Dave Chew

Dave Chew

Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Forum Topics Started

Forum Replies Created

  • Author
    Topic: Members Read 0 Times
  • Dave Chew
    Dave Chew
    Participant
    Posts: 52
    CaptureOne Pro 21 is here!
    on: December 8, 2020 at 9:23 pm

    I do like the ProStandard profile better. Not sure how to quantify it, but I’ve been using my own profile created with Lumariver.

    My understanding is that Lumariver is like XRite ICC profiling on steroids.  If you use a custom profile, then you wouldn’t be using the C1 provided Generic or ProStandard profiles – right?  (After all, these are still all ICC standard profiles.)  I understand that some photographers make custom profiles for different conditions (golden hour, daylight, cloudy, etc.) – do you do that?  If so, I’d like to hear how ProStandard compares to a Lumariver custom profile tuned for different conditions.

    I have an XRite Color Checker – but gave up on using custom profiles.  I do landscape and I make a lot of color adjustments – so what’s the point?  ProStandard may be all I need. I do, however, understand that custom profiles would be useful for product photography and studio work.

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by John Sadowsky.

    I have two Lumariver profiles: one for a specific studio situation (leather samples lit with Fiilex LED lights), and a second for overcast light. I always felt greens come out too yellow in overcast lighting using the canned profiles from Phase. There are fixes using the color editor but it takes valuable time. The first one works great for that controlled situation. Subtle differences in leather finishes can be reproduced well. The overcast light works well for overcast light, and eliminates the too-yellow cast (my opinion), but it doesn’t work too well in dramatic sunset light. this new ProStandard seems to handle all outdoor situations much better. I would still use the Fiilex-specific Lumariver profile, but maybe not the overcast profile.

    Dave

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by Dave Chew.
    Dave Chew
    Dave Chew
    Participant
    Posts: 52
    Re: CaptureOne Pro 21 is here!
    Reply #1 on: December 8, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    Hi John,

    I’ve been using the beta version for a month or two. I do like the ProStandard profile better. Not sure how to quantify it, but I’ve been using my own profile created with Lumariver. I think I like this new ProStandard even better. I will need to experiment with several images over the next few months. I also like the way they implemented dehaze. It seems more useable than LR, although I do use LR’s too.

    Dave

    Dave Chew
    Dave Chew
    Participant
    Posts: 52
    Re: Back ups of digital files
    Reply #2 on: July 9, 2020 at 9:06 pm

    What if my main drive is configured for RAID 0?Will this give me a significant boost in speed over a single non RAID drive? Can I then clone this to individual drives as a backup where speed is not an issue?

    This is exactly what I do. My “main” drive is a (4) drive RAID 0 SSD that backs up to other other slower HDD units. Not all my images reside on that “main” drive, but it has all my worked images. Those other, slower drives house my entire image library.

    Dave

    Dave Chew
    Dave Chew
    Participant
    Posts: 52
    Re: Back ups of digital files
    Reply #3 on: July 9, 2020 at 5:32 am

    Hi Lou,

    I’ve used both Carbon Copy Cloner and Chronosync, currently the latter. They both do similar things. I don’t do anything exotic like email notifications, remote control or scripts; just basic time-based backups and “when connected” backups. Chronosync feels a bit more flexible but less “simple”. Chronosync handles one situation I have with a few folders I want to sync (Bi-directional) as opposed to a one-way backup.

    Dave

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Dave Chew.
    Dave Chew
    Dave Chew
    Participant
    Posts: 52
    Re: High quality Baryta Paper Available
    Reply #4 on: July 4, 2020 at 7:03 am

    I now have both here. The new version (CIBP II) has a smother, but less uniform texture. Below is my attempt to show the difference. CIBP I on the left, CIBP II on the right. To my eyes, CIBP II seems to be whiter, but that may be associated with the way the specular reflections occur on CIBP I; they are warmer. CIBP I has a very even white noise texture, while CIBP II has some “ripples in spacetime” and comes across as if it has a bit higher gloss. First image is a slightly underexposed, second is down 1 stop in Capture One to highlight the difference in texture. Third image is zoomed into the file not quite 100%. The papers are oriented portrait. The first two full-frame images show about 1/2 of each full sheet.

    The hand feel is about the same.

    Dave

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Dave Chew.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Dave Chew.
    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by Dave Chew.