FAQ: Colour Profiles and You

Here are summaries and links to discussions for Frequently Asked Questions.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

rjlittlefield wrote:[Harold, the piece you need to know here is that the "color profiles" are tables that essentially specify how to turn pixel values in the image file into pixel values for a specific output device. Strictly speaking, two profiles are required to complete the transformation: the one for the file turns image file pixel values into some standard scale, and a second for the device turns standard scale values into whatever that device needs.

Anyway, because the tables specify how to turn one value into another, they can incorporate all the aspects that we usually describe as "color balance", "contrast", and "brightness", as well as others that have no film analogs, and still more that I don't believe have common names at all.
And to think that with (reversal) film all I have to do is select a stock with an appropriate contrast (one works for most situations ), perhaps use an appropriate filter, and get the exposure right and it comes out OK. I am missing out on so many hours of fun! :)

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Harold Gough wrote:And to think that with (reversal) film all I have to do is select a stock with an appropriate contrast (one works for most situations ), perhaps use an appropriate filter, and get the exposure right and it comes out OK.
That same approach works with digital too. The funny thing about digital is that because there are so many knobs that can be twisted, it's easy to get pulled into actually twisting them. In the wet darkroom, I greatly preferred working in B/W because it was easier to control. Sometimes limitations can be enabling!

--Rik

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

You also had to use colour filters in the enlarger when printing Harold, even if printing slides, so just as complicated..

DaveW

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

I never got on with slide film. Its not the film itself, I was strangely drawn to it, but the trouble is I wanted to see pictures, even if it was only me tthat was interested in seeing photographs of 'trees and bugs'. With slide film you needed a good viewer or a projector,or money to pay to have them printed, and I could never afford that! From my lifes experience in photography I have 3 boxes of slides, and one of them, the latest one, has photos that have never been viewed! Such a waste! Oh what might be in that box waiting to be seen!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

Cyclops wrote:I never got on with slide film. Its not the film itself, I was strangely drawn to it, but the trouble is I wanted to see pictures, even if it was only me tthat was interested in seeing photographs of 'trees and bugs'. With slide film you needed a good viewer or a projector,or money to pay to have them printed, and I could never afford that! From my lifes experience in photography I have 3 boxes of slides, and one of them, the latest one, has photos that have never been viewed! Such a waste! Oh what might be in that box waiting to be seen!
It must be years since I projected any of mine. Mostly I use a light box (need not be high quality, I obtained a proper one only after decades of photography) and a plastic "loupe".

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

DaveW wrote:You also had to use colour filters in the enlarger when printing Harold, even if printing slides, so just as complicated..
I never got into that with colour, considering the bulk of prints to be a significant storage problem. On the rare occasions when I wanted a large print for display I got a quality lab to do it. I can't remember ever purchasing a colour print film.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

I don't know if you have digitally scanned your slides or put any on the Web Harold, but if you do you will have the same colour profile issues anybody taking them digitally originally had, plus nowadays with book or magazine publishing using slides the same applies. Only if you take or print onto silver based materials does digital reproduction not creep in these days.

Often if you use a picture agency they now want stuff transmitting to them electronically over the web, or on CD. Afraid film and silver based printing is becoming even more of a tiny niche market every year and few film cameras are now being produced. Nikon's F6 is likely to be the last Pro film camera they ever produce.

People always start off with good intentions when changing to digital of digitising all those old boxes of slides and negatives under the bed. Then do at most 50 or so and give up because it is too much trouble and the copies are seldom as good, then forget them and just concentrate on taking digital originals. Therefore unless most of them are transferred to CD before the person dies they will all go into the skip (dumpster) as unusable by coming generations, even family pictures unless they were printed out at the time.

Slides fade over time and the only truly archival slide film Kodachrome has now been killed off since the market is not large enough for it to be commercially viable. I wonder how many more films will follow it in the next few years?

DaveW

Cyclops
Posts: 3084
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: North East of England
Contact:

Post by Cyclops »

I feel bad for hijacking this thread here but I'm enjoying this discussion!
I did a bit of printing at college 2002-2004 (A/S level photography course) and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was B/W of course but it was such fun! Never went near colour though, it looked incredibly difficult-a bit headache inducing- but my experience with making my own prints, one of which iwas featured in a calendar competition, was enligtening!
Canon 5D and 30D | Canon IXUS 265HS | Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro | EF 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM III | EF 50 f1.8 II | Slik 88 tripod | Apex Practicioner monocular microscope

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

DaveW wrote:I don't know if you have digitally scanned your slides or put any on the Web Harold, but if you do you will have the same colour profile issues anybody taking them digitally originally had, plus nowadays with book or magazine publishing using slides the same applies. Only if you take or print onto silver based materials does digital reproduction not creep in these days.
I have the scanner and Photoshop and Elements but neither the time or much inclination to get going wiith it. (Ahead of that is getting back to electric guitar playing with the dream amplifierI obtained a couple of months ago).
DaveW wrote:Slides fade over time and the only truly archival slide film Kodachrome has now been killed off since the market is not large
True in the last century but no longer, to any noticeable extent, the case. E6 films now having dyes which are much more stable .

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

DaveW
Posts: 1702
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:29 am
Location: Nottingham, UK

Post by DaveW »

"True in the last century but no longer, to any noticeable extent, the case. E6 films now having dyes which are much more stable.

That's what the makers tell you Harold, you can't be certain as we are probably too old now to be around to see if that's true in 40 years or so! :D

Kodachrome was around long enough to prove it. Don't forget to get any remaining stocks developed before end of 2010 though:-

"Many Kodak and independent laboratories once processed Kodachrome, but only one Kodak certified facility remains: Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas, where existing film stock will be developed until the end of 2010."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

DaveW

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic