angie_nelson

<p>I 100% agree with what you said here:</p> <blockquote> <p>Secondly and more important, being artistic is NOT repeat NOT a matter of having more dials to twiddle but of developing a unique artistic vision. On balance (and I've been taking pictures for 60 years as a amateur and pro) I'd say a good digital DSLR is an invaluable tool to help achieve this.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've only been on this forum for a few days but already it's clear to me that if I mention film, people think I hate digital. I hate the annoyance of automation when it gets in the way of what I'm trying to achieve. I'm also aware that in most places there is a difference between DSLR and "prosumer" which would be a point and shoot that has some options for custom picture taking but usually not a fully manual mode. I think the 5D falls in the category of DSLR because it's fairly large and has interchangeable lenses, among other features (if it's Mark 3, then it has dual memory cards, right?).</p> <p>There's nothing wrong with having a camera that has no TTL rangefinder, has only one lens that's superbly sharp, and timesaving features that produce very nice pictures. But it's cheapening the art if a "professional" can only use such a camera because they don't understand digital ISO versus film ISO, and the reason why camera shake prevention is so essential in digital, but was never developed for film (correction: gimbels for handheld video cameras). And various other facts that only someone who spent at least some time with a manual 35mm would know.</p> <p>Prosumer describes the product, and the market segment, not the person. If I am using such a camera, or you are, it's not because "I am a prosumer." We're not labeling ourselves. I might use my old Dimage if I'm just going to a party with friends and want web shots. That doesn't make me a consumer. I might use any camera today and the label on me is still "Angie." Whether I'm a professional is a function of whether I sell prints or otherwise make money with my pictures. Personally I'm a hobbyist, meaning I prefer professional gear but I try to make it within my budget because I have a day job for money.</p> <p>A consumer, hobbyist or professional might buy a prosumer camera for any number of reasons. Prosumer is about the scope of usefulness of the item (by extension, reasons for buying it are usually within the scope of usefulness), but not about labeling people. So I guess, no I haven't met any prosumers, but I've seen lots of prosumer cameras.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Soo... what I'm gathering from this discussion is that the DirectX game might be capable of any bit depth of color it chooses, and may advertise as such (billions of colors!), but when it is presented on (nearly?) any monitor, the limits of the monitor apply and therefore we're back to 16 million colors possibly displayed.</p> <p>Wounter - For not being a teacher, I think you explained it quite well. I'm still not sure I understand what you mean by "It's just an example where having a monitor display capable of handling more bits per colour channel is just a waste - because the input is limited to 8 bits anyway" -- I'd be of the opinion that, (like colors you can't see if you're color blind) it'd be better to have the bits there and provide an opportunity for programs to generate more than 8 bits pre channel. Without that possibility, it's a certainty that the program won't progress.</p>

<p>Thanks, António! Yes they're both calibrations, the one with a date is made by Spyder and the one that starts with sRGB was made by the Windows 7 built in calibration.</p> <p>Looks like I get better results with the Spyder, but it's a bit too warm. Small price to pay. I can do it again sometime when my arm recovers from holding it up. </p> <p>Where would I look for a specific monitor profile? The Asus website maybe? </p> <p> </p>

<p>If color is so "perceptual" then how can we be sure we are all seeing the same thing? Don't you remember being young in art class and asking the teacher if the color red they see is the same one you see? And discussing color blind people? Color is independent of what happens in the brain or it will have to be full of millions of personal exceptions. </p> <blockquote> <p>the excitation of photoreceptors followed by retinal processing and ending in the our visual cortex</p> </blockquote> <p>No, it's the potential excitation, and the unique excitation.... which is why I am not bothering with it and focusing on the wavelengths of light instead, which have the potential to excite, but might not. </p> <p>Anyway you're getting lost in the minutiae. Neither you or I know what the gamut diagram of DirectX is in comparison to RGB, when mapped over the visual spectrum, so this argument is going nowhere fast. </p>

