Shots from this weekend? 17/05/09

ricardovaste · May 17, 2009

Haven't had time to shoot the last couple of weeks, but did have a little wonder this afternoon (in torrential rain though). Stumbled back to a strange little place I visited months ago... seems someone is still inhabiting it.

A700, 17-50 @ f4.5, ISO1600 3 bracketted shots combined in Photomatix Converted to B&W in PS & tri-toned in PS

Hope you had a nice weekend.

peterblaise · May 18, 2009

.

I've been enjoying the luscious verdant bloomin' trees, yet trying to make my screen show you how greeeeen everything feels! Here's AdobeRGB original opening on Photoshop, but unconverted opening in an sRGB environment dulled the greens, so I "converted" to sRGB to try to maintain as green as sRGB can:

samn · May 18, 2009

Saturday AM the 16th.<div>

00TOi6-135749584.jpg.50652282374c27b8d55232e95a0b2b6c.jpg

</div>

jiun_der_chung · May 18, 2009

Why would you do that PBM? If you shoot in RGB, why not set your Photoshop default to RGB? If you would prefer to work exclusively with sRGB, why not start off by shooting in sRGB?

vrankin · May 19, 2009

Another rainy and cold weekend here... this was shot from my kitchen window. Maybe this coming weekend will be better.<div>

00TOy1-135897584.jpg.c6973275ec6a3998a1d092643607eb31.jpg

</div>

wayne_naughton · May 19, 2009

A face full of stitches from a wee skin cancer op kept me quiet this weekend. So here's another one from our Coorong trip. The light was exquisite when i took this......<div>

00TOyP-135899584.jpg.a02de3d874b84698cb6df2a01ccadb76.jpg

</div>

ricardovaste · May 19, 2009

'The light was exquisite when i took this' - Indeed, brilliant portrait Wayne! Great job!

wayne_naughton · May 19, 2009

I've fallen in love with south western Victoria, Richard. The environment is so wild and harsh, the wind's always blowing a gale, the ocean's forever mad. and then usually very late in the afternoon when the sun is low on the horizon, everything can go so quiet, the wind'll die away and the bird's go silent and for a few moments you can just see forever....... don't you love that ol' minolta glass!

miserere_mei · May 19, 2009

Lovely ghost shot, Richard. I bet that would look beautfiul as a large print.

Wayne, what a great "decisive moment" portrait.

peterblaise · May 19, 2009

.

Congratulations on surviving, Wayne -- best wished on hurrying your healing!

----------

Earlier: Jiun Der Chung , May 18, 2009; 11:46 p.m. wrote:

Why would you do that PBM? If you shoot in RGB, why not set your Photoshop default to RGB? If you would prefer to work exclusively with sRGB, why not start off by shooting in sRGB?

</blockquote>

Hi Jiun,

There is no "shoot in RGB" as "RGB" is not a color space, whereas AdobeRGB and sRGB are color spaces.

My master capture is Raw, and my camera color space is Minolta DiMage A1Mod g2200 color space, to be exact, and the values are encoded with color values expected to be opened and mapped to AdobeRGB .

Some software maps any file color values to an sRGB map regardless, loosing the accuracy of the intentions of a file expecting to be opened in an AdobeRGB color value map.

I shared both images because I WANT to share my experience of the deep luscious green, but was surprised when I opened my own file in one program and saw a rather dull green -- ooops -- and suddenly realized what others see when they complain and say that hate color management!

Now I better understand why people complain that AdobeRGB is so dull -- ONLY when improperly handled! So, I thought I'd share my experience of not only the original green, but my experience of trying to share that green, and some challenges in doing so predictably.

I print to AdobeRGB , and will always capture with the most my camera can capture and map, which is effectively AdobeRGB. Visitors to the web overwhelmingly map their image values to an sRGB color value map, and much software defaults to opening any image as if it were mapped to sRGB even if the image is not sRGB mapped -- results are that AdobeRGB color value mapping sometimes looks dull (when improperly mapped to sRGB), which is wrong. So, by intentionally remapping my original AdobeRGB mapped color values to new sRGB map color values, I maintained the most accurate intentional color mapping possible of the luscious green colors I experienced and wanted to share. Had I left the file's color map expecting you to view them according to an AdobeRGB color value map, you'd see only the dull (left side) copy of the scene because most web viewers map any image file color values to a sRGB color value map, NOT the luscious green I experienced and wanted to share.

Anyway, Jiun, there's so much struggle on the web and at photo.net over color management, I thought I'd share a failure and a success side by side so we can remember how lucky we are when things go right, and how frustrating it can be when things go wrong.

