stephen_ray

<p>Using a Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Softar 1 on Kodak 35mm EPN film circa 1990, re-toned with Photoshop at present.</p><div></div>

<p>"... but he hasn't got another image in his stream that is anything like this one."<br /> <br />Many years ago Hollywood photographer Gary Bernstein gave a seminar to a very large convention group. I was seated in the rear of the ballroom and noticed an interesting soft effect of SOME of Gary's slides. It seemed it was every other slide from two different projectors. I was close enough to the projector bank to see it was simply a projector lens with a large finger print. At the end of the presentation when Gary asked the audience for questions, sure enough someone asked how he got the soft effect. He replied; "Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're seeing." <br /><br />Anyway, because the photo in question seems to be so singular, could it be just a happy accident? <br /><br />There are many ways to get a soft effect, especially nowadays with digital.<br /> However, did you know...<br /> <br />A primary goal used to be to target and diffuse just the highlights. Hasselblad Softars do this as they are "bubbles" in front of the lens. Yari diffusion disks do this as they are black nets mounted behind the lens. Yet another is the Mamiya soft portrait lens. All very different methods result in soft effects and there are many more. Some photographers would purposely scratch, nick, and mar rear elements of lenses for a signature style. It's amazing how much a lens can take! ;-)<br /> <br />A soft focus filter for a camera when used printing negatives in a darkroom will diffuse just the shadows providing a VERY different look and mood. <br /><br /></p>

<p>I've kept one of the most impactful aspects of this photo, which is it's color. I balanced most of the "memory" colors; being the skin tones, the two microphones, and her guitar. Quickmasks, gray and white points using Curves to arrive at neutrals, Selective Color to tweak skin tones, and minor painting with color were used. <br>

The other great thing about this photo is his expression. I don't know if the fellow loves the gal but it appears he surely enjoys performing with her. </p>

<div></div>

<p>More “real world” sRGB at the photo lab…<br /><br />Many know that sRGB is a so-called standard profile for computers monitors. The monitors are emissive devices. The Type C photo paper is reflective. Not really a fair comparison. <br /><br />A more fair comparison could be a Type C translucent clear (DuraClear) or milky-back (DuraTrans) print film. At least the film in its lightbox would be somewhat emissive but even then, the photo dyes are just very different than phosphors, LCDs, LEDs, etc. <br /><br />The Type C paper print fails especially in the bright colors of sRGB as seen on-screen by photographers and graphic designers. Again, very misleading for a lab to say “sRGB is the goods.” Their output profile is “the goods” and unfortunately, that’s as good as it gets. The photo paper simply will not reproduce some of those bright sRGB colors. The photo emulsion dyes have a lower gamut in those areas. <br /><br />Regardless if you begin your file editing process with a wide gamut such as ProPhoto and soft proofing with the best Type C output profile, many bright colors could be reduced to a disappointing lower gamut. However, again, Type C from sRGB, Adobe98, or ProPhoto works great 90% + of the time, and again, by using Perceptual intent to preserve details. Experienced photographers and graphic professionals know their tools and the limitations of their resources. The photo lab profile for soft proofing is the tool to show the limitation of the resource. <br /><br />1) In the 1990’s the “common” interface between photo printer engineers, customers, sales, etc., was the PC monitor. <br /><br />2) In the 1990’s the photo printers were delivered to market just as sRGB was believed to be the “standard.”<br /><br />3) In the 1990’s photo labs were told by the photo printer manufactures to use sRGB. <br /><br />4) In the 1990’s some Photoshop users needed an expensive plugin from Kodak to soft proof. (PS 6 made things better.) When did PS 6 arrive? <br /><br />5) In the 1990’s LaserDiscs had a better picture than the suboptimal VHS, just not as practical as it turns out. <br /><br />I hope this helps. <br /><br />Question(s) for Andrew: <br />With your color tools, can you count how many colors are in the two given spaces of sRGB and any Costco Type C profile?<br />From the difference, can you imaging which group(s) of those colors are the most problematic in reproduction? </p>

