Topic: Is anyone using an X-Rite ColorChecker Passport or something similar?

[Jeff Warden]

I've been developing color film for only a short while and I'm having some difficulty getting colors that look reasonable to me.  I have mild color blindness so that could be part of it of course, but it could be other issues as well.  My scans are usually pretty far off, and require significant adjustments.

The videos of this product make it look pretty straightforward to get the color very close, and then adjust to taste.

Does anyone have experiences to share?

Thanks,

Jeff

[Late Developer]

I use a "Spyder" which I really like.  My colour scans are all over the place, though - probably because I haven't got a clue what I'm doing....

[charles binns]

I too use a Spyder.  It is accurate and easy to use.

[Francois]

The color passport is something to use in addition to a screen calibration tool. But the bad thing is you have to include it in every photo for it to work. While it's great when you have a memory card with essentially infinite storage, on film it could be a limiting factor, especially if you don't shoot a full roll of the same shot like portraits.
What you probably need more is to calibrate your scanner using the proper software and some film IT8 targets.
Then all you have to do is go into Photoshop, click edit/assign profile and select the proper profile.
Then go to edit/convert profile and select a more common profile.

[Jeff Warden]

Thanks everybody.  And wow Francois those film it8 targets are very expensive!  I imagine they would quickly pay for themselves if used by a pro or if one has to scan a lot of color images though.  Color is tricky, and makes me want to place a big order for some Delta 400.

 

[Francois]

Those targets are indeed very expensive. But keep in mind that they are individually calibrated by hand and that they have a high rejection ratio.
Color management on computers can quickly turn to hell. But I find that a good calibrated screen is probably the easiest and most affordable part of the chain.
You can also calibrate the printer output. If I had a device that could do it I would but I now just wing it.

There should be an easy and cheap way to calibrate a scanner but there sadly isn't.

[jharr]

I've been developing color film for only a short while and I'm having some difficulty getting colors that look reasonable to me.

What is this "reasonable looking color" of which you speak?? 

With color film photography, I live by the the mantra "Embrace the shift." We must let the emulsion be free to express itself and accept that blue is green and red is purple and everything is yellow. Only then can you achieve true contentment.


La Jolla Shores by James Harr, on Flickr

[Indofunk]

I subscribe to the J Harr school of color management

[Francois]

I've come to that conclusion too.
For me it all begun when I decided I wouldn't shoot slides.
And if you've ever tried to wrap your head around color printing, you'll really understand why I often decide to let things go.

[Late Developer]

I've been developing color film for only a short while and I'm having some difficulty getting colors that look reasonable to me.  I have mild color blindness so that could be part of it of course, but it could be other issues as well.  My scans are usually pretty far off, and require significant adjustments.

The videos of this product make it look pretty straightforward to get the color very close, and then adjust to taste.

Does anyone have experiences to share?

Thanks,

Jeff

Jeff,

I went to the Camera World camera fair in London yesterday - not for kit, but to meet a good friend and former colleague who retired earlier this year and has developed a keen interest in photography.  While there, I bumped into a very nice and very informative chap who is a representative for Datacolor (one of the exhibitors).  I use their previous iteration of the Spyder (4) to calibrate my Mac and it does a VERY good job.  However, I'm considering buying a printer and, if I'm honest, I can't understand how anyone can work without a piece of kit that gets the screen and printer in sync. The link below is to the latest kit they produce and it looks pretty simple to use from the demo I had.  It's not cheap, though....

James and Satish produce some lovely photos and I don't have any problem at all with colours on my photos not being 100% true-to-life, so long as how they end up is how I decided.  I have enough geekery inside me to want need the base point from which I start my processing to be "neutral" and ensure that whatever I print (or have printed) to be as exact a copy of what I put on screen as can be achieved.  My logic goes that I'm the photographer, I spend good money on my kit and film. My interpretation of my photos is, therefore, what matters to me and it's a total waste of time, effort and money to have the end result not be what I'm trying to achieve because cheapo-snaps (or I) can't be arsed to calibrate the printer and ensure that the end result is as planned.