----------

For your entertainment, here are the the two original images I overlapped and blended -- I often tend to like the first image I see in the viewfinder before focusing, and hunger for that effect even in the accurately focused image, hence my disdain for the opinion that we all always want the most perfectly focused images across the subject scene. We do not.

Givens: Same subject scene, same photographer vantage point, same lens focal length. Left, accurate focus at 2.4 meters; Right, inaccurate focus at 0.5 meters. Question: Which is the most accurate sharing of the photographer's experience of the subject scene?

</blockquote>

.<div></div>

ricardovaste · May 19, 2009

Sounds like an amazing place Wayne! I do agree, your shot also has that 'Minolta touch' to it. Which lens were you using, out of interest?

Thanks Miserere! Sadly, it's not really that sharp, so I'm not certain how it would handle a large print, but like always, I think we can 'over play' the idea of sharpness/detail being the most important factor in deciding a large print.

It's a nice shot, Peter, but don't you think it would benefit from a much wider view, so we can really see the 'back lit' effect properly?

One from yesterday afternoon:

A700, 8/3.5, ISO400 3 bracketted shots combined in photomatix Converted to B&W in PS & toned in PS.

miserere_mei · May 19, 2009

Thanks Miserere! Sadly, it's not really that sharp, so I'm not certain how it would handle a large print

</blockquote>

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.

—HCB

:-)

anndileep · May 19, 2009

DeLaurenti's Cheese Festival at Pike Place Market in Seattle last weekend.

wayne_naughton · May 19, 2009

Peter, stitches out yesterday....healing nicely thankyou.

Thanks M.M. Appreciated.

Richard, I'm using Sony 70-200f2.8SSM. I guess there's no surprise that I'm getting a Minolta 'look' ..grin... I really do like this lens. Originally I bought it for sports, but. gee, it's worked well in other applications. It's my beercan on steroids.

jiun_der_chung · May 19, 2009

PBM, I'm no expert on colour management, I only understand as much as I need to in order to get things to work! When I said RGB I was referring to Adobe RGB, thank you for you pedantry.

My understanding is that the standard colourspace of web browsers is sRGB therefore it is pointless to post anything that isn't sRGB as the correct colours will not be seen. For that reason, some people choose to work exclusively with sRGB. I suspect that the real world difference (as Richard likes to put it) between RGB and sRGB is probably not that great given that most moniters and printers are probably not capable of achieving the full sRGB gamut anyway.

I'd like to point of that I'm not one of those people, probably out of fear that I am potentially missing out on something? *laugh*

paul_de_ley · May 19, 2009

Woohoo, back to scanning at last! Finally found a replacement film holder for my Canoscan FS4000US...by buying another Canoscan FS4000US kit. Well, one of the machines will have to go on craigslist, hopefully someone out there has all the accessories and a broken scanner they'd like to replace for a bargain :)

Here's a first scan to check whether everything still works, this negative has been waiting quite a while to get scanned but at least the scan itself is fresh. This is a spot in Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge where a large chunk of indoor-tennis-green clay reaches the surface and mingles with eroding desert rock and gravel.<div></div>

peterblaise · May 19, 2009

.

Earlier: "... My understanding is that the standard colourspace of web browsers is sRGB therefore it is pointless to post anything that isn't sRGB as the correct colours will not be seen ... "

</blockquote>

... accurately . The colors will not be seen accurately .

And, of course, all the pictures I posted above ARE "in" sRGB colorspace, one was just mismapped rather than converted to sRGB colorspace. All references to pedantry aside, the difference is palpable:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TOaJ-135699584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TOaJ-135699584.jpg</a> </li>

</ul>

My point is that, like you, I seldom know nor care about colorspace since it seems to be taken care of accurately to my satisfaction by my programs of choice and the default settings I chose long ago:

<ul>

<li>AdobeRGB colorspace mapping going to print, </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>sRGB colorspace mapping going to display. </li>

</ul>

But, the other day, suddenly, on another computer that is new to me (which I am troubleshooting and documenting on the Adobe.com boards), everything seemed "dull", and I suddenly saw what all the complaining was about in so many prior photo.net threads where people just couldn't "get" "color management".

So, in this thread on "Shots from this weekend " I thought I'd share BOTH ways what I saw one of my "Shots from this weekend ":

<ul>

<li> as expected, </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>and as mismapped. </li>

</ul>

Without the prior photo.net threads, I might have tossed the mismapped shot and moved on. Instead, I found and fixed the mismapper. Photo.net threads queued me up to the possibility of "dull" colors being

<ul>

<li>a map problem, </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>not a capture problem.</li>

</ul>

Not being a color management expert does not mean we're not using the same systems "experts" use, just as expert drivers and mechanics use the same roadways as novices ... and pedestrians and pedants.

