Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-30-2019, 04:43 AM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,921
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Out of interest, have you used any raw processor that was able to give you the same colours and tone curve as PDCU?
Yes, Silkypix gives me the exact Pentax colors, but not Rawtherapee.

01-30-2019, 04:50 AM   #32
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 11,899
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Yes, Silkypix gives me the exact Pentax colors, but not Rawtherapee.
I guess that makes sense in that PDCU is based on Silkypix. But I'm assuming you haven't had the exact Pentax colours (by which we mean the same colours that the in-camera JPEG engine produces) in any other software?
01-30-2019, 05:00 AM   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,921
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I guess that makes sense in that PDCU is based on Silkypix. But I'm assuming you haven't had the exact Pentax colours (by which we mean the same colours that the in-camera JPEG engine produces) in any other software?
I tried Afinity, DXO, LR, Rawtherapee, Silkypix, PDCU, compared with OOC JPEGs. DXO, LR, Silkypix and PDCU delivered the same color base to start with, with rawtheparee I was never able to get the same, close but not the same as my Pentax JPEG reference, and I was not happy with the magenta cast of rawtherapee (if I remember correctly, I made this comparison about a year ago).
01-30-2019, 05:24 AM   #34
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 11,899
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
with rawtheparee I was never able to get the same, close but not the same as my Pentax JPEG reference, and I was not happy with the magenta cast of rawtherapee (if I remember correctly, I made this comparison about a year ago).
It might be worth trying the latest version of RawTherapee with the latest dcraw profiles. The magenta cast is most often a problem with the dcraw profile, rather than a problem with the application.

Just a thought... I know this results in a less efficient workflow, but if you're only doing microcontrast adjustments on a small number of individual images, you could do your main raw conversion in PDCU, export as a full size TIFF, load that TIFF into RawTherapee (or something else) and adjust microcontrast at that point, before exporting to final JPEG. A little long-winded, but it'll give you the result you're looking for.

01-30-2019, 06:19 AM - 1 Like   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,921
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Just a thought... I know this results in a less efficient workflow, but if you're only doing microcontrast adjustments on a small number of individual images, you could do your main raw conversion in PDCU, export as a full size TIFF, load that TIFF into RawTherapee (or something else) and adjust microcontrast at that point, before exporting to final JPEG. A little long-winded, but it'll give you the result you're looking for.
Correct. That a good idea of a working solution. Thanks for the insight.
01-30-2019, 07:00 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Don't be embarassed. I have lightbulb moments all the time in every aspect of photography and post-processing... often with something I've been doing for months or even years

So, assuming the dcraw profile for your camera exists and has been accurately produced, auto match tone curve will look at the embedded JPEG image within the raw file and adjust the tone curve to achieve a surprisingly accurate recreation. It's pretty awesome, actually, and something I wish Darktable had...
A little embarrassed. Not suddenly appearing in my underwear at work embarrassed.

I've never thought much about the OOC JPEGs, typcially I'm not processing like biz-engineer and actively trying to match the camera's JPG engine. I rarely shoot RAW+, just occasionally when I'm traveleing and might want to share some pictures but won't have access to processing software. So it doesn't/didn't really occur to me to use that as a benchmark. Sometimes I'll use a PP3 like Squirrel Mafia's that used Auto matched tone curves, but sometimes I don't like the look or just want my own tone curve based on the exposure.
01-30-2019, 07:09 AM   #37
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 11,899
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Not suddenly appearing in my underwear at work embarrassed.
I hate it when that happens!

QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I've never thought much about the OOC JPEGs, typcially I'm not processing like biz-engineer and actively trying to match the camera's JPG engine. I rarely shoot RAW+, just occasionally when I'm traveleing and might want to share some pictures but won't have access to processing software. So it doesn't/didn't really occur to me to use that as a benchmark. Sometimes I'll use a PP3 like Squirrel Mafia's that used Auto matched tone curves, but sometimes I don't like the look or just want my own tone curve based on the exposure.
I went through a few different phases with colour and tone matching. Initially, I wanted to make the colours and tone curve close to what the camera would produce in JPEG. Then, for a while, I looked to normalise the output from all of my different cameras to colour chart accuracy, at least as a starting point for further processing. And there's good sense for doing that where product photography is concerned. Now, I'm less concerned about that. As long as the colours and tone curve look OK by default when I import photos into my raw converter, I'm happy to work with that.

Having said that, I do like the auto match tone curve feature in RawTherapee very much. It seems to do a good job of matching to the embedded JPEG...
01-30-2019, 09:00 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 344
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
So, assuming the dcraw profile for your camera exists and has been accurately produced, auto match tone curve will look at the embedded JPEG image within the raw file and adjust the tone curve to achieve a surprisingly accurate recreation. It's pretty awesome, actually, and something I wish Darktable had...
It should be using the Pentax embedded profile when using DNG not the dcraw profile and the "Camera standard" setting under color management. Hover checkbutton to see a tooltip. Knowing for sure which of the options is active is a bit of a mystery though...

