DNG-PE Dual-Illuminant Profile question

Just want to clarify the correct procedure in building a Dual-Illuminant camera profile.
So I have shot a colorchecker under 6500k and 2850k (hopelessly gloomy here in Hong Kong now, best I could get is around 5500k)... anyway, i open both shots in PE, and then run the chart wizard.
Questions:
1) Does it matter which base profile I choose when I run the Chart wizard?
2) Once I run the chart wizard once, the Base Profile changes to 'Color Checker'. If I were to proceed to run the other colorchecker, do I need to change the base profile back to the original base profile (e.g. Adobe Std)
Thanks! ws

Eric Chan wrote:
"2. For your case, where you're shooting in a very specific lighting condition (your studio flash in your studio environment) you are better off creating a single profile dedicated to that condition, i.e., follow Tutorial 5 in the PE documentation, where you should select 'Both Color Tables' from the popup in the Chart tab. "
So with a specific and more or less constant lighting, like in studio environment, I shoot one chart in the studio environment and I make only one single profile with the "both color tables".
I'm sorry if I make you feel like you're repeating what you just said, but as you can see I'm having quite a hard time understanding.
But in this case, when does it worth to do 2 different profiles ? When the light is under 3000° K or upper 6000 ° K ?

Similar Messages

  • How to make dual illuminant profile in DNG profile editor?

    I have just started working with the DNG Profile Editor.  In another discussion I commented on the clarity of the instructions provided by the tutorial.  I had no difficulty creating a single illuminant profile using the X-Rite color checker passport.  But when it came to producing a dual illuminant profile, following the instructions exactly, I was stymied. 
    1.  Open dng image of Color Checker photographed in 6500K illumination.
    2.  Open dng image of Color Checker photographed in 2850K illumination.
    3.  Select Chart tab in editor.
    At this point one is instructed to "Click the 6500 K-lit ColorChecker image window to select it."
    But the 2850K lit image (last loaded) has replaced the 6500K image window (at step 2) and I can find no way to reopen the 6500 K lit image window in order to proceed to the next step.
    As a matter of interest, why do these instructions suggest setting the pop-up window in the Chart Pane to "6500K only" and then create color table with first image.  Thereafter select second image, set pop-up window to "2850K only" and create color table.  I seems to me that, having loaded two images (even if I can only see the second image loaded) one should choose "both color tables" and then create color table.  In fact I have tried this and it does produce a profile, but I have no way of determining if it is a correct dual illuminant profile.
    Please help.

    2. HYPERLINK "/people/MadManChan2000"MadManChan2000,
    Oct 21, 2013 9:09 AM in reply to blumesan
    Note that the "Both color tables" option always creates a single-illuminant profile. The "Both color tables" option means that the computed color corrections will be applied to both color tables (i.e., the color table for the first calibration illuminant, which is usually Standard Light A, and also the color table for the second calibration illuminant, which is usually D65).
    After playing around with the Profile Editor for a while, and examining the results with dcpTool, I now understand (I hope) what Eric is saying. In his language a single-illuminant profile is one created from a single dng image using the "both color tables" option (without regard to the illuminant used to capture that image.) When one does this (using Adobe Standard as the base profile) an examination of the resulting profile with dcpTool shows the following:
    Two illluminants are identified: 17 (Std A) and 21 (D65).
    Color Matrix 1 & 2; Forward Matrix 1 & 2; Hue Sat Delta Tables 1 & 2.
    Which certainly gives the impression of a dual illuminant profile to novices like myself.  My guess is that the PE software itself applies a default assumption of these two illuminants, corrects the image for each illuminant and constructs two color tables, one for each illluminant. When used, the profile will interpolate between the two tables based on the white balance of the image being edited.
    If this is indeed correct it makes me wonder in what way does such a profile differ from a dual illuminant profile created from two dng images, each captured under a different illuminant (2800K & 6500K) as described in Tutorial #6 of the PE instructions. These instructions contain the following description of such a dual illuminant profile: "The result is a single profile that performs well under a wide range of illuminants instead of a single fixed illuminant."   Which really make me scratch my head. Should one conclude from this that a single illuminant profile (created using the "both color tables" option) will perform less well under a range of illuminants?  Will it perform well only under a narrow range of illuminants centered around the illuminant used to capture the single image? 
    As a footnote, it is worth remarking that I (and perhaps others) have been confused by examining profiles created by the XRite software when using only a single dng image. Examining such a profile with dcpTool one sees the following structure:
    One illuminant only #23 (D50)
    A single Color Matrix table.
    A single Hue Sat Delta Table.
    Thus one comes to expect this structure in a single illuminant profile.
    I would be very happy to see Eric's comments..