Thanks for asking. I often find that the simplest of questions provokes the most research and triggers the most thorough and complete answers. Perhaps I can do the same for you, so, back at you:

<ul>

<li>Why, when you mean "AdobeRGB" (a colorspace ) do you write "RGB" (a color model ) instead? </li>

</ul>

----------

Shot from this (past) weekend, another image comparing colors, one with available light versus one with in-camera flash (a non-A900 thing):

<ul>

<li>"Soft and hard corners" © Peter Blaise 2009-05-15-9021-22 MDA1 Maryland US </li>

</ul>

.<div></div>

jiun_der_chung · May 20, 2009

PBM, from what you have described, you have 2 photos. One is in RGB which has been opened and viewed through the sRGB colourspace. Which practically means that the colour gamut that is outside the sRGB colour space has basically been discarded (or not displayed). The other is an image with the sRGB colourspace as it has been converted from RGB. WHich means that the colour gamut if the RGB has been compressed into the smaller sRGB colourspace. But yes, your point is valid that using the correct colourspace is important.

The reason I say RGB is because I am lazy. I think most people would probably understand my reference to RGB vs sRGB. Hence my reference to pedantry. But you could certainly just as validly refer to my comments as "inaccurate".

I didn't say I didn't understand colour management, I understand enough to do what I want to do. But that doesn't make me an expert, certainly not in terms of trying to explain the reasons behind colour profiles etc.

Actually, I think the backlit effect would be more effective in a closeup of a single leaf as you would have the contrast and effect of the veins in the leaf.

peterblaise · May 20, 2009

.

Ahh, you do want to discuss it.

No, mismapping is not discarding colors, it is mismapping them (the values are unchanged and can be "recovered" by proper mapping -- nothing is lost, it's just being misdisplayed).

Converting from one colorspace to another by a variety of algorithms might discard colors.

And, no, for the green leaves,

<ul>

<li><a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TOaJ-135699584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TOaJ-135699584.jpg</a> </li>

</ul>

... I do not have two images in different image colorspaces, I have one image that mismapped and I thought I'd share the mismap beside the proper conversion example. To confuse the issue, the presentation image was a double exposure (one in focus and one out of focus),

<ul>

<li><a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TP4w-135937784.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TP4w-135937784.jpg</a> </li>

</ul>

... but both those were always mapped to the same colorspace.

For the corner chair shots,

<ul>

<li><a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TPTR-136163584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TPTR-136163584.jpg</a> </li>

</ul>

... yes, there are two different images, but the subject was in different color lighting in each (available light color, versus flash light color), yet the resulting images were mapped to the same colorspace.

----------

I'm confident you will never refer to AdobeRGB , the colorspace , as RGB , the color model , again! ;-)

----------

Thanks for your suggestion on getting closer -- the perennial advice from Robert Capa, right? Approximately:

<ul>

<li>If your photos are not good enough, you're not close enough. </li>

</ul>

I believe he died a violent death photographing to the end -- ooops, too close!

Actually, regarding the green, I feel underwater, and a closeup can be compelling, and certainly a challenge I will address, but see also:

<ul>

<li><a href="00TGPC">http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00TGPC</a> </li>

<li><a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TGoA-131969684.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00TGoA-131969684.jpg</a> </li>

</ul>

.

jiun_der_chung · May 20, 2009

I'm confident you will never refer to AdobeRGB , the colorspace , as RGB , the color model , again! ;-)

</blockquote>

I wouldn't hold your breath.

I really like that last photo "Sea of Snakes" It gives a fantastic sense of place.

peterblaise · May 20, 2009

.

Interesting. Compare the wide angle distance shot that "... gives a fantastic sense of place ... " to, "... I think the backlit effect would be more effective in a closeup of a single leaf as you would have the contrast and effect of the veins in the leaf ... ", though I like the challenge of the closeup conveying the same inundation I felt. I was getting there in the intermediate closer photo. Next to try one leaf only -- great challenge. Thank you.

----------

As I understand it all today (don't expect the same understanding tomorrow!):

Color models are mathematical ways to represent perceived colors. RGB is a color model, as is CMYK, CIEXYZLab, and so on -- different ways of representing perhaps the same colors. RGB is additive to white. CMYK is subtractive to white, Lab is for lightness, green-to-magenta, and yellow-to-blue, and so on.

