Imagining that one can download a color chart of any serious value and print it themselves is a pipe dream.
I don't know what methods they use to produce them, probably a device similar to a film recorder.
Paint manufacturers specify color as RGB values. Anyone knows what color space they use?We’re talking about walking into Ace and picking a bunch of free paint chips, gluing them onto a card and having a test card.
I believe we all agree on this. We are comparing a DIY color chart of questionable quality and inaccurate values to no calibration at all.Of course one can jerry-rig a makeshift color target using paint chips. But it's never going to be balanced and accurate.
Please understand that the skeptics have professional training in color science and decades of experience (Thank you @DREW WILEY for contributing to this discussion.) Their standards and definitions of "work" are much higher and stringent than those of an average hobbyist like myself.I've given up on this line of questioning, too many here are locked in on "it can never work" and aren't interested in any other options.
Of course one can jerry-rig a makeshift color target using paint chips. But it's never going to be balanced and accurate. Each misstep along the workflow process tends to compound itself : lack of neutrality or pure chroma in the original target, combined with reproduction idiosyncrasies inherent to EVERY kind of color film and print medium, or scanning and screen variables. The better your starting point, the higher the odds of being closer to the bullseye at the endpoint.
I find this very important whenever calibrating the starting colorhead settings of a new batch of RA4 paper, for example. Specific images can be manipulated creatively as needed; but if you don't have a defined objective starting point, a lot of paper might get wasted getting the result you hope for. Likewise when attempting to do any truly objective color film test.
The classic MacBeth Color Checker Chart is now marketed by Datacolor, which has a whole suite of tools allowing you to integrate your total workflow.
A photo lab can no more mass produce accurate color targets on RA4 paper than a paint store can make an accurate 18% gray paint. Otherwise, I just don't get it. People will spend thousands of dollars on some new lens or camera they don't even really need, or on the latest Smartphone, but aren't willing to invest $50 in a reliable color target? Those things save you money in the long run.
Romanko - I partnered with paint and pigment manufacturers for a long time - the very best of them - and believe me, the suggestion that real-world paint pigments can be reduced to simple RGB parameters is hopelessly simplistic. Yes, these manufacturers use basic four-axis CIE models to program automated tinting machines. But the fact that a dozen or so pigments are typically involved informs one that they are never dealing with a true set of CMYK process colors. Inkjet printing is analogous. And a margin of variability is always built in. Then you've got the significant issue of metamerism.
Paint chips aren't actual paint. And the fact they're handed out for free means they're relatively cheaply made, and vary quite a bit batch to batch. I've got in storage somewhere a personal set of architectural-grade color samples, each about a square foot in size, filling five thick volumes. These were expensive to make and never available to the public - only color pros. But even these wouldn't necessarily precisely represent how the final paint itself would turn out. There are just too many variables.
too many here are locked in on "it can never work" and aren't interested in any other options.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?