digitaldog

<blockquote> <p>We? Lol, you don't even make photos for fun of it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Eric, you have absolutely no idea what I do, shoot or why. Like your post above, you prefer to just make up stuff, then sell it as facts. FWIW, just today I was shooting a job for a huge company that makes printers. But don't let the actual facts of which you have no awareness of get in the way of posting comments that have no factual basis. Again, you're assuming, something you do far too often publicly. It's why you refuse to answer the questions addressed to you, it puts holes in your make-believe. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The light meter exposure puts the highlight on the high end of the raw data.</p> </blockquote> <p>Puts it there based on what? A Histogram, where? IF you're as far to the right without clipping data you want to retain, you are using ETTR.</p> <blockquote> <p>ETTR is in general not using the entire range of the camera because the JPEG histogram is not indicating how much more room is available in the raw data, it only indicates how much room you have in a JPEG image processed the way the camera did.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed, the camera histogram is based on the JPEG and is a big fat lie in terms of what it shows for raw (we really need a true raw histogram but that's another story).</p> <blockquote> <p>I am not sure why you think the external meter is underexposing</p> </blockquote> <p>Simply because if I don't take it's recommendation, if I up the exposure 1,2 and depending on the system, close to three stops, then normalize the processing (exposure slider), the image appears fine. The histogram appears fine. The data has less noise. How do you explain that?</p> <blockquote> <p>It does what all meters do, it gives the exposure for middle gray, the standard scene.</p> </blockquote> <p>In theory yes. But the processing plays a role. The ISO that exposure is used plays a role. Again, if you up the exposure and adjust the procerssing, do you still get middle gray values you expect? And if so, is there less noise? If both are true, how can we say the meter is correct for this raw data?</p> <blockquote> <p>ETTR is not bad, it is just not optimal.</p> </blockquote> <p>How so? It appears to produce less noise. That seems more optimal to me. <br /> Bear with me, this harkens back to an old photo school assignment done in the early 80's. <br /> We were to shoot a still life on 4x5 using color neg (I think it was VPN). The ISO on the box was if memory serves me, 180. <br /> We were to shoot a still life but include a gray card. <br /> We were to shoot at what the meter recommended at that ISO. <br /> We were to then under expose then over exposure 1, 2 and 3 stop. In a way, the plus exposure is akin to ETTR. Don't take the meter as a fact, alter the exposure. <br /> We were to process the film then make our own color prints. Print the '<em>normal</em>' exposure first. The gray card on the print had to match the actual gray card itself. Kind of going full circle to this topic. <br /> Then we printed the other 6 negs. Again matching the gray card as the reference. <br /> Results: none of the under exposed images printed as well as the normal exposure. Kind of what we'd expect. The 1, 2 and 3 stop over exposed negs all printed better (cleaner, less '<em>noise</em>") than the Normal exposure! <br /> Take home: we have to test exposure and processing to output and come up with an <strong>optimal</strong> exposure. Normal wasn't optimal. Plus 2 or 3 was. ISO wasn't 180. It was much lower IF your goal was an optimal neg and thus print.</p> <p>See where I'm going with this?</p> <blockquote> <p>To repeat, the external meter is not under exposing</p> </blockquote> <p>It doesn't appear under exposed. Nor did any of the under exposed negs I shot above. But the final output did suffer compared to optimal exposure. So again, based on ETTR and developing the raw for a good looking image (not over exposed), the results are less noise. Was the meter under exposing? If not, why more noise? Why was the ISO 180 treated color neg noisier than the one treated at ISO 90? None of the prints look under exposed! They were compensated in the processing.</p> <blockquote> <p>Doing so moves the exposure so that the raw file contains all the data it can</p> </blockquote> <p>With or without ETTR? If the raw in either case contains all the data it can, what's with the noise?</p>

