john_luke

"Businesses tend to have their own corporate policies, mainly revolving around "identity" and restrict photography inside their stores so the competition won't steal their concepts &c. yes it is annoying but understandable too ...I am not sure about others, but i am not too keen of people with or without photographic equipment trespassing on my proprety. Doesn't comon sense tell us we shouldn't trespass and that we should ask permission of managers, caretakers, and owners before we go ahead and take pictures? I am kind of confused which of my rights has been trampled ..."

 

The PDF is a bit easier to follow. Here are some excerpts.

 

"Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

 

 

I believe this does address all of the above concerns. If you venture out onto privatly owned property, and a store is privatly owned property, you are at the whim of the property owner. He can tell you not to take photos, he can tell you to leave, and in the case of a store, he has the right to refuse service and ask you to leave." You can still photograph that privately owned property if you are asked to leave, but only from a publicly owned space like a sidewalk. Careful here, major highways, althogh public , often prohibit pedestrian activity on them, and any photos taken while you are walking along a shoulder of a highway may be prima facie evidence of your violating that law.

You will have to define "non-commercial" web site a bit better. Do you mean like this one? Actually, all publication "enhances a business position" no matter if it is editorial or not. The news publisher hopes to continue to make big bucks by running high quality photos to create attention and insure continued patronage of his publication. A web advertiser hopes to create brand awareness and make big bucks by spending his limited advetising dollars only on sites that attract hits of customers likely to be a customer. I guess we need to look at what the primary intent of the printed piece/web site is. If it is a "call to action" meaning "buy this", it's clearly advertising. If it is a listserve, that primary function is to disseminate information. The fact that there are ad banners on it may not be considered its primary intent.

 

The lines are becomming blurred. Advertertisers created a new catagorie called the "advertorial" An advertiser would buy several pages in the middle of a trade pub. You'd turn to it thinking it was some technical bulletin or trade artical, and soon you would discover it was hyping a specific service or product, namely theirs alone!

The address listed for Harrison and Harrison- isn't that for the lens filter company? I didn't know they did the tents also.

Send the lenses the Steve Grimes.

I believe the Calumet Caltar series are also Rodenstocks. Love my Rodenstocks, all 6 of 'em! Thanks Bob Soloman! (Although I do own 2 Schneiders, sorry)

If you do architectural work, the 65SA can be a disappointing lens. It vignettes a bit quicker than one would expect. I am considering the 58mmXL, and I will just have to crop in a bit if it looks too wide. The 58XL needs a CF for 4x5 work. The 72XL has great coverage, is very popular, but it also needs a CF for 4x5 work, and that fiter size is huge, making that 72XL CF quite expensive.

My Harrison "Pup" tent is 1.75lbs (including the bag)

"Even the best profiles can be a bit off. Epson drivers have a hard time with greens when using profiled printing. After you make a test print, you may want to make an adjustment layers as a PS action to be applied to the file each time you print."

 

"I don't understand this comment. Whether you're using a custom profile or an adjustment layer it's still going through the same driver."

 

Regarding the green issues and other profile deficiencies, when you print

through the driver using "Color Management>> Color Controls (whether you use

sliders or not is moot here)", you are actually going through a different part

of the driver than if printing by doing "Color Management>>No Color

Adjustment and selecting a profile". The chief complaint professionals have

about the Epson driver, is that the files that goes through the Color

Management part of the driver is a much more linear, and hence often better

color. I've read posts about people getting more neutral BW going through

Color Management>>Color Controls. Adjustments are done as PS adjustment

layers as you can get more control, and visually see the edits. It's just

that you cannot use a profile, and it is up to good old trial and error to

get a good print. (AKA wasted ink, wasted paper, and the big culprit, wasted

time.) In a professional environment, that is not acceptable. (Incidentally,

you cannot go to Color Management>>Color Controls, and then apply a profile.

It's one way or the other.)

 

Please visit these sites for in-depth discussions and tutorials about inkjet

printers and color management

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/archivalcolor

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital-fineart

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php

 

http://www.creativepro.com/category/feature/231-1.html

 

http://www.computer-darkroom.com

 

http://www.drycreekphoto.com

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com

 

http://www.digitaldog.net/

Barrelling, Pincushioning, Perspective control all done easily and effectively by these Photoshop plug Ins: Lens Doc by Andromeda, and Image Align by Grasshopper.

 

 

http://www.andromeda.com/

 

http://www.imagealign.com/index.asp

Steve Grimes is probably your best bet, but check with some of the other leading gurus such as Bob Solomon at HP Marketing, Rod Klukas at Photomark and Jeff Taugner at Badger Graphic.

 

http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/

http://www.photomark.com/

http://www.badgergraphic.com/

For me, digital is good for only one thing: crappy instant snapshots.

 

Roger,

 

Digital capture and file processing is as sensitive to proper methodology and technique just like film. Perhaps you were shown some poor examples. Have you ever seen quality light jet prints made from a Betterlight scan back or a Phase One H20 single capture back? The increased dynamic range these backs have, when used with proper raw file processing, produce an image that can exceed films characteristics. They can be indisinguishable from a 4x5 chrome that was drum scanned. I cannot say better because that is subjective.

