File: color.jpg (710.3 KB)

710.3 KB JPG

>>4493776
i've tried

some real ''i have too much money'' shit

>>4493787
>$100 is too much money
sounds like cope from someone who doesn't know shit

>>4493776
I dont need to reshoot my colorchecker every time a cloud moves or i stand near a different colored building/car because I have a canon DSLR

Snoys finna seethe

... why do you need a colour checker for anything outside of studio work? Maybe video as well in general if you're going for a certain look but just calibrate your monitor holy hell.

good monitor caibrating recs?

>>4493846
>why do you need a colour checker for anything outside of studio work?
because colors exist outside the studio?
>if you're going for a certain look
calibration is the complete opposite of "certain look"
>just calibrate your monitor
what has the monitor got to do with accurately interpreting the sensor's data?

you seem thoroughly confused and ignorant

>>4493850
Seconding.
Has anyone on pee actually calibrated their monitor(s)? Did you do it through a service, or actually bought a calibrating device (which one?) and did it yourself? Anyone got experience with ArgyllCMS?

>>4493852
Please tell me how the vast, vast majority of photos look fine without a colour checker if they're so critical. Or better yet let me know what camera you bought that needs it so badly so I can make sure I never buy one.
Calibration allows you to set a baseline to which you can then tweak. Starting at the right point can and does make a difference.
The monitor comment was because most people fuck post up by using shitty monitors and thereby getting their colours wrong.

Sorry you needed that explained I assumed 4chan had a minimum IQ requirement.

>>4493850
Spyder Pro
>>4493854
Just buy a calibration tool off amazon like the one I just mentioned. All monitors you own forever will be perfectly calibrated.

>>4493861
>Please tell me how the vast, vast majority of photos look fine without a colour checker if they're so critical
I never said they were critical, I simply said they are extremely useful, save you a ton of time, and are rarely discussed on this board. Also, this board is for photo AND video, where literally every single decent production uses them.
>let me know what camera you bought that needs it so badly so I can make sure I never buy one.
People complain about the color science of every single camera that has ever been released. This fixes the problem for everyone. Also professionals use multiple cameras in shoots, and this matches them perfectly.

>>4493787
are you familiar with video? it's the accessories that do you in.

>>4493863
>People complain about the color science of every single *SONY camera that has ever been released
Fixed.
>This fixes the problem for everyone.
It doesn't magically fix the problem. Snoy can look slightly better but it is still snoy.
>uh oh the sun moved
>reshoot the color checker
>the green tint is back
SNOY

>>4493967
You're just trolling at this point

>>4493967
>unless anyone does any editing at all and then it's impossible to tell the difference
>but Sony is still worst because the files are the worst to edit

>>4494010
Yes but unironically.
SNOY takes factors more editing just to look like a subpar cANON OOC JPEG.

I remember a certain colourblind fellow using one of these to calibrate his Sony Alpha digital mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera. Matched white to white under overcast conditions and ended up making it look piss yellow. He neglected to realize that overcast conditions cast a cooler tint on things.
Moral of the story: use your damn eyes unless you have a specific, technical reason. If you can't use your eyes, use auto WB.

>>4494020
i find auto wb on some cameras less accurate than other where sometimes i end up using auto wb on lightroom instead and get better tones

File: SNOY.png (121.4 KB)

121.4 KB PNG

>>4494010
>>4493972
>leave sony alone
>if i spent 10 minutes editing a sony raw file after using a $100 color checker reference it would look almost exactly like a meh fuji jpeg
>only someone who was actually there would know the colors were wrong
SNOY

What kind of actual cuck defends snoy colors, nikon autofocus, canon cripplehammering, and fujilumixolympuspentax existing?

