On 9 Nov 2008 01:04:12 GMT, Jurgen wrote:
….
I have long used black and white to obtain a correct color balance. As far back as 1982 when I set up a video color assesment system to color balance for Cibachrome prints I’ve used the concept of "black balance" (also white) as a primary source for starting accurate color balance.
We may be speaking in different contexts here. Margulis’s "color by the numbers is not a reference to calibration. It is a concept that is very distinct from calibration, though calibration has its place in supporting the relatively small number of subjective adjustments that are also required for good color.
"Color by the numbers" starts with a particular image, of more or less unknown vintage, and improves the colors systematically based on the numeric color values, and what is known about the objects in the image. Everything relates to actual photographs, and improving their appearance. No color chart is ever photographed and measured. A profile is never the central concern about an image’s color quality, but always secondary to the numeric values of the colors in the final image.
In this context, shadow, highlight, and neutral refer to objects or areas in the image that are known not to contain color. Furthermore, shadow and highlight, when present in an image, are colorless areas that we want to be as dark or bright as possible, yet contain significant detail
Black and white points refer, often, to calibrated areas of maximum light and dark, and is distinct from color correction.
I have never read anything from the author you mention but color by numbers is a well documented method of color assesment being re-birthed now that most photo editing is done with computers. In my opinion digital assesment still falls short of analogue but that is only my opinion.
Fair enough. I stuck with film for a relatively long time as well. By analog do you mean analog video, film, or both?
What I read in your post was your (seemingly) total disregard for needing a correct profile for a monitor in order for color managed programs like Photoshop to work with. They need a working space. That working space needs to be correct or the purpose of using a color managed program is lost.
What you were picking up on was my objection to bragging about equipment, and particularly the attitude that excellent color is not possible without expensive, fully calibrated equipment. This is not so.
There is little point in creating an ICC or ICM profile for a monochrome monitor if obtaining correct color balance is as easy as you make it out to be.
Not sure I parse that – color can be corrected on a monochrome monitor by careful reading and interpretation of color values. This is a stunt, sure, but it demonstrates the importance of knowledge over equipment.
Once, when someone suggested that turning off color management in PS may help obtain more correctly balanced prints from an uncalibrated monitor, you were quite forceful in pushing your opinion that such advise was wrong and the person concerned would be better off getting a decent monitor and having it profiled.
I started off being very skeptical and cautious about monitor profiling, and have softened my stance since then. I now have two sets of recommendations for people who want to match their monitor and print. For single person setups, I think manual calibration saves money, and gives a person a sense of control over the behavior of their equipment. For people who do not want to tackle that issue, otherwise view it as an obstacle, I do recommend calibrating with one of the devices commonly available. I also recommend calibrating where multiple monitors are used in a workplace or classroom. Both groups of people are equally capable of getting excellent color. Is this inconsistent? I don’t think so.
Your statement now would seem to contridict your stance of a few years ago. Curvemeister – like PS itself, will not produce color corect results if Photoshop’s workspace is not tied to a profile that renders color correct images. Follow that on and cheap (as in under 750:1 contrast ratio – non dynamic measurement) LCD screens will not allow that to happen any more than an aging CRT screen with compressed dynamic range will.
Recognizing that your tone is very different from earlier contributors to this thread, I respectfully disagree with this. It is possible to set an accurate shadow, highlight, and neutral from the info palette, and to use almost any monitor to judge the overall brightness and detail of an image. Those five things cover the vast majority of the corrections that may be made to an image.
Put simply, consumer class monitors are an extremely poor choice for a photographer who has already invested considerably in camera gear and software.
We may differ on the definition of consumer class. A monitor costing $800 dollars, plus the calibration equipment necessary to maintain it, is overkill for most people, better spent on additional equipment.
Seriously Mike, Can you offer any sensible reason for buying $2000 worth of computer and software to edit photos from (usually) equal cost cameras and putting up with pretty much any monitor they give you? If someone can afford to spend $4000 on their hobby, what will an extra 20% to get the whole system right really matter?
It will matter as much as 800 dollars matters, and this is an individual judgment. It’s enough money that most of us will rightly weigh that expense against other equipment and software.
Look, we can do things with our images, using curves and other tools, that Ansel Adams and his contemporaries could only dream about, assuming they could conceive of it. Edward Weston hated the long hours he spent in the darkroom, and he complained bitterly about having to retouch his negatives. Imaging how happy he would be, sitting on his sunny porch near Pt Lobos, using the clone tool in Photoshop!
Moving a mouse half a centimeter can replace the work of an hour or more in the darkroom. From this, it should be evident that even those of us with cheap monitors have far more control over our images than was possible with film technology 50 years ago. Therefore, when we compare our images to the great ones from long ago, and find our images lacking, what we lack is knowledge and technique, not equipment.
For the vast majority of the people reading this, is that you can make a larger leap in color quality by learning more, and gaining an understanding of "color by the numbers", than by buying more equipment, and other equipment to calibrate it. Invest 50 dollars purchasing a good book on color correction, or to take an online class, than to spend a penny on a better monitor.
Once you have obtained enough of that knowledge to realize that your equipment is limiting your results, dig out the 800 dollars and spend it where it will help the most – It may well be that you spend it on a new lens. tripod, or camera, and not a monitor.
—
Mike Russell –
http://www.curvemeister.com 