<p>Some “real world” sRGB at the photo lab…<br /><br />The overwhelming problem is the lower gamut of the photo paper process. “sRGB only” is misleading. The lab output profile is necessary in order to provide a clue, via soft proof, of what particular bright colors will not reproduce as desired. Fortunately, many labs provide the profile. <br /><br />Imagine the high school senior who arrives at the studio wearing a day-glow colored sweater despite being advised to wear muted, non-distracting colors or patterns for her photo session. Her sweater presents an out-of-gamut scenario. Nowadays, the photographer can show the client a preview of the surprising color results. <br /><br />Other challenging scenarios…<br /><br />1) Commercial photographer shooting certain fluorescent colored bath towels for Big Box Bath & Yonder. <br /><br />2) Landscape photographer shooting certain (bright) flowers at sunset (more bright colors.)<br /><br />3) Fine-Art re-photography attempting certain colors of paint, inks, media, etc., natural or synthetic. <br /><br />4) Forensic photography can be challenging. <br /><br />You can probably imagine many more scenarios of your own. <br /><br />Unfortunately, these conditions are still out of gamut and the best one can do is know why it happens and how to best control it using the technology available. <br /><br />Perceptual intent is the most useful for general photography because it helps retain detail. <br /><br />Some color photography experts have suggested that sRGB contains most of the colors found in the natural world. That may be not far from true, however, the photo paper process is VERY different than sRGB. Therefore, the photo labs have not done anyone any favors by suggesting their process is sRGB.<br>

I believe the photo process is VERY good for what it is. It works great 90% + of the time. There are just many differences between the two models. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Long story short, for the man in the middle...<br /><br />These guys are both right, however, the problem is in the details. Somebody advised; eliminate the variables. Somebody advised; get a control image and test, test, test. Somebody advised; don't count on expensive equipment to be the fix and don't let your expectations get the best of you. Somebody advised; could be just an image-specific color-correction. <br /><br />My advise; do all these things. You're doing the right thing by reaching-out and VERY fortunate to find the two experts available and generous with their time and you're also very lucky to find the two point-of-views, as opposed to just one. Again, both these guys are right. <br /><br />Isn't it amazing we've come so far and we're here to enjoy it? (Or do some of us feel we've just endured it?) The image below was created by myself on an Aztek graphic system, circa 1983, before the Macintosh was available, if I remember correctly. The Aztek was Phil Lippincott's industry offering. Let's just say I think Phil assembled this system before he knew what kerning was. This graphic served as a control image for a certain blue, including black, white, middle gray, and alignment. I don't recall this system including any control images what-so-ever. We created them, made the system better, and then moved on. <br /><br />I know many of us are still doing the same today, many years later.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm guessing it is 4181 ppi.</p>

<p>A common rate would be 4096 ppi. (Divisible by 16.) That delivers a perfect 2x3 aspect ratio from a 1x1.5 inch film chip (slide) and a 72Mb RGB file size. </p>

<p>Just because Adobe asks you to "subscribe" doesn't make them a "service" such as a newspaper or magazine. To be sure, news articles and magazine articles are consumed and have a "shelf life." (They are usually timely.) Adobe is only a tool-maker. Their tools are not consumed, however they wish they were a service and they want you to believe they are a service. At best, they want you to believe their tools are so special that you should rent them with a long-term commitment on your part, so they can "project," as to use their crystal ball. It's obvious to what end.</p>

<p>Consider a software developer building a single crop tool for your entire operating system. A single brush with all the brushes you find to import. A single pen tool that's the same in Photoshop as it is Illustrator as it is in Quark Xpress or OmniGraffle or After Effects. In other words, why can I not go to a single tool box and choose one text tool and use that across a few different apps? When that day comes, am I expected to subscribe to that functionality? One tool at a time or some "set" of tools. For how long? A micro-hour, a day, a month, etc.?</p>

<p>Later. I'm going to my garage.</p>

<p>If you lookup "Buffet Pricing..."<br /><br /><a href="http://math.illinoisstate.edu/krzysio/buffetpricing.pdf">http://math.illinoisstate.edu/krzysio/buffetpricing.pdf</a><br /><br />...you can find a diagram created by MBA geniuses and mentions of keywords such as "monopolistic" and "price discrimination" in the 14 page paper. <br /><br /><br>