  • Importance of precise colour temperature when creating dual-illuminant DNG profile

    I own an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport and would like to use it to create a dual-illuminant profile for my camera (and every lens combination) to use in LightRoom.
    After extensive research I have a few lingering questions:
    1)      How important is it to nail the colour temperature. Do you *absolutely have to* photograph the ColorChecker under Illuminant A and D65, respectively, down to the last Kelvin?
    2)      If I don’t nail it down that precisely, will the resulting profile be any less accurate?
    3)      If getting the respective colour temperatures exactly right is indeed that important, is it OK to use 2 diffused and gelled speedlites with Lee/Rosco color correcting gels to illuminate the Colorchecker? (The Lee / Rosco gels do not have the exact CTO gel for the 2850K specified in the DNG specification for Illuminant A, but it gets close)
    4)      If it will really aid profile accuracy, how does one get hold of reliable/certified light bulbs that produce the required colour temperatures? (I’m in the UK)
    Your advice will be greatly appreciated.

    The exact color temperatures (in Kelvin) are not that important within the standard daylight range (above 4000 K), because large number changes in color temperature actually represent small differences as far as camera color profiles go.
    What is more important (rather than the exact number) is the spectral characteristics of the illumination. This isn't easy to characterize for the end user, but you can think of it in terms of bulb type. Most compact fluorescents are spectrally very different from actual daylight (even if the bulb is indicated as being "full spectrum"), for instance. My recommendation is to create a profile for the type of lighting you will be under, rather than trying to match the exact numbers.

  • DNG specs and dual illuminant

    I am currently testing the DNG profile editor and the camera specific profiles and I really like the results so far. At first impression they seem to significantly improve controllability of images taken at sunset for example. (Specifically blue saturation of the eastern sky, Canon 40D).
    After briefly scanning over the DNG specs i understand that the specs allow for a dual color matrix which accommodates the ACR/LR workflow.
    However, isn't this somewhat restrictive?
    The whole point of the DNG profiler is that it enables one to optimize the converter for the colorresponse of the camera under certain lighting conditions. A single colortemperature may be the result of wildly different lighting conditions which result in a significantly different colorresponse in the camera.
    So, wouldn't it be more appropriate to be able to add an entire list of "named colormatrices" which can correspond to given lighting conditions? Like the usual sunny, shady, daylight, incandescent, fluorescent, etc...
    ACR/LR can simply pick the 2 most appropriate matrices to do its interpolation thingy, but it would be really useful if in addition one could add "named sets" of matrices which allows ACR/LR to do their interpolation thingy with a specific set (possibly over more than 2 profiles).
    That way one can create a specific "daylight response" set which combines a 2800K sunset profile with a 5500K daylight response. (and then possibly an additional 10K n.sky response or something). Or an "artificial lighting" set of say a 2800K bulb light response combined with a 5000K tube light response.
    In ACR/LR the WB popup can be used to select one of these sets...
    Anyways: my point really is the DNG specs themselves. If it is eventually to become an industry wide open standard, the colormatrix implementation should probably not be coupled so intimately with the whitebalancing paradigm of ACR/LR.
    (if this has been previously discussed, my apologies, I haven't scanned the entire list of discussion threads).