<blockquote> <p> And the clincher is, the second you move a slider or two in LR, or add a funky preset and get creative, it matters not if it's a $500 Dell or a $1500 Eizo...</p> </blockquote> <p>Right, assuming you don't care that the display and the results from the numbers don't match. Many of us do, we <strong>don't</strong> edit blindly. <br> So you ready to let us know how you came to this conclusion using the scientific method:</p> <blockquote> <p> If all three were running side by side, I doubt anyone could point out which is the NEC, Eizo, or Dell.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>You doubt, you know, you're assuming? </p>

<blockquote> <p>The point I was trying to get across with the experiment was that camera manufactures have built in biases on how the standard scene is rendered.</p> </blockquote> <p>For JPEG I'd agree. But raw is different. I suspect the default sliders in ACR/LR and most other raw converters are set to attempt the same. Doesn't mean we as photographers shouldn’t test the important combination of exposure + development. I think Adams would do the same. </p> <blockquote> <p>Expose to the right was created to make sure that the shadows have minimum noise and that you are getting the full benefit of the sensor. This works only in the case where the highlights are not already at the top of the camera's recording ability.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Completely agree. So if you don't clip highlights you wish to retain (photo exposure 101) AND the data is cleaner, can't we call this optimal exposure? Or to put it another way, if we use the current meter and processing defaults, is that ideal? Seems not. Not if the results are more noise (unless you dig noise ). </p> <blockquote> <p>I am not quite sure if I have answered your question.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not really. If you use ETTR where appropriate (it's not always necessary or desirable depending on light levels), do you get the same results (numbers you wish to hit)? Different exposure, different development of course, hopefully less noise. What makes the external meter recommendation correct? It appears to be 'under exposing' the raw data no? </p> <blockquote> <p>The fundamental value of the Zone system for me is that I can make a single exposure to get the data I want.</p> </blockquote> <p>ETTR should have zero bearing on that goal. But one should end up with less noise and I could argue, that's a more optimal exposure. <br> <br> I could take film listed as having ISO 100, under expose it a stop and push process it 1 stop and it would (should) look fine but there will also be degradation of image quality doing so. Wouldn’t I be better off exposing and developing '<em>correctly</em>' to produce an optimal transparency? What we call ETTR in digital but which is just idealized exposure for raw data. <br> I'm questioning if by setting ISO on your meter and taking an exposure, in essense you're under exposing and over developing the raw data. It be fine for the JPEG. Otherwise, how to explain the increase in noise, much as we'd see comparing the push development of the E6 film vs. normal development. </p>

<p>Good article and the ending is especially telling (I'm in agreement):</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>For those that can't afford an Eizo/NEC</strong><br /> Save up a bit longer. Honestly - this is the best advice we can give you. It's not worth spending $500 on a Dell now only to find that it's $500 you should have put to an Eizo or NEC monitor. If you love imaging, and/or make your living from it, a good monitor is essential.</p> </blockquote> <p>OK Tim, read that article of which I have absolutely no input and I think you'll see the authors and I are in agreement. Bit depth, gamut, purity, warranty etc are all covered there as I've outlined above for the SpectraView. I'm not making this stuff up. </p>

<blockquote> <p>This experiment confirms my belief that only a hand held light meter reading combined with manual exposure mode will yield predictable results when using the Zone System</p> </blockquote> <p>What about altering the raw processing? For example, for grins, say you upped the exposure 1 stop over what the meter recommended, then after capturing raw, you lowered the Exposure slider about 1 stop. IOW, Expose to the Right and normalize development. You get similar values? See any difference in shadow noise? </p>

<blockquote> <p>I ususally adjust the final gamma of my images (using an extra Levels layer in Photoshop), to match the expected conditions.</p> </blockquote> <p>OR one can <em>attempt</em> to calibrate the display so it matches the print. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I know the intent behind that video, Andrew.<br> My statement was more directed toward getting the OP to try to use the information in that video to create a functional processing system whether there's one to be derived or not.</p> </blockquote> <p>Might be a good idea to actually let the OP view the video and ask question if he feels it's necessary, not attempt anything further. <br> You asked (didn't you)? <em>Did you or anyone gleam from that video a by the numbers turnkey process way of creating a pleasing image without trying to hunt for it in the Raw converter?</em><br> I provided an answer but then you write<em>: I know the intent behind that video. </em>What then is the point of that post?</p>