Just because your plate is heaping-full doesn't mean you can eat it all. </p>

<p>I'm going to designate only 1 single workstation to CC. This machine will serve as a special place in which to convert any incoming or outgoing files as necessary and will also be known and used for any other capability that eventually supersedes CS6.<br /><br />Some others workstations will be designated as CS6 machines into perpetuity until their obsolescence. I expect 8 years minimum productivity. I still run CS2 on some PPC machines which are working very well for both creative, retouching, and other machine controllers such as scanners and printers. <br /><br />As an individual, I would purchase CS6 and expect it to be my last purchase of a suite, although hoping Adobe would reconsider their model. I would involve a cooperative for any future capability, if necessary.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Adobe makes tools. <br /><br />I'm configuring tool boxes, tool sets, workstations. This is no different than a machine shop or manufacturing line. Not every tool box or workstation is necessarily the same. In fact, it's common for machinists to use their personal tool sets. Luxology's Modo 3D software lets users move their license from machine to machine to machine, etc. <br /><br />Some tools are leased (Xerox), some tools are rented (Panavision), etc. Some toolmakers are more greedy than others. Some stifle progress as an unintended consequence. Some try to create and differentiate market segments upping the ante for the smaller player wanting to hang with the big dogs. Some win, some loose. Some have revolving doors for their CEOs. Some grow to become behemoths and crumble under their own weight. Some "shrink-wrap" their different acquisitions and promote the collection as "suites" but still after 6 versions of the "suite" can't use the same common key command to close the app. Really?<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Adobe makes tools. <br /><br />It appears they expect monthly fees for "tool rental." Usually I rent tools which I need only for a short time and then I return them. Thanks, Home Depot, for renting the hammer drill for concrete. Thanks, Cruise America, for renting the vacation motor home. <br /><br />My monthly payments only go to services and consumables. Thanks, Mortgage Servicer. Thanks, Water District Service. Thanks, ISP Service. Thanks, All-the-Others including my consumable cable television entertainment and news and timely magazine subscription articles. <br /><br />Is Adobe CC a service or consumable? In my opinion, neither. </p>

<p>You can also image directly to photo paper. No intermediate film required. The first version of the LVT could image 16x20 inch.</p>

<p>Google "west coast imaging."</p>

<p>Yes, polarizer on both the lens AND the two or four lamps are best. Be sure to properly orient the filters on the lamps and the lens. The curved back of a shiny metal spoon makes this easy. The filter film should me marked with a sticker with arrows showing direction.<br>

Many hot-light manufactures make heat-absorbing glass and holders for their fixtures. It's rather common because industrial and forensic photographers need to produce color-accurate copy work with no glare and no chance of heat damage to the subject. Common hardware store glass would work if it's thick enough, however.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Your chart is called a "chromazones"chart. Popularized by Dean Collins in the '70s or '80s and I think he even copyrighted the name. Google search his name with the term and you may find the diving board. <br>

You're on the right track except Photoshop is not really the "generator." Your original photography of your colored backgrounds is the generator. Photoshop is just your page-layout tool. Honor your original photography RGB values in your given color space and control accordingly with ICC profiles for output.</p><div></div>

<p>You don't need to upscale from a full size 7D file to the 20x30 size print.</p>

<p>>>I'd also like to suggest that deviating from the conventional aspect ratios occasionally (cropping) is a good thing & should be considered...<<</p>

<p>May I suggest you try cropping to the left side, square, and lose the black border, then ask for comments?</p>

<p>This is not the critique forum area but it does involve the digital darkroom.</p>

<p>Some quick info -<br>

The common Frontier and Noritsu use RGB lasers to expose common Type-C photo papers as does the Lightjet and Durst Lambda. The Chromira and Durst Theta use an LED array for exposure. The RGB lasers in the Lambda and Lightjet are more robust as they image faster and are more capable to image backlit film materials, an important product of this printer class. </p>

<p>The typical Durst Lambda can hold 5 different 100 foot+ rolls of material at a time such as gloss paper, matte paper, metallic paper, flex film, and backlit film and make prints from 20 inch, 30 inch, 40 inch, or 50 inch wide by 100+ feet using resolutions settings of 200 ppi or 400 ppi. Although designed for photography 20 years ago, this machine became a favorite of the exhibit / trade show and advertising industries because of its massive throughput and 24/7 uptime.</p>

<p>The typical Lightjet is limited to one roll at a time from the same size and type of material above but the max image length is 10 feet. There is also a Lightjet model that can image from 72 inch wide rolls. Common resolution settings are 200 ppi or 300 ppi. This machine especially became a favorite of landscape photographers beginning about 10 years ago because owners were more traditional photo labs who catered more directly to photographers as opposed to advertising agencies or the signage trade.</p>

<p>Durst Thetas (254 ppi) and Chromiras (300 ppi) eventually made use of less expensive (but slower) LED exposure methods and targeted the school portrait industry for package printing on narrower rolls of paper. Therefore, prints are not as wide or as long as above.</p>

