February 27, 2015, 08:14:58 AM

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 - roadrunner

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 16, 2013, 03:06:02 AM »
I found one more helpful tidbit: adding the line --enable-monitor-profile to the end of your chrome shortcut causes it to use your monitor's ICC profile.

It would appear that many of my discrepancies are due to ICC v4. I just recently recalibrated using v2, which is what fixed my super dark colors in window photo previewer, so maybe Chrome/Firefox just get crazy using v4? I don't know. At any rate, Chrome now matches Lightroom and Photoshop, so I'm feeling better about what I give my clients. I just got a custom printed DVD case from WHCC today, and while it isn't perfect, it doesn't seem to be oversaturated like my IE9/10 and PS when proof monitor colors do.

So now that I'm getting a little closer... why would Internet Explorer still show all colors reddish? I thought IE9/10 were supposed to be color managed now?

Additionally, why is the PS CS6 proof monitor color setting making my images look red? Exactly like IE9/10. Maybe I don't fully understand what PS is doing when I check that box.

EDIT: I lied. Turns out the photos are still over saturated in Chrome. When I compared some more, I realized they problem was still there. So I'm no closer to understanding this problem.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 15, 2013, 10:46:25 PM »
Thanks everyone for your replies! I'll try to address your ideas/solutions, and respond with what I have already tried. Hopefully between the group of us, we can figure something out!

One of the options when using your i1 is to use ICC version 2 or 4; 4 does New things but 2 is more broadly compatible.

Jim, This is a great tip for some people having issues. I first used ICC v4 when I calibrated, and Windows Photo Viewer was very dark. Recalibrating and using ICC v2 eliminated that problem, so my photos match in Lightroom, Photoshop, and Windows Photo Viewer now. Very handy. Unfortunately, switching to ICC v2 didn't eliminate my problems when viewing in a web browser.

I have a pretty good system (i7 920, gtx 580, 24 GB RAM, SSDs as Boot drive and scratch disk) and a Dell 3011 along with a 9500 MarkII, both calibrated with colormunki; and I've never gotten them working 100% accurate. I've been close though. I found out, that printing from Lightroom makes my colors better compared to Photoshop. Also, my system is a dual monitor: a 3011 and a 19" both from Dell. Being said that, I've ever come to a solution/profile or whatever that can make both monitors look the same. Color management, it's obviously, my worst nightmare.

Kadosh, it is my understanding, that because of how Windows 7/8 selects a single default system profile, you can only have one profile active at a time. Meaning that if you calibrate both monitors, you can still only assign one of the profiles to Windows as the system default. This results in your monitors not matching perfectly. I too use a dual monitor setup, but I basically have just resigned to the fact that my u2711 will be my main "accurate" monitor (With it's ICC profile assigned as default in Windows) while my Dell u2410 is reserved for non-color critical tasks, like my photoshop palettes, windows, system controls, browsing, etc... I don't think there is any way around that issue, unfortunately.

I did not see that anyone asked what web browser is giving you a issue.
You might want to read this article, its a very common issue.
firefox, for example is not color managed by default, and will look horrible.  Turn it on as noted here:
Here is a test to see if your web browser is color managed.

I have tried multiple browsers, including Chrome, Firefox (Not color managed, at the moment) and IE9/10. I somewhat understand that browsers that are not color managed will look different. But because I am exporting from Photoshop/Lightroom as sRGB, shouldn't it be close, even in a non-managed browser? Why would they get oversaturated? Again, this oversaturated look is the same look I get when I enable the proof monitor color setting in photoshop, but that does not at all match what I see in Lightroom.

Furthermore, after I export from Lightroom or Photoshop, if I open the photo in Chrome or Firefox, the photos look fine. After uploading them to my website and viewing it online, poof, the photo looks oversaturated now. What voodoo could possibly going on that makes the same photo look different in the same browser? I posted some screenshots earlier of this behavior.