    > This bests corresponds with conventional photography
    > wisdom of selecting a WB according to original shooting
    > conditions as well as conventional colormanagement wisdom
    > of a single colorresponse/illuminant for a single device.
    > Adjustment of WB T can still be allowed within reason.
    > To allow for a wider range of WB T adjustments WITHOUT
    > having to select different colorresponses may be
    > implemented by interpolation between colorresponses.
    That's exactly what a dual-illuminant profile accomplishes.
    Note that the DNG spec does not require that profiles be dual-illuminant. A profile may in fact be single-illuminant, and some cameras which support in-camera DNG create such profiles.
    > Interpolating between 2 colorresponses should then consist
    > of selecting 2 or more profiles based on the properties
    > desired.
    > One of those properties might be "convenience", i.e.
    > interpolating between an artificial 2850K colorresponse
    > and a D65 daylight response to cover most processing
    > demands.
    > Another property might be "accuracy". This could consist
    > of interpolating between an entire set of daylight
    > response profiles so that sunset images aren't processed
    > with an artificial light profile.
    Again, this can already be done with the current DNG 1.2 spec. You can define one profile to be used with natural daylight images and another profile to be used with artificial light images. These profiles can be either single-illuminant or dual-illuminant; it is the choice of the profile author (or profile-building software).
    The choice of which profile to use for a given image falls outside the scope of the DNG spec.
    Consider the following example. Suppose a camera shoots DNG raw files. If the camera knew that a given image was shot under natural light (e.g., it has a built-in spectroradiometer that measures the spectrum of the incoming light and determines that it's a flavor of daylight) then it could then generate a "daylight" DNG profile that is then embedded in the DNG, to be used for that specific image.
    This is all possible with the DNG 1.2 spec, as it's currently written. However, the generation of the an appropriate profile is a higher-level functionality that falls outside the scope of the spec itself. In other words, the spec dictates the format of a profile and its behavior, but it does not dictate how that profile gets generated in the first place (i.e., based on which measurements, etc.).
    > However, defining a profile as describing 2 colorresponses
    > for 2 illuminants and "claiming" that interpolation
    > between those responses is in any way relevant to scene
    > referred colormatching for a single device or DNG file is,
    > with all due respect, simply ridiculous.
    Why?
    > For "correct" rawdata interpretation i'm pretty sure i
    > only need a single colorresponse and illuminant, namely
    > the colorresponse and illuminant matching the exact
    > conditions at the time of capture.
    For a single image, yes.
    Questions: (1) Do you actually have the color response information for your camera's sensor, and if so, where did you obtain it from? (2) Do you actually have the spectrum of the illuminant at the time of capture, as well as the reflectance spectrum of the materials being photographed?
    If you have both, then you can generate an optimal profile for that capture. That was the point I made above: the on-the-fly profile generation is something that can be done if you have this info, and it's completely compatible with the existing DNG 1.2 spec. There is nothing in CR, LR, or the DNG spec that prevents this.
    The real issue is that in most cases, the practical answer to both of my above questions is no. (Even if you have #1, #2 is almost certainly no.)
    > dual matrix tags are superfluous because 2 profiles
    > containing a single matrix carry the same amount of
    > information
    Again, as noted above, the DNG spec allows for single-illuminant profiles, so if you wish to go that route, you are free to do so.
    > dual matrix tags are an incorrect representation of the
    > colorresponse paradigm because there is no singular
    > relation FROM colortemperature TO colorresponse.
    The calibration illuminant tag indicates the actual light source, not just the color temperature. For a given illuminant there is actually a single mapping between illuminant and color response.
    > Note also that if you really aim for consistency of tone
    > and color results across implementations then Adobe should
    > also disclose their debayer colormixing code, it is not
    > solely dependent on interpolation of colormatrixes...
    No, the two issues are completely independent except for pixel-level effects which are largely irrelevant to the overall color and tone appearance.
    Eric

  • DNG Profile Editor "base profile" question.

    I'm profiling a Canon 5D3 with both the Adobe DNG Profile Editor and the Xrite ColorChecker software. It's been about 3 years since I last profiled a camera, so I'm re-doing the learning curve. My question now is how and why the DNG Profile editor depends on a "base profile?" Specifically, why does the DNG PE Chart Wizard generate different results depending on what base profile is used.
    I see in the documentation that "all color adjustments made in the DNG Profile Editor are defined relative to a base profile." I understand that logic when making a custom profile via manual tweaks. You have to have a starting point. But I don't understand that logic when using the Chart Wizard. I expected the Chart Wizard to arrive at the same pre-defined target point regardless of the starting point. It does not seem to do that.
    I discovered the difference by using an apparently bad workflow. I shot my colorchecker chart, converted the CR2 to DNG and brought it into Photoshop via ACR to inspect. That stored "Adobe Standard" as the base profile in the DNG.
    Then I fed this DNG to the DNG PE Chart Wizard and generated a profile. I opened the image in ACR and applied "My Profile", which became the base profile in the DNG file. I thought I did something wrong, so I ran the same DNG through the Chart Wizard again and generated "My Second Profile." That version looked very strange, so I did it again and made "My Third Profile."
    Now I have three profiles. My First Profile was made from Adobe Standard base. My Second Profile was made from My First Profile base. My Third Profile was made from My Second Profile base. Each iteration becomes more strange (bad), so this is clearly not the proper workflow. But what is? What base profile should be selected for Chart Wizard and why does it matter?
    Being curious, I did the same exercise using the Xrite ColorChecker software. That software generates the same result, regardless of what base profile is stored in the DNG files. I'm not sure I like the results, but at least they are consistent.

