>X-Rite colorchecker
WHY IS THIS THING SO FUCKING OVERPRICED?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:09:15 14:56:38 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 325 Image Height 245
ACCURATE COLOURS, LOTS OF THEM.
>>2851056
because idiots are told from birth
>you get what you pay for
So they think a $100 printed sheet of colors is somehow 10x better than a $10 sheet of the exact same colors.
>>2851077
>$10 sheet of the exact same colors.
where do I get one?
You're mostly paying for the software that comes with it.
>>2851079
but I already have lightroom, do I really need their software? isn't there a cheaper alternative that does the same?
>>2851056
pulling in the rubes. there are more accurate in the price range and there are cheaper that are close enough to correct before your shitty cyan/orange grade
>>2851056
>there are people buying these that don't hit white balance or match color temp of their light sources
>>2851096
like? name them or send link
That's spooky, I was just about to ask about these. There's a cheap CameraTrax one on Amazon which is the ideal size for ultra mobile shooting in the mountains, most of the reviews are good but one is very negative. I'm not sure if he's a shill for X-rite (it seems odd that someone who'd legitimately buy the X-rite one first would buy this), any thoughts? I just had a hard time quickly balancing my shots on and off the glacier and this seems like a good option but I can't go much larger than pocket sized.
>>2851083
The software it comes with is a plugin for lightroom
>>2851116
surely that ain't worth all that money? are there cheaper alternatives?
>>2851056
all you really need is a grey card.
>>2851567
not really, as the corrections needed aren't perfectly linear.
Or you could go buy a little watercolor paint set. They might not be truly calibrated, but they are made from almost universal pigments, and therefore very reproducable and relatively pure in the primary colours.
>>2851590
yeah but reflections mate. you don't want any light to pollute the colors.
>>2851542
Photoshop used to cost $800. $99 is nothing for professional software
>>2851772
that piece of software does nothing
>>2851816
Nothing? The whole reason you buy one of these is to use the included software to calibrate your camera.
Several months ago I redid the bigger Colorchecker to print it yourself. The colors are accurate and were checked against several sources.
You can download the image here:
http://ran.2hu.moe/adqptr.tif
The color space is Adobe RGB. All of the colors fit within the gamut of sRGB and are realistically printable.
I strongly suggest to find a printer who has his hardware profiled so the print ends up accurate. Print on glossy thick paper.
>>2851879
but what good is it without the software?
no good is the answer. no good.
>>2851887
Get Davinci Resolve you goof. The chart and it's other versions have been used for decades without software. If you can't check your balance without software you might as well stop doing any photo work.
>>2851056
Them being so expensive is actually great: stops all the people who don't need it from buying one.
>>2851906
Lol wut
>>2851906
>being this much of a cocksucker
kill yourself
>>2851924
It's 2016, it is perfectly acceptable to enjoy the blushing sensation of a man's hot steaming load erupting down the back of your throat and out of your nose as your eyes water and your boipussy begs for more.
so basically, there is no alternative that does the same? is that what this thread is saying? printing it yourself is not gonna get your a reliable result, so that's out of the question.
you can get one cheap by buying second hand from pre press bureaus and such; that's the way I got mine almost for free
this is a good way to get a good scanner too
>>2851879
the accuracy relies a lot on print quality, this will not work on a printer that has not been calibrated already
>>2851879
my bad, I missed the second half of your post, and also thanks for the labor
>>2851056
It's a precision instrument for professionals. If you have to think about the price you don't need it.
Why wouldn't you just use a grey card?
Because it is not just a grey-scale, it comes with a program that creates camera profiles for each picture. Also, colors need to be accurate and thats not cheap.
If youre doing studio stuff and cant afford this try Capture One. It automatically creates camera profiles for each picture while the default adobe profile fucking sucks
>>2851894
what the software does is create a camera calibration profile, its not just ticking off your white balance and calling it a day. It's the same method adobe uses to create camera profiles.
>>2852121
also I should mention 99% of photographers don't need this. The CCP is for photographers that need exact color - studio fashion, product, etc.
>>2852065
>try Capture One. It automatically creates camera profiles for each picture
what? how exactly does it do that?
>>2851597
wat
>>2852314
Look at the highlights on your black paint.
>>2852314
also that's under perfectly controlled lighting. take the same picture somewhere outside and see how consistent it is
>>2852395
I'm saying that even in controlled lighting, it's not ideal, let alone when you shoot outside somewhere.
>>2852397
Internet induced autism and razors edge diminishing returns aside; it would be very adequate, and significantly cheaper than OPs.
Shit, this one is $3.
Also: if you have a look at most print media, or bolts of screenprinted fabrics, they have a swatch of test colors on their edge somewhere. If not in the magazine, then in the packaging the newsagent receives all the stock inside.
...same thing.