To make it even more weird, when I upload the photos via my wordpress control panel, the photos look normal too. It's not until I go view the actual page that they become oversaturated in Chrome/Firefox. IE always has the more saturated look. And just to reiterate, the more saturated look is NOT how my photos look in LR or PS (When I have proof colors disabled). I just want to get things consistent so I can make sure I give my clients properly edited photos.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 15, 2013, 09:45:31 AM »
I use a U3011 - if you put the display into Adobe RGB or SRGB modes and then try to apply correction, it seems to go a little strange. I find leaving mine uncalibrated in Adobe RGB is more than accurate enough.

On the odd occasion where accurate colour is critical, I find that ColorChecker with a session specific camera calibration is the only way to make the output reflect the input.

You might also consider whether the environment you're working in is changing your perception of colour balance on the screen. I think[\i] this happens but it's very difficult to test on your own.

Based on your comment to xROELOFx ... try switching the screen to SRGB for viewing the web images.

According to the Xrite software, after calibrating the monitor is very accurate, so I don't think anything freaked out during the calibration. Colors appear good in LR and PS as well. I'd really rather not ditch the calibration altogether. After all, I should get more consistent results after calibrating, not less consistent.

Another oddity I just noticed... on my home page, the first image looks normal. The same image in the blog post that I exported/uploaded on this new PC is oversaturated. What would cause that? I know I embedded the sRGB profile each time (Lightroom is setup the same way now as it was then) so I don't know why the two would be appearing different in a web browser, but the oversaturated one looks normal locally. I hate you Windows color management =/

EDIT: One more sample photo. Here is the same image exported from LR and uploaded to my website. In my website's console (Left picture) the photo looks normal. When I view the blog post, rather than the file on my website's console, it is over saturated. When I took a screenshot and loaded it into photoshop, the right picture, which was normally oversaturdated nor looks normal, and the picture that looked normal online, now looks very muted. Slightly confused as to what is going on and why.

Also, I double checked, and on my wife's laptop, the photos in the blog post actually are slightly more saturated than the home page. It's just harder to tell since it is uncalibrated.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 15, 2013, 08:54:05 AM »
Thanks for the reply xROELOFx. Looking into it a bit more, it would seem that the problem may be the fact that I am using a wide-gamut display and viewing sRGB. It seems to be a semi-common problem (At least, I found a couple other cases of it.)

It would seem if my photos look good in Lightroom and Photoshop, they would appear to be normal for most other people, just not on my wide-gamut display. Not sure why it screws it up so bad though. I logged onto my wife's uncalibrated laptop, and the photos I uploaded did not appear to have the over saturated colors and red cast, so hopefully that means they appear normal to everyone else/my clients.

What is super weird to me though, is if sRGB being oversaturated is a known issue on calibrated wide-gamut displays, why in the world do the photos match LR/PS when I open them in Chrome/Firefox from my local disk, but they appear oversaturated when I view them after posting them online... they even look normal in my Wordpress photo upload section, just not when I go to view the actual webpage.

Also, I do always convert my photos to sRGB for webuse, and I embed the color profiles. So it would appear that my exported sRGB photos actually do match my LR/PS, but it would be nice if I could somehow get my browser to match them consistently too.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 15, 2013, 05:22:17 AM »
Just wanted to add a few more screenshots to clarify my post. Here is a comparison of Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6 viewing the same image, with and without proof colors enabled. I just hope I didn't give my last client jacked up files =/

Technical Support / Color Management Woes
« on: August 15, 2013, 05:13:56 AM »
One thing that has always driven me bonkers: Color management. I always seem to have the dumbest problems. I just recently built a new PC, and after recalibrating, everything looks fine... I thought. But now I'm not so sure. Could someone help me verify my system/software settings?

Windows 8
Dell u2711 Monitor
GeForce 780GTX Video Card
Calibrated with X-Rite i1 Display Pro
Monitor profile set at system level, and is set as default

The current issue I am having is with consistency in viewing my photos on the web. I haven't ordered any prints yet since calibrating to know how they look.

