mirek_elsner1

<blockquote>

<p>To show you what that image would preview like <strong>outside</strong> an ICC aware application like Photoshop. Show me what the image would look like in a dumb web browsers <strong>on this machine</strong>, using these RGB document values.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you elaborate on that Andrew? Do I have to set the Preserve RGB numbers option?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps someone else knows why the monitor profile is listed in the profile list in Proof Set Up, but I have never come across, in my reading on colour management, and in watching this forum, any reference to using anything but the printer profiles for soft proofing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think <em>all</em> profiles - therefore including your monitor profile - are listed so that you can do soft proofing with <em>any</em> color profile installed on your computer. For example, if you work in ProPhotoRGB, use wide gamut monitor and want to know what people see on average display, you can use sRGB for approximate preview...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm still confused about the purpose of the monitor profile in Photoshop though. Is this just for matching Photoshop with images that I would then upload onto the web?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I believe Photoshop uses this profile to display color in Photoshop correctly. For example, if you are editing in ProPhotoRGB, Photoshop can't output the RGB values from the image directly to the graphic card. The result would be subdued colors (you can see that effect if you open ProPhotoRGB image in non color managed browser). So Photoshop needs to convert the RGB values from the editing profile to your monitor profile before sending the data to the video card.</p>

<p>The 100L is about one stop better than 70-200/2.8L (mk 1) and about 2 stops better than 300/4L IS. I would expect 1 to 2 stops better IS performance compared to the 100-400.</p>

<p>It may be a tough call, but unless you do high volumes of 4x6 or something along those lines, I think it would make sense to dump the RA4 process and use your money to go 100% digital. I don't know anything about your business, but while Chromira, Lambda or LightJet give nice results on glossy and supergloss papers, for 40k you can get lots of color management and printing equipment and training...</p>

<p>What if you sell your 17-40 and the 28-135 and buy 24/1.4 and 17-55? This way you would get two great lenses (plus your macro) that cover hopefully all you need. 17-55 is faster than 24-105 and 24/1.4 would be preferable for APS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Critical focusing is somehow allways tied to the focusing screen. While manual SLR and Range Finder film cameras have split-screen focusing screens and other aids to help you focus, Digital & AF cameras usually come with a plain screen, so for the Zeiss lens owners how does that affect your focusing experience ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The default screens that come with the camera are optimized for brightness and they are not accurate for MF with apertures under 2.8. But Canon makes plain focusing screens optimized for MF and they are inexpensive.<br>

That's what I use and I don't miss the split-screen or microprism at all. The plain screen gives me more freedom with composition (no need to focus and recompose, fit the sharp subject within the circle in the center, no obscuring elements covering center of the viewfinder etc.) and I can use live view if I need really precise focus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>high amount of vignetting and low corner resolution</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if the low corner resolution is actually a resolution problem or field curvature not accounted for in the test procedure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are totally dependent on the beep I'd say you could get plenty of out of focus images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you use the microadjustment feature to fix it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just read the review of the 85/1.4 on the-digital-picture.com. They had trouble keeping the lens in focus which was according to Zeiss due to "Fast lenses of this optical design (without floating elements) shift the focus due to spherical aberration when the f-stop is changed. etc". In other words: expect focussing problems with lenses like these. BTW, can anybody comment on this issue. According to the above qoute other lenses (Canon, Nikon, others) must have the same issue but I don't recall having heard about it before reading the digital-picture.com review.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon EF 50/1.2L would be one example.</p>

 

<p>It will physically fit, but the rear lens will touch the protruding element of the TC if you attempt to focus it on infinity and you won't be able to focus to infinity and risk some damage.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you want the real thing, get one of the still-hard-to-surpass Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2.0 lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't Biotar just a name for Planar made in Eastern Germany?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Focusing through a viewfinder is not advisable as the focus can be way off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your camera has replaceable focusing screen and you don't have one that is designed for manual focusing, consider getting it. For example, for EOS5D2 it would be the Eg-S type. These screens show more realistic preview of DOF and allow manual focusing with lenses faster than 2.8. If your manual focusing is still off, you can get special metal shims to adjust position of the screen and make the viewfinder focusing more precise.<br>

You can also confirm focus using the red AF rectangles, they will blink if in focus. I have 4 ZE lenses and I found that the focus confirmation is not perfectly calibrated, but I do not bother with micro adjust since what I see on the focusing screen seem to be good enough and if I need really precise focus, there is LV.</p>

<p>Brushing off paper dust from the paper and cleaning the feed mechanism?</p>

<p>Nicely put, Dan!</p>

<p>Rebecca, if I were in your shoes, I would make sure I don't replicate the hired photographer's work and focus on situations he/she doesn't have access to - there should be plenty.<br>

Here is why:</p>

<ol>

<li>The formal pictures the photographer is making will most likely have better level of craftsmanship and side by side, similar photographs taken by you won't look as good or professional</li>

<li>If you stay in the main/hired photographer's way, he - and therefore the bride - may miss an important shot. Besides, as you can see from some posts here, some photographers may become mean and ruin your day</li>

<li>You know the bride and perhaps the family and you can get to places where other people can't. And you can capture emotions the hired photographer can't, because the people won't open to him or because he will be busy to do the required/formal stuff</li>

<li>You can make informal, relaxed set of pictures that will have great integrity, but won't mix well with the formal, possibly arranged photographs taken with strobes</li>

