March 02, 2015, 02:24:23 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - gigabellone

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
If you are torn between the flexibility of a self-built system and the convenience of using OS X, you can build a hackintosh: it's a self built pc with carefully selected parts that are proven to work under OS X. I have been using one since 2012, and its performance and reliability are top notch, while keeping prices ridiculously low. My configuration:
CPU: Intel i5 3570k
CPU cooler: CoolerMaster Hyper 212+
Motherboard: Gigabyte z77-ds3h
RAM: Corsair 8gb DDR3 1600mhz, 2 pieces (the motherboard supports 2 more, should i decide i need them)
OS storage drive: Samsung 830 SSD 64gb
Files storage drive: Seagate 1tb, 2 pieces, software raid 1
Power Supply Unit: Corsair CX500
Case: Corsair Carbide 300R

I got all this for a little more than 700 euro, and it can compete with today's Mac Pros. If you're not scared of fumbling a bit with the selection of components and the installation of the OS, getting a hackintosh will give you a powerful and yet cheap workstation, tailored to your needs. For example, if you use more than one high resolution monitor, you could add a cheap GeForce 730 (70 euro) to handle them.
If you're interested, you'll find all the informations you need at www.tonymacx86.com

2
I finally made up my mind. :D
I'll get the Eizo CS240 and a good color calibrator, the i1Display Pro. Thanks for all the feedback, i'll let you know. :D

3
One last question: do you think that the available colorspace is as relevant for a B/W development workflow as it is for a color development workflow? Can you suggest me a good book on color theory related to photography development?

4
The more i study the matter, the more it gets complicated.  ;D

https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93362-what-colorspace-should-my-files-be-in-

It seems like using AdobeRGB would make the workflow a little more cumbersome in case one wants to share photos online. Is there an obvious difference between prints based on sRGB and AdobeRGB? Since i'm not going to print that often, it needs to be worthwhile for me to invest money an time into the technology.

The problem with 'studying' things like this from places like that is that they are not formally educated and often talk a lot of rubbish.

Do you shoot RAW or jpeg?

If you shoot RAW it doesn't matter which colour space you assign in your camera because the RAW file doesn't honour either, if you then carry on and work in Adobe Lightroom it works in an even bigger colour space that contains all the information your camera captured, you don't assign a colour space until you actually export the image and assigning whatever colour space you want is no more time consuming or difficult than telling it to be full sized or 1200px.

If you shoot jpeg and are editing and printing from that then it doesn't matter as you have comparatively little editing latitude anyway and you have already thrown away most of the information your camera captured.

Thank you, your explanation gave me a better view on the subject. There's still one thing i can't grasp. If i edit my images in a large color space, and then set the software to export the picture in a narrower color space, how do i know in advance which colors will be "discarded"? Is there an export preview mode like Lightroom 5?

5
The more i study the matter, the more it gets complicated.  ;D

https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167

http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93362-what-colorspace-should-my-files-be-in-

It seems like using AdobeRGB would make the workflow a little more cumbersome in case one wants to share photos online. Is there an obvious difference between prints based on sRGB and AdobeRGB? Since i'm not going to print that often, it needs to be worthwhile for me to invest money an time into the technology.

6

3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor.


You might consider looking on www.monoprice.com for monitor arms. They also have cables for dirt cheap, too. I've been pleased with them...

They are based in the US, i don't know if they ship to Italy, and, even if they do, there would also be a lot of crap involved from customs.  :-\

Anyway, the Dell U2413 seems to have it all: 24", 99% AdobeRGB, 1920x1200, lots of different connectors, 4 USB3 ports, integrated card reader, price under 500€. Just to be sure i'm picking the right one, does any of you know of another monitor with similar specs?

Now, for the colorimeter: i really don't have a clue, and i need your help! :D

7
Some discussion here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=76197.0

If your graphics can drive it, I wouldn't even think about anything less than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600.

The Dell Uxx14 PremierColor series monitors have generally received good reviews. The U3014 has had some firmware and card reader issues, but those seem to have been straightened out. I don't know if any of those monitors are available in your location or if they are within your budget.

My integrated graphics card can handle up to 1920x1200 through HDMI. Going higher will require a dedicated video card. Might as well gear up for 4K/5K if i'm to stretch my budget that much. Also 30" seems freaking huge for my working distance of half a meter, i would settle for anything between 24" and 27".

This. Calibrate your monitor.

Also quirky thought of the day. While we sit and view our lovely images on nicely calibrated wide gamut monitors most people who will be viewing your pictures will likely be doing so on iPhones and other (probably) non-calibrated screens. So, what do you make the image look good for? You or your viewers??

Yes, i've put thought into this as well. Most of my pictures would be shared online, but i would like to be able to print those i care the most for. Then there's another question: printer calibration. I don't plan to buy a printer, any eventual printing services will be carried out by a specialized provider. How do you know how and if their printers are calibrated properly?