    DNG Profile Editor lets you define color edits (in the first tab) using a set of color control points.  These control points in turn define a color lookup table used to perform the color correction when processing a (raw) image.
    When you use a Base Profile, the resulting color table in the final profile is a combination of the base profile's color table, plus the color table defined by any edits that you've added in the first tab (using the Chart Wizard counts as adding edits to that first tab).
    The reason you can get different and less smooth results if you apply the Chart Wizard iteratively is because you are applying lookup table after lookup table.  The current color table-building method used by DNG PE has some limitations regarding smoothness of color profiles if two color control points are placed too closely (this can happen with the Chart Wizard, or if you specify two points manually that are close to each other).  These problems can become more noticeable if you apply the DNG PE iteratively.

  • Camera profiles in Aperture via free DNG 1.2 and profile editor

    So last week Adobe announced LR2 and along with masses of new features, something that was not part of the marketing piece was the ability to get more accurate colour and this could possibly benefit Aperture users. Today I've just noticed an article on John Nack's blog about the new (free) DNG profile editor.
    It allows for a base profile to be entered (just calibrate your camera with Color Eyes or Gretag's new color checker), then played with to suit. But basically, you'd just load your colour profile here, then NOT play with it. The profile is then used in the DNG converter, which can then be read by any RAW converter that supports DNG.
    My questions:
    1. Aperture supports DNG, but does it support DNG 1.2?
    2. Does the fact that the 'Convert to linear image' option has to be turned off impact this opportunity?
    3. Even if Aperture does read in the DNG, I assume that since it ignores the camera sensor information for things like auto noise compensation etc, it won't screw with the colour and assign its own colour (like it does with native RAW), but just use the embedded profile?
    Does anyone with an in-depth experience with Aperture and DNG have any views on this? I'd love to calibrate my 1DS and 1DSII, then use the DNG converter to assign the profile and have Aperture read the files.
    http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/08/thedng_profileeditor.html

    It certainly looks interesting, and addresses a number of problems people (including myself) had with Adobe's existing profiles... namely that the whole yellow/orange/red part of the spectrum was awful.
    Also note the whole profiles thing is still currently in beta.
    As for Aperture... it doesn't support those profiles embedded in DNGs now. In fact, it doesn't support the "picture styles" info embedded in the RAW files by Nikon or Canon either (neither did Lightroom, and this is Adobe's answer). That said, I rather like Aperture's default conversions, and you could tweak the default RAW conversion subtly and apply the effect to images as part of your process.

  • Odd color shift and OS color profile question

    I've run into something that leads me to believe that the OS X color profile management has caused me a problem. I'd like to figure out how to tell the OS to not manage color profiles in order to avoid future problems. So far this is only an issue when dealing with CMYK images.
    A little background...
    I received a JPEG image from a photographer. Converted it to CMYK and made minor edits in Photoshop, not touching the color profiles or trying to color correct. I saved a JPEG of the edited image, and imported it into Freehand 10. When imported, the entire image shifted slightly pink. When viewed in Preview or Photoshop it looked fine. It was only when I imported it that it shifted.
    A friend suggested this might have something to with color profiles, so I fiddled around with both PS and FH to make sure they were using the same ones. Even when they were the image shifted pink. This was on my desktop machine, recently upgraded to Tiger.
    I noticed my PowerBook was still running Panther. I took the same image, same data file, same programs and when I imported the image again, it was fine. Looked just like it did in PhotoShop and Preview. I immediately saved out a PDF for posterity and press use.
    Given the above, the only real variable is the version of the OS. This leads me to believe that there's something about how Tiger handles color profiles on the OS level that's causing this shift. What I don't know is how to remove the OS' meddling to remove it from the workflow.
    Any ideas?
    Thanks in advance...
    G4 Dual 867   Mac OS X (10.4.3)   768MB RAM, 120GBHD