Japan is not known for fast paced innovation or improving basic design flaws, or competitive pricing, at least not anymore, and their monopoly on cameras is a large part of why the camera market is perpetually bleeding back down to 1970s “cameras are only for professionals” levels.
>inb4 well they were slightly worse at some irrelevant shit/4k raw video 10 years ago and relative to a 5d classic all cameras are great

>>4493776
>>never talked about on this board
That's because this is a photography board not a videography board. There is a website called reddit for people like you.

>>4493794
facts

>>4494049
>spend 10 minutes learning to to edit colors
>can now use any brand and get whatever colors you want
>this is a bad thing

>>4494052
>people like you
and what would people like me be, exactly? professionals that use industry standard tools who have proven their value since the 1970s?
you sound like a seething toddler

>>4494051
>their monopoly on cameras is a large part of why the camera market is perpetually bleeding back down to 1970s “cameras are only for professionals” levels.

no, its because everyone is poor and has cell phones with decent photo capabilities in their pockets that they can finance easily if they're too expensive

anything fun has been trending down in sales because everyone is poor and don't have disposable income. sports cars, gaming consoles, cruises, etc wherever you go

>>4494052
Oh look: >>4493514
Fuck out of here, you stupid kid.

>>4494094
Wait whats the name of the board sorry?

>>4494102
You don't belong here, you useless retard. You haven't even hit puberty yet.

>>4494053
>snoys spend 360 minutes to unsnoy 36 raw files
>heh, people with canon DSLRs are the real gearfags
snoy moment

>>4494116
Wait but can you answer the question lil bro

Also something people never mention is that these color charts make using inferior software much easier. Sure, if you use davinci resolve or photoshop, they'll have all the tools in the world to make use of these color checkers automatically. But suppose you're using some open source software that only has the manual grading tools but no automatic camera profiles or matching. With this shit you can just trust the vectorscope or histograms and get perfect colors

>>4494146
>making your case
>everything is le debate!!!
Ok I still don't get why you don't just go to reddit. It's literally made for you.

>>4494147
When is the last time you spoke to your father?

File: fujifilm in the moment enjoyer.webm (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB WEBM

>>4493776
Not needed sorry. I should Fuji.

>>4494216
wow all of these photos look exactly like they were taken with the newest iphone with the warm vibrant mood

>>4494216
Uhhh these looks like phone pics anon. Some are okay but some are fuckin horrid.

>>4494216
>i should Fuji
phonefag outed by autocorrect once again lol

>>4493972
Where is he wrong though?

Why are digital cameras so finicky about colors, but then people are more or less fine with using film stocks in any situation? They aren't even properly white balanced most of the time but they look great, having a lovely character when theres obvious orange casts etc. Meanwhile if I have to see another shitty green photo from a modern digital camera I'll throw up. Why can't a digital camera work the same as film?

>>4494289
Grainless images invite scrutiny. I blame digital for photography's downfall. Before editing was so artistic, Ansel Adams basically wrote a whole book on 20th century photoshop and invited extensive editing to match the photog's vision. Now people complain if anything is even vaguely shooped and we have moronic landscape photographers discussing if it's ethical to remove a rock. Beginners see this and internalize that PHOTOSHOP BAD and LIGHTROOM GOOD IF YOU DONT TOUCH ANYTHING EXCEPT EXPOSURE AND MAYBE SATURATION IF YOURE FEELING WILD. Almost no one is willing to take ownership of their final product anymore.

>>4494289
>Why are digital cameras so finicky about colors, but then people are more or less fine with using film stocks in any situation?
A quick question to assert your level of brain damage: are you talking about film photos you see online, or ones that get enlarged and printed directly from the negative?

File: 1745931729817897.gif (8.3 KB)

8.3 KB GIF

>>4494290
And this mindset is how we arrived at photography being a recording medium; people just expect photos to reflect reality and anything else is cheating and not real.
The other day someone asked me how [random online photographer] got a certain look with his landscape shots and why mine didn't look like his (which were horridly KEN ROCKWELL'd).