8
The matter gets even more confusing.  ;D
Is there a direct correlation between color bit depth and the color gamut? I see several monitors, mostly from Dell, that are true 8bit (instead of 6bit + frc) but can't display a wide color gamut. Moreover, several monitors have 8 bit + frc panels capable of displaying over 1 billion of colors, like the 10bit panels. I read that to enable a 10 bit workflow, proper hw and sw are needed, is it the same for 8bit+frc panels?

9
The 2560x1440 route is a reasonable one, and what most people seem to be going with lately. You will be limited to 27" panels at that resolution though.

I own the Dell 24" 4K monitor (UP2414Q) and have kind of mixed feelings about it.
The image quality and ergonomics are second to none and that's what's kept me using it. At ~200ppi, you get a screen image that's just unbelievably sharp & smooth and close to print resolution. Color rendition is also fantastic as the panel is rated for 100% sRGB and 99% AdobeRGB and comes calibrated from the factory. Really, I cannot overstate how nice the IQ is. Only the 5K iMac is nicer, and that comes with a massive price tag. Build quality is great, with lots of aluminum and what plastic there is doesn't feel cheap. The stand (which is all aluminum) does tilt, swivel, rise/fall and rotate and has an orientation sensor that can enable desktop auto-rotation in Windows. There's even a USB 3.0 hub and an SD cardreader built in.

There are two big downsides though, one of which would be a deal-breaker for me if everything else about the display wasn't so fantastic. The first is scaling, which is just a Windows thing and has nothing to do with this particular display. Under Windows 8.1, most GUI elements and text scale up nicely and look beautifully smooth, but occasionally there will be a window that's simply pixel-doubled and looks visibly blocky & blurry. This is mostly an issue with older software. Most Adobe software that photographers would be likely to use (Lightroom, Photoshop CC 2014 & Illustrator CC) scale up nicely- Lightroom in particular works great with HiDPI displays. Première CC and Audition do not scale up at all however, and the GUI elements are so tiny as to be nearly unusable. That said, I don't see the scaling as a significant problem for my uses and apparently Windows 10 will offer significantly improved support for HiDPI displays.

The second issue, and the critical one that almost made me switch to a 2560x1440 display (until I looked at a 1440P panel and realized how much I'd miss the extra resolution!) relates to how the Dell connects to the computer. The short version is, if you're using HDMI (there is no DVI) then you're limited to 30hz refresh rate (a bit choppy but not too bad for photo editing; unusable for gaming) and if you connect with DisplayPort then 60hz is possible- but there's a known firmware bug that prevents the display from reconnecting when the computer wakes from sleep. So, every single time the computer wakes I have to power cycle the monitor several times and occasionally restart the whole computer. Very frustrating!

I don't regret buying the 2414Q and the IQ and ergonomics are just so good, but I find it a bit hard to wholeheartedly recommend. 4K is just not quite ready I think. Later this year when Windows 10 arrives with better scaling, and computers and monitors with HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.3 start shipping , then 4K will 100% be the way to go. Until then it's probably worth it for a photog but the experience is a bit mixed (especially with Dell's atrocious firmware problems- this is not their only monitor to have DisplayPort issues).

You almost talked me into buying the Dell, but the sleep mode bug is a real gamebreaker for me. Looks like it's easily fixable with a firmware upgrade, but i will not consider the monitor until Dell releases the patch.

Do you have a display calibration tool? Doing photo editing without one is pretty much pointless.

Why limit yourself with sRGB?

I would suspect that almost any current production monitor with an IPS panel will suit your needs when used with a calibrator.

I happen to like 16"10 over 16:9 for the extra pixels.

As far as 4k goes, there seems to be many gotchas with current tech. Seems like most (if not all) need 2 connections for the data over ~30hz. The Dell is the most promising, but also promises to be quite buggy.

The LG cinema display is getting good reviews and HP recently announced several 4k/5k displays. Both are probably over your budget.

I have a Dell u3014 and the price on those has come down. Yes, mine acts up once in a while, but not often. I have come close to getting a second.

Given your budget, I'd just get something in a size you want with an IPS panel and LED backlighting, and use the rest for a display calibrator. It will be a huge improvement over what you have now.

Color accuracy is more of a function of proper calibration.  IPS panels do not fade when you view the image from a angle, I do not see it as making a huge difference as long as you view straight on.

First, get a good hardware calibrator, second, make sure your room lighting is proper.  The calibrator will allow you to calibrate screen brightness as well as colors.  You will likely see more difference after calibrating than spending $$$ on a new monitor that is not calibrated.

So plan on a calibrator in any event.