<p>And finally, the Frontier and Noritsu, designed for the mini-lab segment, primarily using 5 inch, 8 inch, 12 inch wide papers at approx 300 ppi for sizes up to 12x18 inches from their built-in scanners of film negatives or positives up to 6x7 cm. The machines can also image raster files from other computers.<br>

The same print papers used for traditional photo labs were initially used in all these machines but nowadays, some have been been designated "digital" because they have lately been improved for more color gamut, deeper blacks, etc. </p>

<p>All of these machines still produce state-of-the-art photo quality now 15 years later.</p>

<p>Among landscape photographers, FujiFlex from a Lightjet, Lambda, or Chromira is a favorite. Also, because all these printers, materials, and processes are so similar, it is possible to "proof" a photo from a Frontier in your neighborhood and outsource a large 48 inch print to a remote wide-format provider.</p>

<p>So, for a landscape photographer, the imaging is the easiest part. Capturing, framing (including packaging and shipping), and selling are far more difficult and costly, in my opinion.</p>

 

<p>Short answer - Common production-art skin-smoothing retouching for fashion / glamour work. The process takes about 5 minutes or less for both the bikini shot and Kendra using no actions or plugins.</p>

<p>The resource - Google search for Suzette Troche-Stapp, Glitter Glamour Guru book.</p>

<p>I was able to match Kendra's photo to the bikini in 3 minutes but since those images are owned by others, I can not upload them here. Let's try one of yours?! If you're game, upload one using NO reflectors in full, harsh sunlight.</p>

<p>sRGB is NOT the color space of the Fuji Frontier 570, regardless of what you've been told or led to believe. The color space is very specific to the print paper. Therefore, you should have a profile for the machine and paper type. Fortunately, I think you can find many of these at Drycreek and many of them are satisfactory even though they were not made from the machine in your neighborhood. You will learn you're going from one of the largest color gamuts to one of the smallest color gamuts. However, a PERCEPTUAL rendering should result in just that; PERCEPTUAL.</p>

<p>There are relatively few color colors found in nature that may be lost in the Frontier print process. A classic example is a very bright synthetic sweater worn by a high school senior for her portrait. (A manmade fabric / dye combination, not found in nature.) Another classic example is a stack of brightly colored towels on sale at JC Penny. (Again, a manmade fabric / dye combination, not found in nature.) "Natural" scenes usually reproduce well from the Frontier.</p>

<p>1) 100 PPI is perfectly acceptable to image your file to the size(s) you mentioned. *You're original capture is sharp to your liking, "Yes?"</p>

<p>2) Be sure NOT to change your file size to 24x30 @ 300PPI. If you are, you are surely degrading the original quality. 300PPI has been a misnomer for over 20 years now.</p>

<p>3) Audry is using a $1200.00 lens.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p><div></div>

<p>This is the machine you're looking for...</p>

<p><strong>LightJet 500XL</strong></p>

<p>Features<br />*Super-wide digital photographic imaging, up to 72”W x 120"H<br>

LightJet® 500XL prints are ideal for oversized applications where seaming is not desired, such as backlit graphics, trade show displays, POPs, and posters</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Even if your printer's equipment is old, such as 20 years old, the most resolution necessary is about 1.25 - 1.5 x the line screen. Therefor, 300 ppi will be fine for your printer. 300 DPI has been a misnomer for at least 20 years now. Also know, PPI is not DPI.<br>

To learn more, Google search for Brian Lawler's essay paper:<br>

Resolving the resolution issue:<br />How many dpi does it to make an lpi?</p>

<p>A 20x30 @ 100 ppi should be fine.</p>

<p>This is what I used as guide. Thanks to Lee Varis's control image of himself in similar lighting conditions using a Canon D5.</p><div></div>

<p>Sharpening isn't objectionable but does become more noticeable when the scan is truly color-corrected to what appears to be more characteristic of the scene conditions and the actual color negative film stock.<br>

<br />The scan requires just a single curves manipulation to correct all the blacks, all the whites, and color casts mostly in the 3/4 tones.<br>

<br />If you were to make a print from the original negative, I think you may find it to look very similar to this. Making prints from supplied negatives were the normal procedure for professional scanner operators "back in day." They were used as the guide. Today, all one needs to do is find another photo file with similar subject / lighting / scene conditions to use as a guide.<br>

<br />Color correction can be especially elusive with scans from color negatives - something the film engineers never intended for negatives. Also, rest assured, the film engineers never intended Portra NC film to render "muted and dull." Fortunately however, you may certainly and easily create your own intention nowadays!</p><div></div>