It was kind of easy to spot that the guy took the mountain range from the background and just flipped it horizontally, lowered the opacity, and added a fake wavelet texture over the top and stuck it where the lake was in the foreground (if there even was a lake in the real scene). Was the photo literally half fake? Yes. Did my normie friend think it looked good? Yes. Do I want to replicate this guy's look? Hell no.

I digress, but you're right. It's completely possible to do some moderate editing to make your photo look better that removes elements of reality. I mean, my eyes don't work like a camera lens, so does that mean stacking astro photos is fake? Gotta draw the line somewhere...

>>4494296
Real enlarged prints and slides viewed on a projector. Yes, I know I'm old. I'll accept I'm mildly brain damaged but not worse than an average asshole my age.

>>4494119
not him but you might want to consult a medical practitioner for your schizophrenia

>>4494289
Film users are literally insane

>>4494216
>all these seething replies

>>4493787
>t. Annually spend 2000$ for buying meme lenses, accessories.
faggot.

>>4493861
>Artwork photographer
>Need 99.999% accuracy of color representation
>The white color on the painting is RGB 251:250:255 but if your picture tells 255:255:255 then you're fucked
>Stupid camera can't figure all the colours correctly
>Need a standard of colour

>Cinema fag
>Use 5 different cameras and lenses at one scene
>All have different colour palette and expression
>Camera A from snoy makes the protagonist a shrek and camera B from Arri mogs all the other cameras outputs
>Need to equalize all the outputs
>Needs a standard of colour to equalize them

Hope this helps you to understand.
Color checker is more important than the director desu.

>>4494383
>Need
>Needs
I beg your pardon. I'm retard.

>>4494383
Thank you for admitting that for 99.95% of people using a camera it is unnecessary

>>4494311
people mistake great intelligence for insanity.

>>4494397
Those are just two use cases where it's essential to have one of those tools, retard. Also it's funny how you move the goalpost of the thread like a faggot. Nobody has said this is a tool that should be used by all people. It's just funny that it has been used so much by professionals for the last 60 years and yet it's so rarely talked about here

>>4494441
>muh professional product photography and presidential portraits n sheeit
>whaddif you need a pink dress to be the exact same shade of pink across 10 lenses
Color checkers were irrelevant to 99% of photography before people started pretending SNOY cameras were appropriate for anything but collecting dust (AKA snoys massive influencer shilling campaign and employee kickbacks)

99% of people can avoid all this shit
>reshoot reference photo with every lighting and lens change, even flash power changes, even if a cloud moves or the location changes to one with different dominant colors in the environment
>always shoot raw or log, always use software that supports expedient calibration to the color checker
>always bring the extra piece of gear and have a way to get it in the photo
By just not buying a fucking SNOY

>>4494467
Since you are clearly obsessed with Sony when it wasn't even mentioned;
since you clearly have some obsession with lying about how color checkers are used;
and since you clearly haven't read past the first sentence of my post, or pretend to not have done so;
this is my last reply to your pathetic display of mental illness.

>>4494471
>the snoyshill says “you lose!” as xhe surrenders

>>4494441
Non sony cameras do not need calibrated to produce artisrically good photos.

>>4494475
Same for Sony cameras (except for the people on this board who just hate Sony)

>inb4 "after spending 10 minutes carefully editing this snoy raw you cant tell its not a fuji jpeg, and post production is real photography ackshually"

File: sony is irrelevant.jpg (117.2 KB)

117.2 KB JPG

>>4494471
He's right actually. Snoy has "rolling colorblindness" where the color rendition (especially skin tones) changes with the color of the light so one calibration and white balance going forward isnt enough, it needs recalibrated AGAIN. It's between their lens coatings, lens design, super thick sensor coatings losing some color, and their tendency to write pre-edited raws to hide faults in reviews (canon RF also does this and has worse colors than their classic DSLRs)

>>4494481
Everyone knows sony colors fucking suck. Even with capture ones prostandard profiles and levels correction the newest a7cII produces straight up zombie tones that make xtrans-sans-sims look lively and the color checker/"skill issue, edit maor" cope floweth forth. Ever since snoy mirrorless made photoraphy accessible to retards, retards (who all shoot snoy) have been saying "well actually, raw files are meant to be dull and flat, you're meant to edit them" but that's just SNOY.