<blockquote> <p>You haven't shown to me or anyone else what to care for except what looks like a lot more work than what it's worth</p> </blockquote> <p>No, I've only failed to show <strong>you</strong>, unless you're quite comfortable speaking for <strong>everyone</strong> else. <br> Meantime, questions I've addressed to you go unanswered. Want to be fair Tim*? <br> What do you not yet understand about the importance of purity over the entire display Tim? I can address other advantages of the system I'm recommending once you can understand one simple advantage of the electronics I've specified. </p> <blockquote> <p>All these custom features in order to have the bleeding edge in accurate Soft Proofing for a print that may or may not see the light of day if not in some ratty looking low lit bar or maybe by a handful of folks who are already too busy looking at their own photos or the trillions of other images online.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, they are cutting edge for soft proofing which for some of us is important! Hence asking the OP what he hopes to gain from the new technology. Further, I can't fathom how anyone would buy old technology these days; a non wide gamut display. As such, having sRGB emulation is kind of important if you're viewing those images on the web you speak of. But since the web is the lowest form in terms of color management or lack thereof, you could get by with <strong>any</strong> display, calibrated or not if your <strong>only goal is to view images on the web</strong>. Are you quite certain that's the <strong>only</strong> goal of the OP? Or other's reading these posts who might also want to know what to look for when buying a display? You're doing a good job speaking for others so maybe like you, no one cares a lick about a really good display to print match expect me. <br> *So how about it Tim and Eric, you've got some interesting ideas about how all displays out of the box look the same, despite what most have seen when viewing multiple TV's tuned to the same RGB signal. So displays are different? You <strong>did or didn't</strong> put multiple differing displays, all getting the same single (meaning the same computer and graphic system) in front of yourselfs and viewed them together such you are sure they all produce the same basic apparence? </p>

<blockquote> <p> I couldn't be bothered to read the overly long posts above this one, so maybe I disturb something massively interesting (though I sincerely doubt that).</p> </blockquote> <p>Ignorance IS bliss? </p> <blockquote> <p>I can only compare it to cheaper LCDs Ive had before, and it is heaps better...</p> </blockquote> <p>Compared how and better how? </p> <blockquote> <p>Main thing is making sure you get an IPS panel, and calibrate it.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed however, how one <strong>can</strong> calibrate a display varies considerably. Not all instruments are on the same playing field, and the software that can (or in your case cannot control the display) is significant. But if all the OP wants is a very simple answer, as some here suggest, just buy any ISP panel, there are (?) all the same. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Did you or anyone gleam from that video a by the numbers turnkey process way of creating a pleasing image without trying to hunt for it in the Raw converter? I didn't.</p> </blockquote> George is a friend and associate so I think I can say with some confidence that his goal in this video was simply to attempt to explain what's going on <em>under the hood</em>. Not to correlate that understanding into a user producing a better appearing image per se. Stick with whatever techniques you use to make the image look better.

<p>David, what Tim and Tomek suggest are spot on. I think you're digging a big rabbit hole here. It be useful if we understood what you're hoping to accomplish. </p>

