July 29, 2014, 03:46:25 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 - CTJohn

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
61
Black & White / Re: Black and White Landscapes!
« on: November 11, 2013, 08:52:39 AM »
Goblin Valley State Park, Utah
7D, 24-105L

62
Landscape / Re: Flowers
« on: November 04, 2013, 08:50:44 AM »
Lilies shot yesterday indoors, 9 images focus stacked.

6D, EF 100 f/2.8L lens, softbox with 430EXII

63
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: October 29, 2013, 01:21:36 PM »
Ender's State Park - Connecticut.  Lovely falls with variable water flow throughout the year.

64
Macro / Re: Canon 100mm IS USM L Macro Photos
« on: October 26, 2013, 04:22:14 PM »
10 images, focus stacked.
6D, 100L Macro

that is a really nice image, i am going to have to read some tutorials on focus stacking.

Here's a good start...

http://digital-photography-school.com/an-introduction-to-focus-stacking

65
Software & Accessories / Re: Portable Storage Backup?
« on: October 26, 2013, 04:17:52 PM »
I use the Hyperdrive ColorSpace.  It works great.
I have one too, and the best I can say is it backs up my images.  The interface is something from 10 years ago - why not touch screen, why not a simpler menu, why not a better screen?  I'd love a better option but haven't been able to find one.  My guess is some sort of tablet will provide this in the future.

66
Macro / Re: Canon 100mm IS USM L Macro Photos
« on: October 26, 2013, 09:45:47 AM »
10 images, focus stacked.
6D, 100L Macro

67
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: October 26, 2013, 09:33:06 AM »
Hanalei Bay, Kauai
9 image panorama.
6D, 24-105 f/4L
1/5 second at f/22.

68
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: October 26, 2013, 09:29:08 AM »
Kilauea Lighthouse, Kauai.
6D, 24-105 f/4L
0.3 second at f/22

69
Canon General / Re: Official: Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS
« on: October 15, 2013, 08:20:14 AM »
Amazing how Sigma, after tons of so-so lenses and poor quality control, now gets the automatic nod from most of the posters.  I'm happy with my Canon 24-105L and only phenomenal results in the real world would get my interest.

70
PowerShot / Re: Limited Edition PowerShot Cameras Coming
« on: October 15, 2013, 08:15:06 AM »
One option comes with a Sony sensor!

71
In ideal circumstances yes everything you say is true, but even many professionals don't have that kind of work environment, almost no amateurs do, and that is one of the route causes for people being so unhappy with their prints.

Understand brightness and the difference between screen and print viewing and that, in my opinion, is the biggest hurdle to happy printing. Colour spaces, profiles, what manages colour etc are all just clicks of a button and easily repeated, but brightness isn't, and it is key.

Agree!  I mostly use MPIX for my printing and the process is incredibly frustrating.  I have a calibrated monitor turned down to 30% brightness, and it's way brighter than the first prints I get back from MPIX.  I then go through round 2, upping contrast, brightness, and in some cases, saturation and send them back.  The second prints can be OK, but often I need to do the process a 3rd time.  So about 3 weeks after I've taken the image, I have a usable 4x6....then I order enlargements.

It's even more frustrating when someone asks me to re-print a year later and I have to try to remember which one gave me the good print.  I could be more disciplined creating "print" folders I guess.

I understand the difference between backlit and printed images, but wish someone could work out a simpler way of adjusting between the two.


CTJohn,

The solution to your issue is a print viewing booth or station. Off the shelf ones are very expensive, but all it needs to be is a neutral background close to white/very light grey, with a good full spectrum light source (there are some high quality bulbs that are very cheap nowadays) that can match your screen brightness, some baffles to help keep any extraneous light off the print helps too depending on ambient conditions. To test you can use your cameras meter, take a picture of a plain piece of photo paper in the viewing station, then with the same exposure settings take a picture of your screen when it displays a white screen. Adjust until they are the same.

Here is a DIY booth PDF

http://www.rgbcmyk.net/proofingbooth.pdf

Here is the Rolls Royce of lighting kits but there are some very good flourescent choices now too.

https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/colorproofkit.html

But even with a booth it is important to understand that your viewing conditions will be different to everybody else's! Prints live and die on the light that is cast onto them. Few people have their monitor and viewing station at the same WB, and generally this isn't too important, our eyes adjust for WB quicker than we can scan between the two images next to each other, but most lights are around 3,500ºK whereas most screens display around 6,500-5,000ºK.

Try using a 3,500ºK adjusted screen for anything but print evaluation and you will see why!

Thanks for the suggestion!

I'll still have the problem of my prints being darker than my display though, won't I?  That seems to be the crux of my issue since I bought the Spyder.

