able to have managed color workflow despite mixed lighting, lens issues and the simple fact that sensors don't capture all colors accurately seems a win to me.
That said, however, I do own a CCC and did calibrate my sensor a long time ago just because I was curious about it. I found the results to be subtle but visible (the biggest effect was in the reds) and I use my custom created profile on all my pictures.
The thing is that you get an accurate calibration only under the same lighting conditions- colors shift differently depending on the light source, so for optimum results, you should calibrate for a set of lights, a particular time of day, or whatever...
Is this product any different than using Adobe's free DNG profile software, provided you already have the colorchecker card? If you have the card already all you need to do is to use the free Adobe DNG profiler and that should have the same result as this product? Unless you're in the market
This produces the DNG file for the Adobe stuff to use. If you have the card, then you can download the software for free and use it to generate the DNG.
Take a look at the webinar, it's well-worth the time.
for a small portable CCC, it might be more cost effective to just buy a different CCC and use the free software instead. I think my 8x10" CCC was like $60, this kit is $100.
It's got a good white balance card, the case is protective and pocket-sized and it's got the other adjustment card which may be handy. All-in-all, I'd rather have a protected card that I'm likely to have than the larger old charts- it's worth the extra $30 ($89.99) to me because the larger cards just won't survive field use, and this looks like it will.
Your card needs to be one of the Macbeth ones- and I think they all fade a bit over time, but if you've already got one, then the software's a free D/L.
The one question I have about calibrating your sensor in general is, at least as far as I understand the process, it seems to be very dependent on the quality of your source photos. I think it is harder than you think to get two accurate shots under controlled lighting. I'm sure there is variability in tungsten bulbs, and unless you're shooting it in a room made of nothing other than neutral grey walls, you might get some color cast contamination.
That's the advantage of a portable package, just white balance, then shoot a shot of the color chart under your lighting conditions- then shoot away. Get back, create the profile and apply it to all the images in a shoot- you're never more than one shot from a calibrated sensor/lens/light combo- so if you're going through changing conditions, just go shoot in each room, or at each time and save the results, apply them to each location/condition and you're calibrated. For me, I know the biggest difference is going to be in flower colors- sensors simply don't do violets and magentas well- this will give me accurate colors for flowers, as well as allowing me to sync the color between my D3x and D3x when I'm out shooting with a different FL on each body.
In order to get a good 6500K shot, just going outside doesn't always cut it. The weather, time of day, even physical location on the planet (for example, the D65 standard is defined as the sunlight on a bright day in Northern/Western Europe) will all subtly effect the temperature. Unless you have access to a solar simulator that can reproduce strictly the calculated spectrum of sunlight... your color images won't be as accurate as they possibly can.
Right, so you shoot the reference image for that day's conditions- or hour's or whatever period you need, then you've got accurate results to apply to the entire shoot.
So, if I'm going to Mt. Rainier, where I'm going to be high up and get more UV and I want to shoot wildflower meadows, I get to the meadow, shoot the chart, then take my images, and I apply that calibration to all the pictures for that day. If the clouds move in while I'm shooting, I shoot another reference image and apply that to all my images after that point. If I then go to Chicago and shoot in a studio, I can calibrate for that lighting, etc. It costs me a single image to calibrate for any condition.
The plastic seems very sturdy. It stands up by itself, and won't blow over in most winds, overall I think it's worth it- even if it fades enough for me to have to get one every couple of years.
Paul
, I just figured someone here would already be doing this- I think the software is relatively new- but it makes it so easy to calibrate the sensor and to match two bodies (one of the reasons the webinar is worth the time is to see those results.)