<blockquote> <p>you have failed like much of this series of posts, to understand basic color theory</p> </blockquote> <p>Is there some other way to interpret this other than a personal and professional attack? <br /> Again, I believe it is time to close this thread as it has become too fractious. I asked a simple, "I wonder why not" type of question, and you jumped on me trying to prove that don't understand this or that (ignoring the original question in the process). Color theory is indeed difficult to understand but I'm farther along than someone who claims that color is not wavelengths of light. That much I understand.</p> <p>OK, the display can only display what, 16 million+ colors? But my question was couldn't DirectX do a better job than RGB at displaying even more colors than that (more wavelengths within the visible spectrum)? Y, N, IDK? It wasn't a discussion on whether or not all displays can show it to you. A wide gamut display may still be needed, or a redesigned one, or maybe not, I don't know personally, which is WHY I ASKED.</p> <p>Did I fail to say thank you for people's replies? I'm pretty sure I did that, even the replies that I disagreed with. If not, I'll thank you now. I think the videos especially are very good, but of course, I already saw digital dog videos several times a while back when I was relearning it. Having returned to photography after a hiatus, this is the second time I had to understand gamut, color spaces and all of that. This question was a product of my thought process. </p> <p>FYI - there are no "appropriate" questions, just questions. While I think you make really good videos, I hope you don't teach college classes. It would be like closing minds instead of opening them to tell people there are "appropriate" questions. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Getting back to the point, this discussion should probably be closed soon unless someone has some information about the gamut available to gaming programmers while using DirectX.</p> <p>I appreciate everyone's replies. </p>

<blockquote> <p> Color is not a particular wavelength of light</p> </blockquote> <p>NASA disagrees:<br> <a href="http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html">http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html</a></p>

<p>Then why do people complain about it? Why is it said that RGB "isn't enough"? Why is it said that "CMYK isn't enough"? etc? Are people complaining about nothing?</p>

<p>20 years ago, I worked with a photographer on weddings, and events (bar mitzvah, birthday, corporate). I loved it and we tried never to miss those moments of "Mary riding on grandpa's shoes on the dance floor." Those moments might be lost to you now, but the photographer should at least have offered to book the location for you for posed photography, and paid for any rentals required to dress people up again, paid for logistics, etc. However, that kind of cost can wipe them out if they're a one person operation, but not if they are insured against such a loss. If their brochure says "insured or bonded" it might be possible for them to survive it. </p> <p>If they are a one person operation and they aren't insured in any way, then the best you might hope for is studio time (at your location) and you can work out if you will pay for rentals and hairdressers yourself or they will. These memories are important, and the new wedding photos can be sent out to the guests with a request for any pictures friends may have taken at the event. Eventually you can assemble an album, though not a traditional one.</p> <p>Studio time would have to be at your location or it might get really expensive for her and annoying for you (taking time off from work), she might buy you time with a local photographer who has a studio setup, or who may book a local venue. In any case, she should make this right to reduce her online review from 1 star to 3 stars (out of 5, I'm assuming). </p> <p>Since she was saying that it was her husband's job to do things for her, I assume this is a one person operation. Not to say it can't usually be professional, but I think that odd things happen if someone doesn't also have the skills with computers to retrieve data and is working digitally, or hasn't hired someone who does have those skills. Of course, my saying that now doesn't help one bit. But knowing what I know, I'd trust a one person operation more if they showed up with an old fashioned film camera than a digital one. </p> <p>I haven't tried assisting for anyone now that everything is digital yet, but I second William Porter's advice as sounding like good advice to me. That advice can be turned into questions that can be asked (ie. does your camera write to two memory cards simultaneously?). Again, doesn't help you right now, but maybe she (the photographer) can help you recreate some of those photos locally with the help of a local photographer and venue. I know we would've bent over backward if we'd ruined someone's photos by accident and done anything possible to help. </p>