Even with those settings I find that the exposure and white balance is not quite the same. But with those sorted the exported raw colours are very similar to the jpegs on the K-3.

01-31-2019, 08:19 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,921
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I've never thought much about the OOC JPEGs, typcially I'm not processing like biz-engineer and actively trying to match the camera's JPG engine
If you have no reference, how do you know your colors are right? Judging with own eyes looking at the display?
01-31-2019, 09:17 AM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
If you have no reference, how do you know your colors are right? Judging with own eyes looking at the display?
Yes. If it looks good to me I run with it.
01-31-2019, 09:49 AM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,921
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Yes. If it looks good to me I run with it.
I see. The problem for me is that I'm not very good at evaluating colors just by looking, I'm not good enough, I need a baseline to start with.
01-31-2019, 10:23 AM   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I see. The problem for me is that I'm not very good at evaluating colors just by looking, I'm not good enough, I need a baseline to start with.
It helps that there are no real consequences if I don't get the colors "right". Most of the time no one outside of my family and friends see my photos. Even when I share here, it's viewed on monitors that are calibrated who knows how accurately or not at all.

It might be different if I was photographing things to get paid.
01-31-2019, 01:04 PM   #43
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 11,899
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
If you have no reference, how do you know your colors are right? Judging with own eyes looking at the display?
The thing is, Pentax JPEG colours aren't exactly "right"... There's a sort of signature Pentax JPEG colour look (rather a nice one, admittedly), and the same can be said for each of the other manufacturers too. But in-camera JPEG output is rarely - if ever - a particularly accurate representation of what we saw. It tends to be aimed more towards creating an overall pleasing look. As a result, straight-out-of-camera JPEGs aren't a good choice if using them for professional product photography, as colours will be (often a lot more than) slightly skewed.

If we want the colours to be more accurate, we need (ideally dual-illuminant) profiles that match to recognised colour charts. I went down that route for a while, creating dual-illuminant profiles for each of my cameras, such that photos from every one of them were more-or-less colour accurate when those profiles were used. The approach works... but after a while, I became more enamoured with the profiles offered by the various raw converters. They may not reproduce the same results as the in-camera JPEG engine, and they still might not be completely accurate, but they're as individual as, say, a specific film stock.

If I should ever need accurate colour, though, I'd go straight back to using dual-illuminant profiles.

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-31-2019 at 01:40 PM.
01-31-2019, 01:24 PM   #44
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,917
I can't imagine even caring about accurate colour except in maybe catalogue work where people may be choosing things to go with other things they already own. Hold the jacket up beside the image....is it the same colour? Photograph a colour chart in the corner of your images. Hold the image up beside the colour chart, adjust to get it as close as possible.
01-31-2019, 01:39 PM   #45
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 11,899
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I can't imagine even caring about accurate colour except in maybe catalogue work where people may be choosing things to go with other things they already own.
It's definitely important for product photography - catalogues, advertising, online product configuration choices, fine art reproduction etc...

Imagine selecting the colour for your new car then finding it's a completely different shade upon delivery?

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Hold the jacket up beside the image....is it the same colour? Photograph a colour chart in the corner of your images. Hold the image up beside the colour chart, adjust to get it as close as possible.
That's a nice idea, but adjusting each colour typically alters other related colours (e.g. adjust blues, and your purples change... tweak the purples, and now your pinks look wrong).

When I set out to emulate the K10D's colour reproduction in Lightroom using K-3 raw files, I started with the primary red, green and blue channels - which got me in the ball park - then went on to adjust each colour individually. It took me many, many attempts and revisions to get it close, and even then it wasn't 100% accurate. In truth, 100% accuracy wasn't my goal and didn't matter in that application, but I mention it as an example of how difficult it is to achieve reasonable colour accuracy when adjustment of each colour affects the others.

For general photography, I don't believe it's important, and that's why I don't use chart-matched colour profiles any more. But there are applications where it can matter...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
car, contrast, image, increase, noise, photographs, photography, photoshop, post, product, reds, shadows, yesterday
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Odd that the KP is not on the Global website ramseybuckeye Pentax KP 4 01-25-2017 09:13 PM
Micro Contrast and Corner Sharpness difference between 645 35mm A 3.5 MF and HD Joa Pentax Medium Format 10 05-02-2016 05:58 AM
Enthusiast vs Prosumer vs Semi Pro vs Pro vs APSC vs Full Frame mickyd Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-12-2013 07:14 PM
How to test micro contrast? striker_ Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 09-22-2013 04:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top