<blockquote> <p>If you're having to custom tweak a display's mismatch in dynamics to low grade output such as newsprint, isn't that pretty much bending the ruler to fit the measure because the high end display is now being forced to show a "huge difference" between it and low end printing. I mean how many photographers including the OP here at PN are concerned with that level of precision or commercial press ISO standard fussyness?</p> </blockquote> <p>I think you're missing the point and the functionality. Is an accurate soft proof, <strong>one that matches closely to the print important to you or not?</strong> It is to me. VERY important. And printing to an Epson on matt paper versus glossy requires a different contrast ratio for a good match unless you're OK with all that work being done via the profile and the <em>Simulate Paper White</em> (better known as the 'make my image look like crap' button). It doesn't look like crap when you actually calibrate the display for the output! Control over contrast ratio is as important for a screen to print match is white point and backlight intensity. </p> <blockquote> <p>The rest of what you've indicated is pretty much a features list that still doesn't help a photographer see whether it's useful for their purposes clearly enough to spend the extra money on the higher end display.<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Probably if you have no idea what the technology provides. So let's look at ColorComp. You know what purity over the display is, again, you're a smart fellow. Have you ever looked at a SpectraView with and without that feature on? Do you feel poor color purity across a big 27" or 30" display is good for image editing? I don't. And I can explain all the bullet points if you or other's don't understand what they do. <br> <br> There are high end, high quality reference display systems that cost more than an off the shelf display, most being discussed here. They both emit the image to the user but how the data is emitted, how the system is calibrated, how pure the image is across the screen, how many bits are used and where, is very important to many people who take the time to understand the technology and the costs. <strong>If you don't care, just buy any display.</strong> High quality reference display systems in the digital darkroom are not new, I was using a 17" Radius PressView in the early 90s. They've always been expensive but, for many, the most critical piece of equipment in the digital darkroom is the display, not the CPU, OS or amount of RAM. After all, the only reality yoyu have for the RGB numbers you edit is that display. <br> <br> Would you buy the best camera system you could and put a cheap lens on it? I wouldn't. But I understand a little bit about camera systems, lens system and in the context of this post, display technology. But heck, if you want people to say "<em>I own this display and it's good"</em> but provide <strong>zero</strong> basis on how they came to that conclusion then suggest specifying what a high end display can do isn't understandable or pertinent to photographers is a good and lazy way to ignore the subject. </p>

<blockquote> <p>You're correct, Tim. If all three were running side by side, <strong>I doubt</strong> anyone could point out which is the NEC, Eizo, or Dell.</p> </blockquote> <p>You're both correct because you did indeed put those three (or any three differing displays) side by side and viewed the results and further asked people to pick which is which <strong>or</strong> you're making assumptions? And if the three are not all wide gamut displays, calibrated to produce a match (if that's possible), you are still sure both statements can be backed up or again, more assumptions? <br> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Eric, where's your evidence? </p>