That might come across as a bit severe and obsessional but, although I'm not technologically "gifted", I am at a point where I care about the end result and loathe that feeling when I pick up prints which are a let-down because there's some sort of unexpected and unwanted colour cast.  I even had this with some black and whites I had printed a couple of years ago which had a slight (but noticeable) green tinge to them.  The lab tech couldn't see it (in their icky fluorescent strip-lit shop) but I had some other prints with me which I knew to be "right" and in daylight, they had to concede the prints they'd done weren't just shades of grey.

If you're looking for something that will produce a baseline from which to print faithfully - or to go down the creative route, this would be my starting point but the x-ryte is probably just as good - though I've never used it.

http://spyder.datacolor.com/

[BernardL]

But the bad thing is you have to include it in every photo for it to work.

?? Once per film is enough. At least if you accept that changes in light (morning/noon/dusk) are part of the picture and won't be calibrated out, just like when shooting slides.

What you probably need more is to calibrate your scanner using the proper software and some film IT8 targets.

yes !

And wow Francois those film it8 targets are very expensive!

Have you checked the Wolf Faust targets? An A4-sized, IT8 reflective target with calibration data is 30€/30$. An X-rite color checker costs north of 80€, and has only 24 patches, too few to establish a profile. Spyder Capture Pro is $350-400 (but then you have everything bundled  in a nice little case).

Screen calibration is a distinct issue. Important if you want to do interpretive modifications. But getting colors objectively correct is, IMHO, a first step.

What I do is shoot ONE frame per film with the Wolf Faust IT8; use Argyll to produce a profile that calibrates the combination of film and scanner. Scan raw, and apply the profile after. Correct colors without any guesswork.  Details matter, too many to write up here.

[MacArron]

What I do is shoot ONE frame per film with the Wolf Faust IT8; use Argyll to produce a profile that calibrates the combination of film and scanner. Scan raw, and apply the profile after. Correct colors without any guesswork.  Details matter, too many to write up here.

Mmm. Good point. I will try this next time. It seems an easy solution for scanning calibration purposes, and it is inexpensive (just one slide/negative shoot and the chart)

Thank you.

[Francois]

I haven't che per the latest brew from datacolor but I know that the color munki does both screen and printer calibration.

[02Pilot]

I thought about going down this rabbit hole when I started printing, but I decided against it. My approach, which is certainly unscientific and inefficient, is to simply run small proof prints when I want to do color. I have color profiles for the screen and the printer/paper. Thus far I've had no problems, and rarely (if ever) have the proofs been off from the screen colors enough for me to care. Most of my printing is B&W anyway, for which I use greyscale to avoid casts (which are a real pain).

[jharr]

James and Satish produce some lovely photos and I don't have any problem at all with colours on my photos not being 100% true-to-life, so long as how they end up is how I decided.

Thank you LD. I understand your need for creative control and it certainly works for you and the others who employ these measures. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but just wanted to give an alternative perspective. I spend countless hours in my work-a-day life checking and double-checking "the data". I write programs and algorithms to verify that other programs and algorithms are absolutely accurate. Frankly, when I come to my creative endeavors, I enjoy some unpredictability. I like being surprised (usually). I will say that my 'shifty' colors are absolutely dependent upon your 'correct' colors since, if all colors photos were 'shifty', then none of them would be. So a big thank you goes out to all of my photo-techno-geek friends out there who make awesome art with accurate colors. I have no plans really to join you, but I do appreciate you from afar.

[Francois]

What I do is shoot ONE frame per film with the Wolf Faust IT8; use Argyll to produce a profile that calibrates the combination of film and scanner. Scan raw, and apply the profile after. Correct colors without any guesswork.  Details matter, too many to write up here.

Not a bad idea. In a sense you profile both the film and the scanner at the same time.
The only annoyance is that you have to do it for every roll of the same type.
But comes a point where you can have a collection of film profiles that combine everything so you don't need to shoot the target everytime...

[Jeff Warden]

It's so nice to get feedback from people whose work you admire.  I really appreciate all the detailed comments here.