    audi454 wrote:
    1. AdobeRGB
    2. Im not sure what you mean, preferences in PSE?
    3. My client has a print release, I use WHCC to print my pictures and I believe they require sRGB as well.
    4. Yes I always shoot in RAW.
    Thanks for taking the time to help, I looked at my Lightroom color settings since that's how I import my pics and it was set on Adobe Pro I believe... I changed it to sRGB.
    Sent from my iPhone
    Thanks for the info : I'll start with the 4th question because it's the less known factor with Elements
    If you shoot raw, the settings of your camera (Adobe RGB) will be ignored. This setting works only with the out of camera jpegs. A 'raw' file has no color profile, so PSE needs to know which profile you want for the conversion. You won't find any menu or dialog entries in ACR for that purpose. So, to convert the file when you 'Open' in the editor, PSE looks at the settings in your editor (my question #2, Menu Edit/Color settings...
    If you have chosen option 1, 'Always optimize for computer screens', PSE will convert the raw file to sRGB profile.
    If you have chosen 'Always optimize for printing', PSE will convert to aRGB...
    If you want to take advantage of the slightly wider color space of Adobe RGB because your home printer can use it, select the second option, but if you have to send the picture in sRGB, do not forget to convert before sending. Menu /image/convert color profile.
    If you don't want to bother, use sRGB with the option 1. You won't risk forgetting to convert the client version.
    Never use 'No color management' in the menu /edit/color settings
    If you first convert to sRGB with option 1, you won't get any advantage to convert to aRGB afterwards

  • LR Profiles question

    Under the bottom right panel "Camera Calibration" there is drop down menu called "profiles". In that drop down there are numerous profiiles: ACR 4.4, ACR 4.3, Adobe Standard, Camera D2X Mode 1 (what the does that stand for?), and many others. I have a Nikon D3. I'm wondering why my camera profiile is not in there. Do I somehow have to enter it? I thought the profiles were automatically updated to include all the newest cameras?

    There is extensive information on DNG profiles available here:  http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:FAQ
    A specific answer to your question is under "Trouble Shooting."  Here is what it says:
    Why are Nikon D2X profiles showing up in the profile menu in Camera Raw and Lightroom, even though my camera isn't a D2X?
    Despite the name, the D2X Mode 1, D2X Mode 2, and D2X Mode 3 profiles aren't actually profiles for the D2X camera. These are profiles designed to match the corresponding Nikon Picture Controls of the same name. To make this easier to understand, open Nikon View NX (or Capture NX) and examine the Picture Controls menu. There are six built-in settings: Standard, Neutral, Vivid, D2X Mode 1, D2X Mode 2, and D2X Mode 3. Those last 3 contain the "D2X" name even for non-D2X cameras. In other words, this is Nikon's naming convention.

  • Insertion of DNG tags in DCP profiles

    Hi,
    I was wondering if it was possible to insert DNG tags like BaselineExposure into the dcp profiles ?
    If not, is there anyway to change the BaselineExposure applied to files in Lightroom or in DNG convertions ?
    Thanks in advance.
    Romain

    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
    deejjjaaaa wrote:
    that was basically my question...
    Well, your "question" implied, that there would be some advantage of the ISO related profiles:
    why not,  the results should be more precise - should they not ?
    I don't know any aspect speaking for an ISO specific profile. Note, that there is a "camera profile" for each camera model (in ACR and in the DNG converter), which carries the general characteristics of that camera; this includes considerations relating to ISO as well (for example the BaselineOffset of several cameras depends on the ISO), but here we are talking about a different "profile": about the processing of the images. Perhaps noise reduction could be such an item, but I would not like to have any automatic noise reduction.
    Gabor

  • 819 3G dual sim setup question

    Hi all,
    I´m trying to setup a dual sim 3G WAN connection and i have the following question.
    I have created the profile 1 for slot 0 and profile 2 for slot 1.
    My question is related to the chat-script.
    I have setup the connection using only one sim, but now i have to use both sim slots for failover.
    my chat script is --> chat-script hspa "" "AT!SCACT=1,1" TIMEOUT 60 "OK"
    My question is :
    To use the dual sim with 2 profiles how my chat-script will be ?
    The below chat script will work with the dual sim active with both profiles ?
    chat-script hspa "" "AT!SCACT=1" TIMEOUT 60 "OK"
    Thank you :)

    i want  the router to switch automatically when the signal is 2G (GSM) to the other SIM if its signal is (WCDMA)
    a) wcdma signal
    Radio power mode = ON
    Current Band = WCDMA 2100, Channel Number = 10612   <---------------- the required one
    Current RSSI = -74 dBm
    Band Selected = Auto
    Number of nearby cells = 1
    Cell 1
            Primary Scrambling Code = 0x14E
            RSCP = -78 dBm, ECIO = -9 dBm
      b) gsm signal
    Current Band = GSM 900, Channel Number = 61
    Current RSSI = -94 dBm
    Band Selected = Auto
    Number of nearby cells = 1
    Cell 1
            Primary Scrambling Code = 0x172
            RSCP = -105 dBm, ECIO = -6 dBm