72
In ideal circumstances yes everything you say is true, but even many professionals don't have that kind of work environment, almost no amateurs do, and that is one of the route causes for people being so unhappy with their prints.

Understand brightness and the difference between screen and print viewing and that, in my opinion, is the biggest hurdle to happy printing. Colour spaces, profiles, what manages colour etc are all just clicks of a button and easily repeated, but brightness isn't, and it is key.
Agree!  I mostly use MPIX for my printing and the process is incredibly frustrating.  I have a calibrated monitor turned down to 30% brightness, and it's way brighter than the first prints I get back from MPIX.  I then go through round 2, upping contrast, brightness, and in some cases, saturation and send them back.  The second prints can be OK, but often I need to do the process a 3rd time.  So about 3 weeks after I've taken the image, I have a usable 4x6....then I order enlargements.

It's even more frustrating when someone asks me to re-print a year later and I have to try to remember which one gave me the good print.  I could be more disciplined creating "print" folders I guess.

I understand the difference between backlit and printed images, but wish someone could work out a simpler way of adjusting between the two.

73
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 06, 2013, 10:08:54 AM »
Red Footed Booby, Kauai.

7D, 70-300L

74

Isn't DNG an Adobe product?  Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future?  They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.
I think you're missing my point.  If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim.

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

I repeat my question, do you work for Adobe?

When did you first ask if I worked for Adobe? Don't bother, I don't, never have, never will.

I believe you are missing my point, and the capabilities Adobe have given you.

You say you have CS5 and a 6D and the RAW files will not open in your version of ACR? Here are a couple of workarounds that Adobe have left for us, but first, what format do you currently save your CS5 work in?
  • Download DNG Convertor, convert a copy of your RAW file to DNG, open in CS5's ACR, process, open in CS5 process. Save as--------  This is where you are being obtuse, you always have to save your PS file as something, save it to whatever you save it now, TIFF, jpeg, PSD etc etc you don't need to save as a DNG, you just need to open it as one to work your new cameras files in your older software.
  • Upgrade to CS6
  • Pay $99 to get the CC version of ACR via Lightroom 5

So, one free option that doesn't touch your RAW file, one modest cost option that vastly increases your functionality that also doesn't touch your RAW file, CC/LR5's ACR is way better than CS5's ACR, and one marginal upgrade cost that gets your 6D files open but doesn't future proof you for long and doesn't get you the best available ACR, and oh, doesn't touch your RAW file.

The only difference to your current workflow is converting a copy of your RAW file to DNG to open it in CS5's ACR, it takes no more HDD space, it doesn't touch your original RAW file and your CS5 output file s identical to your current CS5 output files. Adobe provided and support that functionality entirely free. Again, give me one example of any other software company that provides a free fully supported program that means you can continue using old versions of their software with new hardware (new, expensive, cameras that's files are only unreadable because the camera manufacturers refuse to adopt any kind of RAW standard).

As has been said, DNG is an open format, it is far more likely that future third party software will be able to read DNG's than PSD's, or even some legacy RAW files.

For the record, whilst I have tested this to see if it works as I say (it does I have copies of CS4 and CS5 on older boot drive clones) I do not use DNG's as I have no need, I went the CS6 and LR5 route as, for me, that makes far and away the most sense.
I'm replying on my very old laptop, purchased long before I purchased CS5.  The Windows Vista program in this laptop surely cost a lot less than what I paid Adobe for CS5 Extended, is updated continually by Microsoft, and so far, seems to work with all programs I choose.

Regarding Adobe, as far as I know, I never use ACR except behind the scenes.  With RAW images from my 7D, I import them into my Lightoom catalog, then can use "Photo- Edit In", and either open as an image, or merge to panorama, merge to HDR, open as smart object, or open as layers.  Lightroom tells me this version of Lightroom (happened in both 4 and 5) may require Camera Raw plug-in 8.1, but gives me the option of "Render Using Lightroom" and I'm fine.  The images open as TIFs in Photoshop.

With RAW images from the 6D, the HDR, panorama, open as smart object, and open as layers options don't give me the "Open with Lightroom" option, only offering "Open Anyway."  When I click that, nothing opens in Photoshop.  So far, that means I've lost the functionality of those actions, which were among the ones I used the most.  I've had to export as TIF, then import the TIFs back into my catalog, and then import into CS5.....not a huge problem, but not the functionality I thought I was buying.

I'm an amateur, and not a heavy user of Photoshop, but invested a lot of time, and Lynda.com cost learning how to use the program.  I haven't seen anything dramatic for my usage that says I need to update to the most recent version of Photoshop, but Adobe seems to think otherwise.

75

Isn't DNG an Adobe product?  Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future?  They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.

The DNG format is an free and completely open format developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original).

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.
I think you're missing my point.  If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim.

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

I repeat my question, do you work for Adobe?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14