<blockquote> <p>These companies are savvy to social media and forum chatter.</p> </blockquote> <p>The online conversation is often dominated by idle complaining, whether that is valid or not. Often the complaints are given by people who don't understand the process of photography in the first place, thus the result of this "savvy"-ness is a machine that guesses what you want. In my experience, it guesses wrong and I'm more comfortable with a simple mechanical device, even though it is slower and more prone to human error. At least I can only blame myself for problems.</p> <p>Examples of things I must do to avoid the bad results of my DSLR "guessing wrong" : <br /> * having to turn off the interpolation, anywhere at any time, that simply shouldn't exist in my opinion<br /> * having to guard against digital zooming (why does that even exist?)<br /> * having to turn off "auto-awesome" or any other silly exposure or focusing feature <br /> * not having the choice of setting the iso where I want it (nobody cares right?), or having the iso become some kind of crazy exposure compensation instead of a function of grain and sensitivity<br /> * kludgey color management that treats "daylight" settings as a blue light filter so I'm forced to run in something warm like "tungsten" for skin tones, even outdoors.. I assume this means the camera is guessing that I want it to "look like daylight" not to look like the actual scene in front of me that happens to be daylight.<br /> <br /> Many cameras have fixed some or all of these problems, but for these reasons I still shoot a considerable amount of film. I find myself spending large amounts of time setting up my digital camera to undo the "automatic" behavior of my digital camera, and even then, some of the settings reset after a frame or after a change of battery, etc. It's very frustrating for me and I'm not new to digital, I just haven't adjusted to having my hands tied.</p> <p>When I ask myself what I really want, I want a fully manual SLR camera that records onto CCD or CMOS exactly what appears before me, and gives me the artistic options that a film camera does, plus some new ones. I don't know if that makes me a "prosumer" but it makes me different from a typical consumer.</p> <p>Maybe it's like this:</p> <p>A consumer wants pictures that look nice, easily. <br> A prosumer wants pictures that look really nice, easily. <br> I want pictures that are potentially artistic, I don't care if it's difficult. </p>

<p>Thanks, Mike :) Way ahead of you, though. I've just been considering upgrading the lens on my old Vivitar 3000s (Pentax lenses), and with the good old Thyristor 285 HV flash, it's quite a team. Everyone online seems to like the lens I'm considering buying, the SMC Pentax-M 1-2.8~4, 40-80. I should really get a riser for the flash, though.</p> <p>On the bulk film aspect, I hadn't heard of that idea before, thanks. I looked it up, is this what you mean?<br /> <a href=" /> I like the idea quite a bit.</p>

<blockquote> <p><a href="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/JenniferLeong.shtml" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/JenniferLeong.shtml</a><br /> Take your pick, 100,00 or 10 million. 16.7 million, billions? No way.</p> </blockquote> <p>Okay, then I suppose the real question is, are the RGB colors the correct ones for our eyes to react to? Or do most of them just map to some variation of white or gray or neutral and are not helpful to express what is seen in the real world?</p> <p>Basically, how can we get the screens and printers to just print and show the whole gamut of human vision like this?:<br> <a href="http://www.photocanvasprint.net/rgb-vs-cmyk/images/gamut.jpg">http://www.photocanvasprint.net/rgb-vs-cmyk/images/gamut.jpg</a></p>

<p>That's very clear, thanks, Andrew!</p>

<p>In my opinion "prosumer" is a warning that the item is overpriced and underpowered. When I think I want something "prosumer" I ask myself what about it really interests me. With photography I can't usually buy exactly what I want. Example would be my printer. I know I can get a better grade of ink from a more expensive printer, but this is all I can afford, or I buy only what is the cheapest grade of professional equipment. In my experience, I'm always disappointed by prosumer "products" because they guess at what I want, and try to deliver it. But what I want is to be able to control the picture taking and making processes. Anything called a "product" has too many shortcuts for me to be happy.</p> <p>In short a prosumer is someone who wants professional results without having to understand he process it takes to do that. They want something better than a point and click, but not to be required to learn about depth of field and all that. I've met lots of people who own "prosumer" cameras, but their idea of "pro" is often a larger viewscreen, and instant multiobject focusing at the push of a button. The settings have some manual features, but often are missing some key items, like cameras that have aperture priority only and they call that "manual." </p>

<p>I see what you're saying. What is the gamut possible in video games? Does direct-x and open gl work from RGB? If so, how can they define so many more "colors"? </p> <p>I remember those parabolas of human visible spectrum, and the gamuts of rgb, and various printers superimposed... I'm not convinced that "you can't see millions/billions of colors" What you've shown is a mapping of some numbers from one system to another (a conversion). I'm not sure what L, a, b has to do with it unless you're saying my screen can only work in Lab values? Or according to the Lab theory of human vision, this mapping takes place? I'm not sure where to apply what you've said. My eyes? My monitor? </p>