  • [Other 865 Series] MSI 865PE Neo2-V and Dual Channel Mode Question

    Hello, I have a quick question regarding dual channel mode with my current motherboard. I have an MSI 865PE Neo2-V and am wondering if it is possible to enable dual channel mode while having three RAM modules inserted in the motherboard.
    For example, I currently have one 512MB PC3200 module in my computer. If I purchase another 512MB module and run them in dual channel mode, will it be possible to buy a 1GB module or another size module, and still have all three slots run in dual channel mode? Or is dual channel only operational on this motherboard if only two of the three slots are occupied?
    Thanks.

    Dual channel requires an even number of sticks.

  • Dual-band wireless question

    Hi again: I am new to this dual-band wireless stuff in TC having just replaced my AE with a new TC. I have a few questions regarding wireless setup.
    1. When selecting the "Radio Mode" you are presented with options like "802.11a/n - 802.11b/g". Does this setting mean that the primary wireless will be a/n wile the guest wireless will be restricted to b/g ?
    2. If you Option-click on the Radio-Mode pick list you can select multiple other settings. On of which is 802.11n (5 ghz) - 802.11a/b. Give question 1 does this restrict the main wireless to 5 ghz n only? (I highly doubt this as I can still connect to the "n network" with my iphone which only supports b/g.)
    3. Under "Wireless Options" you can select a "5 ghz" network. Is this different than the option detailed in Question 2?
    4. Finally, where can I find a manual for TC ?
    Thanks for the help, Chris.

    So is my assumption that the hyphen in the selection is the differentiation between the two networks?
    Also, when I activate the "5 ghz" setting under options I actually see three networks, "Network1 (5 Ghz), Network1, and Network2 in my naming system. Does this mean that Network1 (5 Ghz) in the N only while Network1 is a standard N (with backwards compatibility to b/g)? I think this is the case as my iPhone does connect to Network1 while Network1 (5 Ghz) is not detected.
    Thanks for the help, Chris.

  • LR2:DNG - PSCS3:'Smart Object' workflow question

    Hello, I've just started working with DNG files exported as Smart Object from LR2 to PSCS3 and I would appreciate some feedback on my experiences thus far.
    Let us assume that I've made basic corrections to _DSC1190.dng within LR2. I then want to apply a filter to a particular region of the DNG file with all of my LR2 adjustments applied.
    1. Here are the steps I currently follow:
    1.1. Right-click on the DNG file and select 'Edit In'->'Open as Smart Object in Photoshop...'. This results (I believe) in the DNG file with all of my LR2 changes being embedded within a smart object and the resulting temporary file being opened within PSCS3.
    1.2. I perform my edits in PSCS3 and save the file as a PSD (i.e. _DSC1190.psd). As long as I was smart about things, I can now go back at any time and alter any of the changes I made in PSCS3, as well as access the DNG file within the smart object to make and ACR changes I desire.
    1.3. If I want the new PSD file to be added to my LR2 catalog, I then need to navigate to where it was saved and manually add it.
    1.4. If I want to make any exposure adjustments, or really, any adjustments that I'd normally make within LR2 or ACR to _DSC1190.psd, I need to open the file within PSCS3, double click on the smart object to get the ACR dialog, make my changes, and voila!, the PSD composite now reflects those changes.
    1.5. If I make any changes within LR2 to the original DNG file (i.e. _DSC1190.dng), those changes are *not* reflected within the PSD file.
    1.6. Questions
    1.6.1. Is what I've described the expected behavior?
    1.6.2. Although it might seem silly to some, and may present a technical challenge not worth the trouble, it seems it would be beneficial to have the smart object exported from within LR2 to PSCS3, contain a link to the original DNG file, and not now have two separate DNG files, one visible to the file system, and the other embedded within the smart object saved as presumably a PSD. I'm sure there are a lot of corner cases to consider, but it just seems very strange to now have two files wherein if you want to change something you would normally do through LR2 or ACR, you now have to do it in two different programs to two different files. Is this a problem Adobe has considered, i.e. any discussion about supporting this perhaps in an update to LR2 along with PSCS3/4?
    Thanks much for any help/insight,
    Matt

    I haven't tried doing what you are in CS but do you have the embed xmp into file enabled or are you updating the xmp by saving it out of LR CTRL-s? Do you have ACR set to read the xmp data? I don't have access to LR at the moment but will have a play l8r and get back to you if no one else does.