</ol>

<p>I would also leave any white lenses at home. If you want to get some good pictures without flash, consider renting 35/1.4 or something along those lines.</p>

<p>I would start with Katrin Eismann.<br>

http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/remove_backgrounds/index.html</p>

 

<p>Ditto as William, including a Dell option. The one William linked above is fine and even though there is not much information, I think it is a better design for Photoshop (it apparently has triple channel memory and external video card). I would only add more memory, 6GB and go with the Dell and add a good monitor.</p>

<p>I have couple of suggestions, but you have to decide on your own how valid they are for your project :</p>

<ul>

<li>Printers like the Epson X800 and Canon iPFx100 have gamuts close to AdobeRGB, but ordinary monitors have gamut closer to sRGB. So the visualization on generic monitor may be problematic. Either you might consider sacrificing color accuracy of the preview, subduing the color saturation and show the differences or you should display them in similar way as gamut warning in PS or in similar fashion as "blinkies" in camera, at least as an alternative to the default view</li>

<li>If you print, you usually do not want to clip the colors that the printer is not able to display, so you either correct the file to get rid of those colors or you use perceptual intent while converting the source to the printer profile. Perhaps it would be interesting to visualize what colors get modified in that process and how much</li>

<li>It might be interesting to have an option to upload an image and show which of the profiles (and not only device profiles) in your system are large enough to work with the uploaded images without degradation or with minimal degradation</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe the problem lies in the custom profile?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It could be, but it can also be that the Hahnemuhle paper can accept more ink without looking muddy compared to glossier paper like the Ilford.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Its normal to have a print a bit darker than your monitor, and it also depend where you look at the print (under what kind of light and what watt do you use).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Partick. The darkness itself is not a problem, but the loss of information is. It is not too bad, but it looks like if you did a classical darkroom color print and overexposed the paper by one stop. That on the inkjet print means that you I am losing some clarity and detail in shadows. It seems that you also modify the curve before print, interesting.</p>

<p>I printed from Photoshop for years and now I am switching to Lightroom. I have color managed environment and I use custom made printer profiles as well as profiles from Red River, Hahnemuhle and Ilford for respective papers. I am reasonably happy with the results, but my prints are often darker than what I expect from my screen. For example, if I make a JPG with Lightness in LR set to default 50 that looks good on calibrated or uncalibrated screens, I need to bump the Lightness to 75 before printing to achieve the same look and level of shadow detail. This is more of a problem with glossier papers and custom profiles than with rags and canned Hahnemuhle profiles. I suspect the printer is using too much ink, but perhaps the problem lies elsewhere. Here is an example of the lightness I consider normal for jpgs: http://elsners.org/gal/nicole/#id=album-50&num=6. I would appreciate some advice on how to tackle this problem.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Is my assumption that I should not need to increase lightness before printing correct?</li>

<li>How do you determine that there will be enough shadow detail and that the print won't be too dark?</li>

<li>If I am right and the printer is using too much ink, is there any way how to change that? This seems to be problem with some papers, but not all - is there a way to modify the printer profile? </li>

<li>I've seen some tutorials that show how to change the black point to reflect capabilities of the printer. That was for Photoshop, but is anything like that possible in Lightroom? And is it necessary? </li>

</ul>

<p>Please share your experience. Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew Rodney wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which is still based on exposing for film with an H&D curve, not a linear capture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gee, I guess those engineer types really must be damned stupid to not have figured out yet that they’re making digital cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most likely they aren't stupid, but implementing ETTR is not that easy, I think. Correctly exposing to the right means that you have to evaluate all highlights and make sure you don't clip them. This is easy to evaluate after exposure by looking at the histogram or the blinkies, but to get it right before exposure this would probably require more than a few metering segments. And if you manage to expose it properly (i.e. as much as possible to the right, but so that you don't clip anything), the next problem is that the in-camera jpeg processors would have to have different algorithms to produce results with correct lightness.</p>

<p>If you have a working card reader, you should be able to transfer raws to your computer using Windows Explorer in Windows or Finder on Mac.<br>

Whether you are able to open such files in Photoshop depends on whether your version of Photoshop (or Adobe Camera Raw, to be precise) supports your camera. The info can be found on Adobe web site. Take a look at <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html">this page</a> to see what is currently supported in the latest version. If your camera is not supported in your version and you don't want to upgrade, take a look at <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/">DNG converter</a> as Andrew recommends.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Instead, I advocate starting with a traditional “proper” exposure, such as determined by metering off a gray card.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ben, how did you establish that this is the right exposure? It was the correct exposure with film, whose characteristic curve was S-shaped and right exposure of 18% gray was in the middle to avoid the nonlinear extremes. With raw, the curve is no longer a curve, it is a line. The right exposure is an exposure that gives highest quality data that can survive post-processing, no?<br>

I don't agree with your definition of right exposure, but I have to admit that I usually don't use ETTR either. The reason is that my converter cripples the look if I do ETTR and fix the exposure in PP using the Exposure and other sliders. The problem is however not ETTR, but support of correct exposure in converters and perhaps cameras or my technique.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A good histogram is when there is no clipping and most of the data in on the right side of the histogram. right ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be true for your in-camera histogram. While shooting, you want to preserve as much detail as possible and you want the histogram at the right side to preserve clean shadow detail. After post processing you usually don't want the histogram on the right side. Such histogram indicates you don't have any blacks in your final print.</p>