<blockquote> <p>I mean anyone can come here and say this display is hugely off compared to the best of displays. That information doesn't help anyone make an informed purchase.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed and that's sums up the entire set of posts here. </p> <blockquote> <p>Can you show us just how hugely that is?</p> </blockquote> <p>Well I could but you're a smart fellow so imagine the difference calibrating a display for 150:1 contrast ratio because you're soft proofing news print compared to the same display set for 300:1 for glossy Epson prints. Think you'd see a visual difference in the two targets? Can you even adjust black separately with the other displays here internally in the panel? You can with Eizo and SpectraView. </p> <blockquote> <p> I haven't seen that much of a "huge" difference in displays.</p> </blockquote> <p>Viewed how? From memory or having a half dozen all getting the same RGB signal sitting in front of you, much as we see shopping for TV's? You think there's a difference? All the various displays are close but all those TV's are different due to what? No, I suspect they are all quite different and that's why we calibrate them in the first place. </p> <blockquote> <p>If you can't show us, can you describe in words what to watch out for in defining the level of huge difference that would prevent a photographer from being able to get a screen to print match or even judge color editing on such a hugely different display quite different from an NEC or Eizo?</p> </blockquote> <p>Sure, I can describe what a smart reference display system can do that other's can't, for example those by Apple (who folks seem to think produce such wonderful displays):</p> <ol> <li>Nearly all if not all current SpectraView displays are wide gamut, Apple's are not (sRGB like gamut).</li> <li> SpectraView uses a high bit internal processing path (at least 10-bit) with internal 3D LUTs, Apple and many other's do not. These high bit LUTs allow precise adjustments to be made to the display’s Tone Response Curve without reducing the number of displayable colors or introducing color banding artifacts.</li> <li> Newer NEC SpectraView's use GBr LED which produce far more precise control of White Point, run cooler, use less energy, run far longer than CCFL.</li> <li>SpectraView has 3-4 year on site warranty, Apple has 1 year. </li> <li>SpectraView panels are hand selected from the manufacturer line (pick of the litter). </li> <li>SpectraView has electric technologies like ColorComp, which adjusts and improves screen (brightness) uniformity using individually measured matrices for each display at the factory. All done high bit with compensation for operating time and temperature. Apple does not. </li> <li>SpectraView has electric technologies like GammaComp, to adjust the monitor's internal 10-bit gamma Look-Up-Table, allowing various custom display gamma or Tone-Response-Curves to be achieved. Apple and many other's don't have anything like this. </li> <li>SpectraView is a smart display system that integrates custom software for calibration including multiple target calibration's which can be loaded to adjust the display while loading the associated ICC profile, Apple (and few other products aside from Eizo) cannot do this. To quote from the manual: </li> <li><em>SpectraView communicates with the display monitors using Display Data Channel - Command Interface (DDC/CI) which is a two-way communications link between the video graphics adapter and display monitor using the normal video signal cable. No extra cables are necessary. All adjustments to the monitor settings are done automatically using this communications link. It is not necessary to manually configure the monitor as all of the necessary settings are made by the software. </em>Apple has nothing like this, nor can 3rd party software you have to pay for extra do this.</li> <li>SpectraView will bundle a custom mated Colorimeter with their software for calibration, Apple doesn't. The price you pay for software and colorimeter with the SpectraView, depending on what country you live in costs significantly <strong>less</strong> than buying the hardware and software for a non SpectraView. And that extra money will not provide a fraction of the capabilities outlined.</li> <li>SpectraView PA series offer the ability to calibrate WITHOUT a Colorimeter with the FREE Multiprofiler software since each panel is measured with a very expensive spectroradiometer and that data is embedded in a chip in the panel. It can update the calibration as the unit ages to ensure calibration. Apple has nothing like this. </li> <li>SpectraView can emulate with a single click other behaviors, again on the fly so it can simulate a non wide gamut display (sRGB) among other standardized behaviors (Broadcast Video DICOM, etc)</li> <li>SpectraView has internal electronic control over contrast ratio, Apple and few others provide this. Real useful for soft proofing on media that has differing contrast ratio's (matt vs. glossy papers). </li> <li>SpectraView has Network support (Windows only). Apple doesn't.</li> <li>SpectraView has provisions to lock the display controls so no accidental alteration to behavior by mistake. Apple doesn't. </li> <li>SpectraView displays allow the user to raise and lower the display for best viewing position AND it can be rotated 90 degrees for Portrait. Apple doesn't provide this. </li> <li>Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture). Apple has nothing like this. </li> </ol> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Does anyone know if the Dell UltraSharp U2414H is an acceptable monitor?</p> </blockquote> <p>Using what test processes and analysis? Anyone can come here and say "<em>this display is great</em>" but based on what testing, compared to what other displays, with what functionality? <br /> For me, none of the displays expect Eizo and SpectraView are acceptable. That's why I've got several SpectraViews and before that, Sony Artisan, Barco, PressView. In the day, a good Barco was $5000 for a 21" CRT! <br /> My MacBook Retina display is great. Is it a reference display and would I use it for color critical editing? <strong>Never</strong>. <br /> Unless they are broken, all displays do the same thing. How they do it and the result of what is emitting from the display varies hugely. Yes, vote for U2410 because it emits color. Otherwise, what are the goals you wish to achieve using the display? Wide gamut or not? How well can it be calibrated to match a print (do you even care to do that)?<br> <br /> Q: I want to buy an automobile.<br /> A: My first car was a 1971 AMC Hornet. It worked, and cheap!</p> <p>See what I mean. Pointless.</p>