After exporting from Lightroom 5 as sRGB JPEG, the result in Windows Photo Viewer matches lightroom.
Importing into Photoshop CS6, the photo matches Lightroom when proof colors is off. When set to proof monitor color, the photo is much more red than Lightroom.
Exporting from Photoshop in sRGB produces a file that matches that of Lightroom.
Opening the files in Chrome/Firefox results in images that match Lightroom/Photoshop with proof off. Opening in IE10 displays the photo that would match the Photoshop "Monitor Color" color proof setting.

Now for the weird part. When I upload the photo to my website, and I view it in Chrome/Firefox, the photo is red again, even though the exact same file is not red when opened in Chrome/Firefox locally. See attached screenshot to see what I am talking about. Why would the exact same file look different in the same browser?

Should photoshop be set to proof monitor color? If so, photoshop is more red/saturated than Lightroom. If not, then I get varying results when viewing the same photo, even in the same browser. I'm quite confused. Thanks to anyone who can help. I'm sure I just have something stupid setup wrong.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 30, 2013, 02:58:29 AM »
Just wondering, how often do you (the readers) shot at 2.8 and want something faster?

Or is the desire for better AF or ?

This will be a large 24-70 lens (just like the 70-200 F2.8 is larger than the 70-200 F4).  Unless the IQ is significantly better than Canon's at mid apertures, I will skip this lens.

I shoot weddings, so every single wedding. No matter how much light you have at a wedding, it's never enough. Shooting at F2.0 and having IS would be great.

That, and I love the look of shallow DOF primes, and I shoot quite often at F1.4 with my 35mm and 50mm, so I would love to get a zoom lens down to 1.8 or 2.0.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 29, 2013, 10:59:39 PM »
jdramirez, thanks for another point of view. I can certainly understand that point. I find when I am attending family functions or going on personal trips, I only take one lens, and then size is important. I guess I should have clarified that my choices do differ depending on whether it is just for fun or for profissional use.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 29, 2013, 10:42:59 PM »
I'm a big guy, and when I'm in shape, which may or may not be the case, I can usually work out with 40 lbs dumbells for bicep curls, and up to 60 lbs for chest...

So the weight doesn't really affect me all that much, but if you have an extra lbs or two hanging from your neck over 8+ hours, it can start to give you a cramp... and your wrists and forearms can start to ache... mine too... but I just ignore the pain.

For an hour... most people can deal... but over the course of a day... then that starts to wear on you.

As an example... when I played football, I would be in incredible shape before camp started... but wearing the helmet for two a day practices cause a pretty severe ache in my neck and shoulders.

Maybe it's just that different fram of mind then. I don't mind hurting, if it's the right tool for the job. I'm definitely not a big guy (5'10" 150lbs) and I find I hurt whether I am carrying two bodies with primes, or my 70-200 F2.8 and 24-70 F2.8. I figure If I am going to hurt either way, I may as well hurt while having the best gear readily accessible.

I suppose I could see weight being very important for those that do a lot of hiking with their gear though.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]
« on: July 29, 2013, 10:05:44 PM »

Crikey, this thing will weigh 5 pounds. 

But it might be 5 pounds of awesome.

- A

I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question... but is weight even really that big of a deal? As long as the size is not so huge that I can still fit it in my camera bag and ThinkTank Airport Security case, weight has never really been something that bothered me.

I find that after 12 hours of shooting a wedding, my neck, back, and shoulders are going to hurt no matter what I am carrying. Nevermind the fact that the 70-200 F2.8 II is probably quite a bit heavier than this will be anyways. Just curious to see how important weight is to most people when making a purchase, as it really doesn't affect my personal gear choice for a long day of shooting.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 09:34:10 PM »

TL;DR version: Raid provides redundancy, not a backup. Redundancy and backups are very different, and are not a replacement for one another. I run my file server in RAID5, and conduct weekly backups.

And might I add have an offsite backup. If your home burns down or thieves take your computer, and your backup is sitting attached to your computer, it's gone too.

more to the real topic.... I really hope the 7D2 is out by the end of the year, but if they announce early next year then that probably means spring. It might happen sooner because once the 70D comes out, sales of the 7D will flatline.