Color spaces are ways of representing and comparing different color ranges -- gamut -- within one color model. For instance, AdobeRGB and sRGB are different color spaces within the RGB color model (and as we're getting to know, AdobeRGB maps more of the RGB territory than does sRGB).

We choose a different color model because it efficiently and effectively describes the medium with which we are working -- different for screen, print, and so on.

We choose a different color space within that color model to accurately represent the specific colors we want.

When you say I "... capture in RGB ... ", I do not. I capture in grayscale values with an RGGB map (not RGB) along side in the file (and I also chose a secondary value map to an AdobeRGB-equivalent gamut).

Sigma Foveon sensors do capture in the RGB color model values directly (not to a color space -- they still need internal and external translation maps to manageable and predictable color spaces).

Our display systems use the RGB color model values, and generally fall inside the sRGB color space gamut, and everyone is realizing, each display screen is different, and each appears different even when supposedly equivalently "calibrated".

So when you say merely "RGB" by itself, my busy mind dances among the many RGB references in my daily photographic life hunting for an unambiguous meaning. There isn't one, even in context.

For me to disregard the distinctions and hard won meanings of these specific words would deny me the inner control of my photographic process, preventing me from making aware choices with predictable outcomes, making me a rather random artist (to which I plead guilty) rather than the skilled photographer I wish to become.

Pedantry is literally walking a path (as in "pedestrian") because of the path itself, not for the journey or destination provided by that path. I assure you I am wandering pathless (a Greek meaning of the name "Monahon", by the way), and if I appear pedantic, I will study, find, and learn the best ways to avoid such effect as meticulously as possible -- hahahahah! Just kidding. Jiun, I'm just trying to figure out this stuff and keep it from clogging the lint filter in my brain so I can get my photographic "washing" done. But, if you want pedantry, read the Real World Color Management book -- or just read the 41 reviews at Amazon -- much easier!

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Color-Management-2nd/product-reviews/0321267222/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1">http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Color-Management-2nd/product-reviews/0321267222/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1</a> </li>

</ul>

----------

Here's another perennial challenge, especially when assessing our own and each other's images. Can we each see 20 discrete boxes, 0-value-black to 255-value-white? Should we? Do they appear as pure tone without chrome / tint?

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/gamma.gif">http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/gamma.gif</a> <img src="http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/gamma.gif" border="1" alt="Adjust your screen brightness/contrast for 20 shades of black to white" width="98%" height="32" align="absmiddle" /> Adjust your screen brightness/contrast for 20 shades of black to white

</blockquote>

.

ricardovaste · May 20, 2009

Richard, I'm using Sony 70-200f2.8SSM. I guess there's no surprise that I'm getting a Minolta 'look' ..grin... I really do like this lens. Originally I bought it for sports, but. gee, it's worked well in other applications. It's my beercan on steroids.

</blockquote>

Thanks for the info. You use the lens really wel here I think. I couldn't justify the cost of one yet, so went for the latest Sigma offering - the difference between modern optics and that classic Minolta look is like night and day. But you've got the best of both worlds with the Sony I think - modern mechanics and yet optics still in touch with the past. Sadly, I think my Sigma has a backfocus problem :(... I hope I don't have to pay for the repair/calibration.

wayne_naughton · May 20, 2009

Here's a couple taken an hour or so earlier with the Zeiss 24-70....... I don't know.... it's a very sharp lens and the colour's fine (no polariser). Anyone new to the A mount would be wrapped with this lens, but, as a relatively long term Minolta user, I dunno, it just doesn't have the same emotional impact for me.<div>

00TQ1k-136461684.jpg.ece2732d8f25861ca3ef29e11d4199a7.jpg

</div>

ricardovaste · May 20, 2009

I know the feeling, Wayne, modern glass can be very 'clinical' in some ways, where as old glass such as the Minolta classics have a more 'pictoral' effect often. Here is one from ealier today:

'Emptiness'

A700, 17-50 & f/8, ISO200 4 bracketted shots combined in Photomatix Converted to B&W in PS and toned in PS

wayne_naughton · May 20, 2009

Another of the Granites. I like the way the 24-70 handles the haze and clouds. Oh and a word of warning for those of you who surf..... there's an awful lot of great white sharks swimming around out there...real big ones too.....<div>

00TQ2H-136467784.jpg.c9623dcbfdb3e1ca47d58d8e41d291fb.jpg

</div>

Sign In

Shots from this weekend? 17/05/09

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in