«

I am interested in how good current digital cameras are as regards
color fidelity. I think the image examples of different cameras which
are to be found on enthousiasts' Web sites are poorly thought out. For
example, one might see various versions of the same landscape or a
face. What is the point of that without the original face illuminated
by the same light to compare the reproductions to? What are they
thinking of?

I propose the following experiment. Take a picture of the cover of this
week's Time magazine in color corrected light and put the file online
for downloading. The downloader prints the file at the default setting,
without "correcting" the colors, on high quality glossy photo paper
using a good quality printer in good working order. She then compares
the print to HER copy of that issue of Time magazine, viewing the print
and the magazine with color corrected light.

Different folks with different digital cameras could post their images
of the cover of the same issue of a popular magazine. If effected, this
test would be a great help in choosing a camera.
by demonstrating comparative color fidelity among the various models.
Time and Newsweek often have color photos on their cover. Perhaps there
is some popular magazine with the same cover every week and which
features a useful variety of colors, but I can't think of any.

Thanks in advance for your consideration of my proposal.

Mike Eisenstadt
Austin, Texas

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I am interested in how good current digital cameras are as regards
> color fidelity. I think the image examples of different cameras which
> are to be found on enthousiasts' Web sites are poorly thought out. For
> example, one might see various versions of the same landscape or a
> face. What is the point of that without the original face illuminated
> by the same light to compare the reproductions to? What are they
> thinking of?
>
> I propose the following experiment. Take a picture of the cover of this
> week's Time magazine in color corrected light and put the file online
> for downloading. The downloader prints the file at the default setting,
> without "correcting" the colors, on high quality glossy photo paper
> using a good quality printer in good working order. She then compares
> the print to HER copy of that issue of Time magazine, viewing the print
> and the magazine with color corrected light.
>
> Different folks with different digital cameras could post their images
> of the cover of the same issue of a popular magazine. If effected, this
> test would be a great help in choosing a camera.
> by demonstrating comparative color fidelity among the various models.
> Time and Newsweek often have color photos on their cover. Perhaps there
> is some popular magazine with the same cover every week and which
> features a useful variety of colors, but I can't think of any.

What makes you think that the cover of a magazine can act as a standard?
Kodak, and others, offer standards for tests such as these (but they ain't
cheap).

Not trying to trash your idea, by the way, as it is an important issue.

Charles Schuler wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>
>>I am interested in how good current digital cameras are as regards
>>color fidelity. I think the image examples of different cameras which
>>are to be found on enthousiasts' Web sites are poorly thought out. For
>>example, one might see various versions of the same landscape or a
>>face. What is the point of that without the original face illuminated
>>by the same light to compare the reproductions to? What are they
>>thinking of?
>>
>>I propose the following experiment. Take a picture of the cover of this
>>week's Time magazine in color corrected light and put the file online
>>for downloading. The downloader prints the file at the default setting,
>>without "correcting" the colors, on high quality glossy photo paper
>>using a good quality printer in good working order. She then compares
>>the print to HER copy of that issue of Time magazine, viewing the print
>>and the magazine with color corrected light.
>>
>>Different folks with different digital cameras could post their images
>>of the cover of the same issue of a popular magazine. If effected, this
>>test would be a great help in choosing a camera.
>>by demonstrating comparative color fidelity among the various models.
>>Time and Newsweek often have color photos on their cover. Perhaps there
>>is some popular magazine with the same cover every week and which
>>features a useful variety of colors, but I can't think of any.
>
>
> What makes you think that the cover of a magazine can act as a standard?
> Kodak, and others, offer standards for tests such as these (but they ain't
> cheap).
>
> Not trying to trash your idea, by the way, as it is an important issue.
>
>

Even in a camera such as the Canon 20D, color fidelity with the auto
white balance is problematic. I have been using Rawshooter to select an
appropriate color temperature for critical shots. This software also
allows one to apply the same settings to multiple photos. You can
download an eval at http://www.pixmantec.com/

Aside from online viewing, various color printers will handle your
camera file differently. White House Custom Color, a digital photography
service, assists the photographer in getting consistent print output. Go
to www.whcc.com for info. Dry Creek Photo has information on getting
good results with various commercial print machines including the Fuji
Frontier, used by Wal-Mart photo departments.

I don't work for these companies but have found their information useful.