  • Converting RGB to DNG without affecting color profiles

    Hi guys
    I'm working with the DNG SDK in C++ for some time now.  I need to be able to take a raw RGB (not camera raw) and convert it into a dng file.  After playing arond with it for a few days, I realized creating the camera profile drastically affects the resulting dng image.
    I can't seem to produce a dng file that was identical to the input source.  My picture appears very washed out and I end up using the adobe color profiler to try to bring the image back close to it's original color.
    I'm trying to find a way to produce dng files without the need to affect the colors in any way, the resulting picture should be bit identical to that of the raw RGB input file.
    I'm not even sure if I can do this considering the usage of the dng format.
    UPDATE
    I've realized that my program is loading the RGB buffer into the fData of the stage3 image object.  I have a feeling I need stages1 and 2 but i'm unsure if I need to and if so, then i will probaby need a source DNG to produce those stage1 and stage2 unless I can get stage1 or 2 from stage 3 (appears it works vice versa).
    I'm able to do the reverse (DNG to RGB raw) by extracting the buffer from the stage3 render.  but in this case, all the metadata has been filled in by the input DNG. However, going from RGB to DNG, I don't have the metadata to fill into stage 1 and 2.

    My understanding of the JPG is only middling. I thought I understood that it uses anchor pixels and either a translation table of some sort or difference mapping, using 8 bits per piece of information.
    If that were the case, surely changing the translation from CMYK to RGB would be fairly simple.
    In this case, the usage is Ebay and they only accept JPG, PNG (and maybe BMP and GIF, I didn't look that closely), but require RGB. I was actually quite surprised to find that JPG allows CMYK since, as you say, anyone dealing with CMYK is going to be dealing with commercial printing and few people who deal with commercial printing would play around with JPG.
    I always stick to TIFF or PSD for workflow, but JPG is popular for a reason - when it comes to web, JPG is the only format that can deliver manageable file sizes with full-screen or "large" images for web. Our top level banner photo is 2590x692 and needs to be under 400kb for sane download speeds. PNG couldn't touch that. Even with the aforementioned 1800x1200, PNG is nearly 2mb, while I can maintain very decent quality with a 500kb file with JPG that works well for 'zoom in' type usage.
    So there's no way around JPG. It's just annoying that the first person to touch a random selection of the pics was primarily an Illustrator user and saved *some* of the pics in CMYK mode.
    It's like that old story about the farmer who didn't want anyone to steal his watermelons, so he cleverly posted a sign "None of these watermelons are poisoned", only to find a note the next day saying "Now, One of these watermelons is...".
    Far more work to fix 'some' of the images compared to just doing it right the first time.
    But then again, for workers like that, if you can't trust them with an easy job, you could hardly trust them with more complicated jobs...

  • Line resets and stuck profiles (question not issue...

    One of the mods in their calls to me mentioned that they are happy to do some line resets for me but want to avoid them too often since this caused the DLM to get concerned over the line status. [I have no reason to doubt this statement]
    Now in my case what I sometimes could do with is getting a IP profile unstuck ie when it passed the point where it should have changed but has not and yes the BT system says that it did.
    Is this the same thing as a line reset (which one would think it shoudl not really be) and if not can anyone confirm that this does not anger the DLM?
    [the reason for asking is that normally my profile should go up within 24 hours at most which is bearable but recently it has stuck twice, ie BT says 1000 but speedtester and throughput showed 750].
    If my post was helpful then please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side If the the reply answers your question fully then please select ’Mark as Accepted Solution’

    To clarify, first the image is placed, then there is a rectangle over the image whose frame is slightly larger than the image frame, with transparent fill, and set the stroke to thick white with transparency lowered to induce the "reflection" sort of effect. Take a look at this screenshot: http://screencast.com/t/AYQDwx3g7w
    Hope this helps.
    Cheers
    Parikshit

Maybe you are looking for