The moment nikon fixed their autofocus released literally an a7iii but nikon branded (zf and z5II), sony lost its #1 in consumer FF ILC market share spot and nikon took it.

>>4494484
>sony never mentioned in the OP
>mental faggot mentions sony after some posts because he feels attacked from the mere mention of the word "color"
>thread becomes about sony
This board will remain consoomer central forever, and it's your fault. You could have stuck to the topic, and instead it's the usual MUH SONY MUH NIKON MUH CANON shitfest.

File: IMG_3511.jpg (57.5 KB)

57.5 KB JPG

haha snoy
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lC-yx4P0jkE

>>4494486
Color checkers aren’t really useful for most photography unless you really fucked up and bought a snoy. Canon nikon fuji and pentax all produce pleasing colors out of the gate regardless of jpeg or your choice of non-darktable software.
>but professionals-
Most of them dont even use these either because consistent color reproduction between equipment isnt important to what they do

And, if you’re shooting clothing and makeup ads, serious cinema, or are a noncreative photographer (ie: document scanning) you probably have a better target with more swatches at work anyways

>>4494486
He's persistent enough that I almost wonder if he replies to himself in the midst.

Shit, there's already been two replies since I started typing.

>>4494488
somewhere a canikon using gearfag who ended up with mostly third party lenses from 3 different brands and only uses primes due to his pixel peeping hobby disagrees

>>4494489
>does most of /p/ dislike snoy?
>no its all one big samefag
/p/ has never liked snoy and color checkers are of limited use if not snoying. 9/10 photographers only interaction with the concept is a “how to fix sony colors” tutorial.

>>4494491
>I open a thread where sony is not mentioned or even hinted at
>I hate sony
>hmmm, I still start talking about sony
absolutely mindbroken

>>4494484
explains why people cant ever pick out Sony from other images not labeled
explains why people overwhelmingly prefer Sony in T&C's blind test
explains why so many professionals never use Sony anymore, and why Sony is so unpopular
explains all your butthurt, you nophoto

File: Screenshot 2026-01-19 121956.png (334.7 KB)

334.7 KB PNG

>>4494484
>let me cherry pick this graph real quick
lol

>>4494497
>after i edited my snoy it looked like a subpar canon jpeg
>tonehs fucky white balance test (you saw the methodology right? he was… dishonest)
>muh newsrag uses snoy, muh snoy sponsorships
Back in the real world sony lost its #1 spot as soon as nikon made their autofocus better. Not even the best. Just better.

>>4494493
We all know what OP meant by “color science doesnt matter anymore guise” and now here he is shilling snoy

File: Screenshot-2026-01-19-at-14.32.51.png (61.8 KB)

61.8 KB PNG

>>4494498
interesting

>>4494499
>now here he is shilling snoy
I only respond sometimes for the low IQ ant-shills, like you
The irony of you calling others dishonest, lol

>>4494504
>dishonesty
>more dishonesty
>more dishonesty
People might take you more seriously if you tried being honest for once
As it stands, you're still just a lolcow for the others here

>>4494505
Now they're being deleted, lol. I guess that's what happens when someone realizes how "off-topic" they are...

>Snoy shill gets mad and cries to the janny
Even if you beg them to ban everyone in this thread, color checkers are useless to people who were not dumb enough to fall for the snoy meme.

>>4494514
Didn't know sony made film 50 years ago

File: SnoySkinner.jpg (121.5 KB)

121.5 KB JPG

The snoy schizo shill is still here? Damn, I thought he roped.