Another great point. Something I slack on a little bit. They're so darn inconvenient. Still, I run a hard drive over to my parent's house every month or two (Sometimes three... Not enough, I know) and store it there in a fireproof safe. Better than nothing I suppose.

EOS Bodies / Re: Stay with Canon?
« on: July 11, 2013, 09:14:42 PM »
I just love how most people act as if swapping camera brands is such a simple task. I briefly considered switching to Nikon when I heard the price of the 5D3 (Very briefly, in my head, never made a post on the forums, mind you) as I was not too thrilled with Canon at that point.

I too have only been doing this semi-pro for about 4 years. But do you have any idea how expensive it would be to make the switch to Nikon? Canon 5D3, 7D, 70-200 F2.8L IS II, 24-70 F2.8L II, 100 F2.8L IS Macro, 24-105 F4L IS, Sigma 35 F1.4, 85 F1.8, 50 F1.4, Tokina 11-16 F2.8, 4x 600EX-RT, 2x 430EX II, 580EX II, 3x PW Flex TT5, AC3 Zone Controller... and I'm sure the list goes on with other accessories and random crap I've accumulated over the past few years. And my photography career is comparatively short to many of yours.

It would literally cost me thousands of dollars to make the switch to Nikon, for an imperceptible difference in image quality. In the end, it was much cheaper just to suck it up and purchase the 5D3, rather than wasting all that money switching brands. And I love the 5D3 now =) It helps that I got mine about a year ago for $2700 rather than full retail.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: July 11, 2013, 09:00:44 PM »
Drives are very cheap. Doing backup of the drives continues to be a stone in the shoe, though ;)

That's what more drives are for. :)

You're missing the point.

That is why raid 1 was invented, two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other.

OK, two misconceptions here:

First, RAID-1 is not "two identical drives that automatically backs itself up to the other". RAID-1 is writing data identically to two drives all the time, producing a "mirrored set" (when reading you don't have to read from both drives). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#RAID_1

Secondly, RAID is used to protect you against accidental drive crashes (except for RAID-0, where there is no redundancy) and to get very large drive volumes, not to protect against deletions because deletions are recorded on all disks at the same time.

Backup ... is backup! Backup ensures that when you accidentally deleted at file, you can find it and restore it. So using RAID and backup are really orthogonal issues.

The reason that backup is 'expensive' is that it takes a lot of time (and performance out of your system) to rummage through your terabytes storage, and whirling off the changes to your backup platform. It's so expensive in terms of performance and time, that people just don't do full backups all the time, but only during weekends to be able to complete the backup before people come back to work Monday morning.

But yes, this is decidedly outside the 7D2 discussion.

I gave up waiting for the 7D2 last year and went for the 5D3 (I'm still in love with it). But an 7D2 like RLPhoto predicted would be very interesting indeed!
I'm crossing my fingers that Canon have been able to work on the IQ - I was always disappointed with the 'mushy' pictures from my 50D, and my friends' 7D was no better.

Great explanation. I was just getting ready to type up my response, but then I saw your's, and it hits all of the important points spot on.

TL;DR version: Raid provides redundancy, not a backup. Redundancy and backups are very different, and are not a replacement for one another. I run my file server in RAID5, and conduct weekly backups.

EOS Bodies / Re: Early EOS 70D Images Surface
« on: July 01, 2013, 09:41:19 PM »
I would have picked this up as a replacement to my 7D, to use a backup to my 5D3, but it looks like this will use SD cards. If it used CF, I would pick one up for sure... Looks like it will be a 7DII or another 5DIII for me.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« on: June 26, 2013, 11:07:39 PM »
The only thing it is lacking is weather sealing and copy variance.

That's code for quality control:-\

I'm not sure what you are getting at. That was exactly my point, just worded differently. To be fair, the variance only seems to be in AF adjustment, so their quality control is only bad in that one area. I readily admit that. Still, the hassle was worth it for me.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5