<blockquote> <p>So after a bit more reading.... I have a headache. :)</p> </blockquote> <p>I'll bet! </p> <blockquote> <p>The values are in sRGB space, after a flat ACR RAW conversion (!), they are percentages of a greyscale version sampled in PS.</p> </blockquote> <p>And differences using ProPhoto RGB? I'll bet. </p>

<p>http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask <br> Here's the ground breaking sharpening workflow proposed by Bruce Fraser that ended up in Lightroom and ACR (two of the three sharpening processes, no creative sharpening). <br> I'd always opt for a raw, parametric edit then one stamped into actual RGB pixels in Photoshop. Faster, actually non destructive unlike PS, better data, applied in the optimal processing order, not the user order. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I just had a look, and the NECs although they look very nice, are a little too pricey for me.</p> </blockquote> <p>You get what you pay for <g><br /> Seriously, if the accuracy and control to gain that from a display (make my display closely match my print) is important, the SpectraView system and similar albeit more expensive solutions from Eizo can't be beat by any of the displays mentioned here. A true reference display system cost more than just a display. If you want to know why, I'd be happy to explain.</p>

<p>Hard to beat the SpectraView line from NEC.</p>

<blockquote> <p>In particular I question if a lower DPI setting would result in a more “translucent” ink layer that would in turn yield an overall lighter tone (ie by allowing more of the paper white to show through).</p> </blockquote> <p>Shouldn’t. <br> Are the prints too dark? Just darker than the display? <br> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</p>

<blockquote> <p>What do you use to achieve accurate color when shooting raw?</p> </blockquote> <p>Raw is <strong>not</strong> a true color image, so that's not possible. This is what a raw file looks like, far from accurate (accurate being colorimetrically correct):<br /> <img src="http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg" alt="" /><br /> http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg<br /> The question: What do you use to achieve <strong>pleasing</strong> color when shooting raw, is the subject of many books, articles and seminars. Can't be answered until we define the raw converter as a start.</p> <p>The article on <em>Rendering The Print</em> I referenced above is a must read!</p>

<p>From DealMac today:</p> <blockquote> <p>Refurb Apple Mac Pro 8-Core 2.4GHz Workstation for $2,000 + $44 s&h<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Ending today, MegaMacs offers the refurbished Apple Mac Pro<br />Intel Xeon 8-Core 2.4GHz Workstation, model no. MC561LL/A, for<br />*$1,999.99* plus around *$44* for shipping. That's <strong>$102 below</strong><br /><strong>our refurb mention from two weeks ago and the best price we've</strong><br /><strong>seen for this model with 12GB RAM</strong>. It features two Intel Xeon<br />2.4GHz quad-core processors (eight cores total), 12GB RAM, 1TB<br />7200 rpm hard drive, SuperDrive, ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB video<br />card, and OS X 10.9 Mavericks. Deal ends today.</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>The proper use of the grey card is NOT for exposure, it's for achieving proper white balance.</p> </blockquote> Not for shooting raw, that be a spectrally neutral off white. Raw is linear encoded, half of all the data is in the first stop of white (highlight), film and JPEG is not linear, there's a curve (H&D or gamma/TRC). You can use a gray card for raw to WB but it's not ideal and can produce color casts. It's called <em>White Balance</em> and <em>Gray Balance</em> for a reason. Exposure for raw and exposure for the JPEG are not the same. The data isn't the same. The processing isn't the same.

<blockquote> <p>What I was trying to troubleshoot is whether my flat curve was best to use when evaluating zone values in my image.</p> </blockquote> <p>The raw data or the image as you render it from a raw processor? The correct values are those that produce an image appearance as you desire, I don't see the point of setting sliders that do anything but that. Also see: http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf<br> Rendering the print is a big part of the photo processing and that's what happens in a raw converter when you move those sliders. I don't see how a flat appearing image or one that isn't ideal is useful. </p>