I see that some of the higher end monitors have "self-calibration" tools, or are "factory calibrated". I guess that the hardware calibrator takes into account ambient light as well, am i correct? What do you mean by "proper lighting"?

I would need to get another another monitor anyway, because the one i have now lacks tilt/height settings, and i either have to sit straight and get weird colors, or hunch the back to get a correct angle of view. :P
3rd party monitor stands cost as much as monitors, so i guess i'm better off getting a new monitor. The hdmi on my motherboard supports a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, so going higher than that would require a dedicated video card.

10
Software & Accessories / Let's talk about photographer-friendly monitors
« on: February 15, 2015, 02:33:53 PM »
I can't stand my monitor anymore, i need something better. The one i have now is a Samsung P2470HD: 24", 1920x1080, TN panel, fixed pedestal with no height/tilt setting. It's clearly not suited for photo retouching. I keep reading everywhere that IPS panels have better color accuracy, so i guess that would be my choice. I don't want to go below 24", and i'm considering 27" panels as well. My working distance is about half meter (1.5 ft) so i don't really know if it's a good idea to use a monitor larger than 24". Regarding the resolution, i think i could use some more screen space, so i think that monitors with a resolution of 2560x1440 would be the right choice. There is also a brand new 24" 4k monitor from Dell, but i don't really know if it's worth it. Maybe some retina display users can give some feedback regarding very high resolution monitors. There are also some cheap 29" 2560x1080 (21:9), has anyone got any experience with them?
Then there's the color space issue: someday i would like to be skilled enough to make pictures worth printing, will sRGB be enough in that case?
As you can see, i'm really confused. The only thing i know for sure is that i don't want to spend more than 500€. :D
Is there some brand/model you would recommend?

11
Canon General / Re: New Gear Resolutions for 2015
« on: February 12, 2015, 09:16:46 AM »
My resolutions:
  • Take more photographs. Every weekend would be ideal, but i still have a couple of things to settle.
  • Build a photo development workflow based on linux and open source tools.
  • Get myself a new toy. :D It's going to be either a Sigma 24/1.4 or Canon 16-35/4. That 11-24/4 looks stunning, but at 3000$/€ it's far out of my reach. :(

12
Lenses / Re: Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..
« on: February 10, 2015, 05:22:18 AM »
There will be nothing holding me from buying it if it'll be as good as the 35mm A.  ;D

13
Lenses / Re: Advice on Canon PRIMES
« on: February 09, 2015, 08:30:31 AM »
Hi everyone - just wanted to let you know (after the fantastic advice) that I ended up getting the 5d3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM IS + 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6L IS USM + 16-35mm f2.8 Mark II USM and have travelled extensively with the 1st 2 lenses and handled it fine !

I love the sharpness of the 24-70mm and the 70-300mm has been on my camera ALOT ! Even tho the reach for Africa may have been lacking - but thats OK as I knew that would be the case !

In found in Africa I was taking so many close up people shots, esp of the kids....so cute ! Also as I previously mentioned landscapes and architecture are still on my hot list.  Im thinking I now need a prime that helps me with the sharpness in some of these situations.

SO Im now looking at some PRIMES after owning my gear for a year. My range of shooting is so big, but considering that I have some good lenses at certain focal lengths Im not sure what to consider.

35/50/85/100/135 - eeek too much to consider ~ Advice would be great.
For the kind of close up photos you talk about my favorite focal length is 35mm, and for this purpose i got a Sigma 35/14 Art a year ago. The lens can't stop amaze me for its sharpness, color rendition, shallow depth of field, and hefty but pleasant vignetting. Some people complain about its AF system, but i never got a single problem using it on my 6D, and it didn't even need any microadjustments. Try it, and i'm sure you'll be pleased as well. I also have a canon 85/1.8, but after buying it i discovered i don't fancy that focal length much. The Canon 100/2.8 macro can make both a great macro lens and a decent portrait lens, so it could be a good choice. For tightly framed portraits you should also consider the legendary 135/2, which was built for that purpose, but obviously lacks the macro capabilities.

14
Lenses / Re: Canon 7D/Sigma 10-20mm or Canon 6D/16-35mm f4 ?
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:39:57 AM »
You're not going to notice any significant differences, between the two, except if you shoot at high ISO (1600 and higher) and/or print very big. The only scenario that comes to mind in which the FF sensor will deliver much more solid results is astrophotography. If that's not your cup of tea but you really want to spend that money into photography, consider a lightweight and well made tripod, if you don't have one, or book a travel to some place that will inspire you to make cool photographs! :)

15
Lenses / Re: Wide lens suggestion for APS-C
« on: February 05, 2015, 01:43:35 AM »
The Tokina 11-20/2.8 isn't available now, preorder only on b&h for 599$. Unless you need f/2.8 on a wide angle, save yourself some headaches and get the canon 10-18. ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7