Chip Gallo
www.flickr.com/photos/chipgallo

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I am interested in how good current digital cameras are as regards
> color fidelity. I think the image examples of different cameras which
> are to be found on enthousiasts' Web sites are poorly thought out. For
> example, one might see various versions of the same landscape or a
> face. What is the point of that without the original face illuminated
> by the same light to compare the reproductions to? What are they
> thinking of?

There are online comparisons that include standard color charts.

> I propose the following experiment. Take a picture of the cover of this
> week's Time magazine in color corrected light and put the file online
> for downloading.

The magazine is printed at many different locations all over the country at
the same time, so it can appear different. Further, fidelity can change
during a run. And how do you expect the novice to know if his lighting is
color corrected, or even what color the daylight might be?

wrote:
> I am interested in how good current digital cameras are as regards
> color fidelity. I think the image examples of different cameras which
> are to be found on enthousiasts' Web sites are poorly thought out. For
> example, one might see various versions of the same landscape or a
> face. What is the point of that without the original face illuminated
> by the same light to compare the reproductions to? What are they
> thinking of?
>
> I propose the following experiment. Take a picture of the cover of this
> week's Time magazine in color corrected light and put the file online
> for downloading. The downloader prints the file at the default setting,
> without "correcting" the colors, on high quality glossy photo paper
> using a good quality printer in good working order. She then compares
> the print to HER copy of that issue of Time magazine, viewing the print
> and the magazine with color corrected light.
>
> Different folks with different digital cameras could post their images
> of the cover of the same issue of a popular magazine. If effected, this
> test would be a great help in choosing a camera.
> by demonstrating comparative color fidelity among the various models.
> Time and Newsweek often have color photos on their cover. Perhaps there
> is some popular magazine with the same cover every week and which
> features a useful variety of colors, but I can't think of any.

The problem is that most cameras are way more accurate then most
printers.

Scott

Why do you need a standard? The notion is to compare the color
fidelity of a reproduction of something to the colors of the original
it is a reproduction of. The quality, good or bad, of the original
photo or how it appears on the cover is besides the point.

I recommended using the cover of a popular magazine so that anyone
almost anywhere can procure a copy of it with the same colors as
everyone else's copy to compare to her printout of the image taken by
this or that camera. I assume that the covers are probably printed in
one run on the same presses so every copy's color values should be more
or less identical.

Mike Eisenstadt
Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas

On 18 Jan 2006 13:07:49 -0800, wrote:

>I am interested in how good current digital cameras are as regards
>color fidelity. I think the image examples of different cameras which
>are to be found on enthousiasts' Web sites are poorly thought out. For
>example, one might see various versions of the same landscape or a
>face. What is the point of that without the original face illuminated
>by the same light to compare the reproductions to? What are they
>thinking of?

Just photograph nothing but Gretagmacbeth color checkers.

http://www.gretagmacbeth.com/index/p...checker-dc.htm

http://www.gretagmacbeth.com/index/p...lorchecker.htm

You do know what color management is and who to do it, don't you?


************************************************** **

"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."

Samuel Johnson
"Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756

> The problem is that most cameras are way more accurate then most
> printers.

And I'll add that some recent printers, which try to "help" us with features
such as "photo enhance" only make matters worse. I am specifically
referring to an Epson R300, by the way. A good printer, for the price, but
"photo enhance" sucks.

On 18 Jan 2006 14:02:36 -0800, wrote:

>Why do you need a standard? The notion is to compare the color
>fidelity of a reproduction of something to the colors of the original
>it is a reproduction of. The quality, good or bad, of the original
>photo or how it appears on the cover is besides the point.
>
>I recommended using the cover of a popular magazine so that anyone
>almost anywhere can procure a copy of it with the same colors as
>everyone else's copy to compare to her printout of the image taken by
>this or that camera. I assume that the covers are probably printed in
>one run on the same presses so every copy's color values should be more
>or less identical.

Anyone any where can buy a correct color swatch chart.

Print colors will vary during the course of a run.


************************************************** **

"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."

Samuel Johnson
"Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:04:31 -0500, "Charles Schuler"
<> wrote:

>
>> The problem is that most cameras are way more accurate then most
>> printers.
>
>And I'll add that some recent printers, which try to "help" us with features
>such as "photo enhance" only make matters worse. I am specifically
>referring to an Epson R300, by the way. A good printer, for the price, but
>"photo enhance" sucks.
>

If you are color managing your work flow that's not an issue as you
cut off the print management.


************************************************** **

"The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."

Samuel Johnson
"Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756