File: snoy.jpg (572.8 KB)

572.8 KB JPG

>>4494504
>the a7v is only selling well because everyone is desperate to get rid of their a7iv before the shutter fails
This burn was so harsh jannies had to delete it before it triggered a snoyshill suicide

>>4494484
>Ever since snoy mirrorless made photoraphy accessible to retards

I kind of agree with you.
Before snoi everyone had to learn the basics. How camera works, how to use your body to get better pictures.
And then snoy started to make basically point and shoot cameras, users stopped learning, improving themselves. Why should you become better when your camera does all the works?
Parallel to automatic and manual gears in cars. People had to turn the gears of car for themselves so they naturally turned their gear in their heads as well.

These days the retards with 5000$ worth camera and lens on their hands don't even know how to read distance meter on lens. But they spend their time for watching youtube to find which youtuber's lightroom presets they'll buy.


>>4494520
leaf shutter chads we will never lose

>>4494542
>Before snoi everyone had to learn the basics. How camera works, how to use your body to get better pictures.

That's all newer cameras and why shooting old CCD shitters + Pentax made me enjoy photography more

You have to actually work for the photo when you have autofocus from 2014 and shit dynamic range and the camera keeps setting the shutter speed/ISO way higher than it needs to be.

>>4493776
This could have been a good thread about usage of color checker and people's experience with it. Instead you posted an inflammatory OP and set the shitty tone for the whole shitty thread.

>>4494895
>>4494895
Doesn't matter. What's the different between color checker passports and Kodak's gray card?
in some youtube instruction, it's basically the same but the passport has multiple features.

And is it really useful the internal gray card option in camera's White balance setting? In my camera's white balance setting there is gray card option and if i shoot a gray card in the area the camera matches WB accordingly.

>>4494897
If you are perfectly content with your camera's colors out of the box, then a gray card is all you need and gives you much better WB than the automatic one ever will. If you want realism, if you want to match different cameras, if you want a standard picture as a base to modify so you can streamline your workflow, then something like the colorchecker is essential

I don't wanna make a new thread and this feels the most relevant
>shooting corporate headshots
>white paper bg
>everything looks good to me, wow easiest edit job just export
>bg is actually blue
>color pick bg for white balance
>everything looks yellow now
>ok ok of course it just looked blue to me
>even after looking away for a while and looking at the same photo on several different screens it feels like it has a yellow cast when color picker says it's neutral
must be some special kind of hell I'm in
it's been like another half hour and it's looking more neutral now to my eyes

>>4494963
>color picker says it's neutral
the color picker does not know what is neutral. you have to tell it what you think it'a neutral and it will change the image accordingly. do you even know how cameras and software works?

>>4494963
>>white paper bg
>>everything looks good to me, wow easiest edit job just export
>>bg is actually blue

i don't get it. are you color blind?

>>4494963
Were you using mixed lighting? Like ambient in addition to your strobes?
It's pretty trivial in LR or C1 to fine tune specific colors, if you're spending more than 5min trying to fix this, you need to learn your programs better

>>4494989
>Were you using mixed lighting?
this right here

>>4494968
apparently I trained my eyes for days to see the slight blue cast as white
I mean it just looks like a higher K value at first glance, and then correcting it to white makes it look like I switched to 3200K from daylight
>>4494966
I mean I picked all over the plain white bg as the basis for white balance, then hovered over several points of it and confirmed the dot is in the center of the vector scope
>>4494989
no, two identical strobes in soft boxes, although I may have had some bounce off the walls as they are blue
im sure it's fixed it's just my eyes won't go along with it
it looks fine to me today

>>4495055
If you are so cagey about the picture, at least post rhe vectorscope?

File: photo_2026-01-24_12-29-15.jpg (142.1 KB)

142.1 KB JPG

>>4493854

My NEC is auto profiling and correcting all the time with internal sensor.
I'm on sRGB to not deal with software discrepancy nonsense, good enough for me.