As long as we launched this magazine we always used all digital cameras only in RAW mode. We know this is more work but the only way to get the maximum quality from your camera.

If you work with RAW files then you will need to use a RAW conversion software. Most of the time the RAW conversion software will be developed by the camera manufacturer (although Bibble and Qimage are two very popular exceptions).

Unfortunately every RAW conversion software has a different view on how the colors should look like. It is like buying a camera and only can use it with a certain kind of film (e.g. Velvia). With digital cameras you probably like to get the color a close as possible match to reality. If you then like more saturation or different colors then Photoshop and it's many plug-ins is the right tool at hand. It is easier to start the image manipulation from a neutral point than from colors which were already messed up (green is the #1 problem color for all nature photographers)

Otherwise the process to create a camera profile is always the same:

• Photograph a well defined target (under the targeted lighting conditions)
• Use a software to create a profile using this image

The GretagMacbeth ColorChecker is established as an industry standard for profiling purposes. It now comes in two variations:

• Standard 24 patch
• DC version with more patches (designed for camera profiling)

There is some discussion which of the targets works better. The DC version seems to have some glossy patches which can add reflections and can be counter productive. We only use the standard version as it is also not as expensive as the DC one.

The ColorChecker has beautiful matte colors which look very much like real nature colors. These colors seem to be a really good representation of the colors in the outback world.

We photograph the target at sunny midday light (as you can see in the top photo). You then process the RAW file in a standard well defined way as the profile makes only sense for images which gets processed in the exactly same way. We always set the WB (white balance) to "sunny" to have a well defined reference point. We also recommend only to use 16-bit TIF images because it is a general rule that you always want to stay as long in 16-bit mode as possible. Only switch to 8-bit if you need to use tools which are not supported for 16-bit and gain try to use those as late in the process as possible.

We will later discuss the issues using linear RAW files.

"inCamera" is a product by Pictographics. Pictographics is also well known for its Photoshop plug-in iCorrect. If you also have a look into the inCamera profile editor that you can see how inCamera and iCorrect use same technology.

inCamera is available for PCs and Macs (we only used it on a PC)

But we ignore the profile and perform the following two steps (best done in a PS action):

• Assign the custom camera profile
• Then convert to your working space

There are a lot more features in inCamera:

• Checking profile quality

• Editing profiles (we only use to make profiles with higher contrast)
• Profiling monitors (we did not look into this)
• Import profiles (which the can be modified using the profile editor)

There is even an other tool called ColorCircuitQ where you can use batch convert images and even remove some noise (see below). We did not use this tool extensively as we like to use Photoshop as much as possible in our workflow.

Probably the best results can be obtained creating custom profiles for all different light conditions. Sound complicated but is not. Just make one image of the ColorChecker at the same location with the same light.

On the other side we believe that even the generic profile created at sunny light works very well and is a great improvement compared to not using any profile.

Using linear converted RAW files might be ideal way to proceed. But in some case (e.g. using YarcPlus for noise removal) working with regular converted files seems to be a better choice.

We think it has to be decided based on all the tools you use in your workflow what works best.

We have used inCamera with many (more than 200) Nikon D1x, Canon D60 and Kodak ProBack RAW files and found the results much more pleasing in color than using the manufacturers results.

We hardly can say how much we are excited about using camera profiles. There are still many issues to check:

• Optimal way to remove noise as noise prevent profiles to work as intended
• Use of linear or non linear files
• Possible posterization during profile conversion

Other Reviews:

Ian Lyons: inCamera Professional (quite detailed and informative)