Particularly pertinent with magazines, becasue you can snag a new one every time you find a newly printed magazine. (to offset the fact that eventually UV exposure causes the colors to shift)
>>2852423
ok and how long will it take you to do the same with that stuff that you can do with X-Rite's software and colorchecker?
For >>2851108
and for me, who would really only use it in a test shot so in PP we can wiggle really fucked up WB into reality.... it'd be worth the 30 seconds to toss it into the scene, shoot a reference frame, and go pick it up again.
For people trying to do archival prints... or for the typical new generation of photographers who take themselves and their 'pro'-ness aspirations far too seriously...well, most of them would be far to anally retentive to even consider such a plebian method to be of any value whatsoever... even if it was 95% as effective as an x-rite or similar.
So it would take forever, and we would be talking apples vs oranges.
In my opinion ColorChecker is not about White Balance. It is about to have perfect and exactly the same colours between multiple cameras and eventually, make some DCP Profiles with your own correction. I think that most photographers underestimate the power of ColorChecker. Yes, of course, you can set the WB by using it, but it is not the main reason for using it.
Also, most people does not understand what Camera Calibration stands for. I made my own camera profiles which do the whole standard correction for me and save so many time.
I made small comparison between settings. Left is picture from camera, center is RAW with Adobe Standard profile with corrected WB and right is just switched profile from Adobe Standard to another I created using left photo in Adobe DNG Profile Editor.
Here's long, but great video about Camera Calibration.
https://youtu.be/_fikTm8XIt4
And another video that shows how professionalists use their DCP Profiles created by ColorChecker (video is in polish language).
>>285334
Second video. Forgot to post.
https://youtu.be/qDKASIy6ZTg
>>2851056
Because it's not really made for photography. Those are mostly used for color balancing between cameras in broadcast. They're so expensive because they have to be very, very precise. And even then- they only have a few years of a life spawn because the colors fade.
Just because it's made for cameras, doesn't mean its made for stills photography. Especially people who spend most of their time on forums.
>>2853376
BUT MUH COLOR ACCURACY.
>>2853377
ikr it's not like we have software that can fix that.
>>2853381
It's cheaper to have a ~$100 piece of plastic than train someone to get the color balanced every time.
>>2853381
>every time you come back from a shoot, subjectively try to "correct" colors and such
>end up with inferior result, and a lot of time waste
or:
>pay $100
>create 2 profiles per camera you own
>never do anything again
if your time is that worthless, you should rethink your life.
>>2853381
>photoshop
>for broadcast video
Always amateur hour in this place.
>>2853484
>Spend all that time and money correcting your profile so that your commercial printer can give you accurate results on ultra high end prints (unless they get variation in their ink batches) for multi-thousand dollar print jobs
>Ignore the fact that even something as trivial as the color temperature of a light source shining on that print would completely fuck your "accuracy"
>Actually take photos of your dog and fuck it with VSCO and have never printed a photo for public viewing in your life.
>Brag about it on the internet, since your results could *technically* be better than someone else's if you had a super specific situation you'll actually never ever ever be in.
>>2853486
who are you quoting?
There are actually a couple of viable reasons to use something like this that might be accessible to lower level artists. Pretty much any time you're going to be presenting your photos along with someone else's photos (for instance, product shots, or catalog photos) the client may insist on calibration to be sure that your photos will match the color cast of the other photos in the collection.
Skymall, for one random example. There are tons and tons of different photos in there, and many are taken by different photographers, with different equipment, different light, different workflow, different monitors and calibrations, etc. So if everyone shoots with a Passport, they all know that, even with all of that deviation, things will always be right to a baseline.
Many clothing websites also show photos from many different photographers, and for the same reason, trying to get a baseline for consistency can go a long way to making sure the overall look of the site is consistent and polished.
For your average guy shooting street, travel, or portraits, and printing them at a low level print service, or at home, yeah, it's more or less worthless.
>>2853490
>For your average guy shooting street, travel, or portraits, and printing them at a low level print service, or at home, yeah, it's more or less worthless.
well of course, /p/ is basically just a cesspool of snapshit fags
>>2853376
it is. its used in high-fashion photo. seen it a lot irl but you can search for backstage videos of pro photoshoot and see it
![Scopes75[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iIR4FwF.jpg "Scopes75[1].jpg")
>>2853376
>Those are mostly used for color balancing between cameras in broadcast
That's plain wrong. In reality Colorchecker is not advised for video. The colors in the chart can't be checked for accuracy against anything existing in the pipeline.
The stuff broadcasters use is made by DSCLabs. These are really expensive compared to simple Colorchecker.
http://www.dsclabs.com/products.html
The colors in these charts are picked to represent the hue and 50% chroma of primary and secondary colors that you can find on a standardized vectorscope (currentl that's Rec709). This allows for color adjustment the way broadcast cameras have it. Additional colors are used to compare cameras.