I am a working professional and belong to the APA and ASMP. While I have seen much of the above in one form or another in my 20 year career, what you intend to do with the photos has not been mentioned. You may sell prints in a gallery, make posters and sell them in a store, but that's where it ends and the rest gets tricky. If you intend to publish the photo, there are several issues to consider.

 

Editorial use, ie newspapers, books, magazine articles, or publications that mainly inform, can publish photos pretty much as described above without a release from people or property owners.

 

Advertising use is different. If the photo is being use to "enhance a business position", including your own self promotional pieces, a release is needed from any identifiable people or property. Obviously you cannot get a release from every building owner in a New York skyline photo you want to sell to an advertising client, but if the photo is primarily of one easily recognizeable structure, better be reasonable and prudent here and get a property release. Public structures, as far as anybody knows, are exempt from property releases. There is very little case law on the books regarding this as most issues are settled out of court.

 

http://www.asmp.org/

 

http://www.apanational.com/

If you shoot color neg or chrome you will find, or maybe starting to find that pro labs are either closing down, limiting operating hours, or simply selling their Refremas, Hopes, or whatever line they have running. It will become like Kodachrome, where you will have to ship your film to one of the remaining processors. How soon? Who knows, but it will happen.

Printing with custom profiles.

 

I use techniques advocated by color management gurus such as Andrew Rodney (www.digitaldog.net). I invite any discussion regarding my method.

 

I will confine this post to printing with custom profiles on the Epson 1280 in PS6, Mac OS 9.2.2. (In reality, this is just one part in a larger chain of color management

techniques that must be used in conjunction with the other steps)

 

You will need to print a target from a profile supplier such as Andrew Rodney, Chromix of Profile City. They will either email it to you or have it as a download on their site. I

printed my target

on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308, and since the bulk of Hahnemuhle papers have the same coatings, that profile works on 4 different Hahnemuhle papers I stock. If you stock

various brands, you need a separate profile for each paper. If you print on various machines, you need a profile for each printer. Expect to pay $75~125 for a profile. Avoid the

Do-it-Yourself scanner based profiling kits. You will waste more ink and paper trying to �fix� them than if you had popped for a professionally made one in the first place. The

better ones are read with a Spectrolino, DTPxRite41 autospectrophotometer, or other high end device which cost in the thousands, and the better profiling software like

ColorVision ProfilerPro or any of the Gretag Macbeth profiling suites also cost big bucks. You get what you pay for, so for a mere hundred bucks, you can have access to the

finest technology out there on an as-needed basis

 

The untagged target need to be printed straight through, ie, no color management, and the printer settings you select will have to become your �usual working settings�. Go to

the Epson driver box and go to Mode>>Custom>>Advanced. In �Media Setting�, use �Photo Quality Glossy Film�. The media setting controls how much ink is laid down.

(This setting has been determined to be the best default setting for profiled printing, even when using the supplied Epson canned profiles.) Next, select the desired printer res

you want to become your standard. I use 1440, as I see no difference between 1440 and 2880 on the matt papers I use. Next, select �No Color Adjustment�. Click on OK and

you are back to the main driver box. In the �Source Space� box, next to �Document�, it should read �Untagged RGB�. You must check �Document�. In the lower �Print Space�

box, next to �Profile�, scroll to �Same as Source� . The �Intent� should be greyed out as we are dealing with an untagged file (regarding the target ). Print the target and mail it in

to be read.

 

You will receive either by e-mail or snail mail, an ICC/ICM profile to be deposited in System Folder>>Color Sync folder.

 

Here�s what I do to print. I�m assuming that the your source files are tagged with an embedded profile such as AdobeRGB, ColorMatchRGB, sRGB, EktaSpace, Kodak

ProPhoto, or another RGB source space. Please, no untagged files here. The computer treats them like mystery meat and will not know how to render them.

 

Before I go to the print driver, I first go to View>>Proof Setup>>Custom. A box comes up where you will have to make some choices. In the top window listed as �Setup�,

�Custom� should appear. In the next box labeled �Profile�, scroll down to find the desired profile. In the next box labeled �Intent� the choices that matter for conventional inkjet

printing are �Relative� and �Perceptual�. This deals with how the source image gamut gets mapped into the print space. �Relative� sort of �whacks off� any out of gamut colors

and leaves the image looking fairly similar overall, where �perceptual� can move the entire image to a point where all colors fit within the print space. Toggle back and forth to

see which one looks best to you. Once set, hit OK. The desired profile along with the rendering intent is now applied to the file. This �Soft Proof� also gives you an idea how

that profile makes that particular image look on that ink and paper combo.

 

Go to Print, and go to Mode>>Custom>>Advanced. You must select all the same settings you used to print the target. Click OK. You are now back at the main driver box. In

the �Source Space� box, next to �Proof Setup�, you will now see listed your desired profile. You now check �Proof Setup�. In the lower �Print Space� box, next to �Profile�,

scroll to �Same as Source�. Hit �Print�.

 

Even the best profiles can be a bit off. Epson drivers have a hard time with greens when using profiled printing. After you make a test print, you may want to make an

adjustment layers as a PS action to be applied to the file each time you print.

 

You can go straight to the print driver if you wish and bypass the soft proof. I do not advocate this method as it defeats the best part of PS 6 with its soft proof functions, and

you will not know which rendering intent to use as you cannot see anything happen here. In �Source Space�, check �Document� and in �Print Space�, next to �Profile� scroll to

your desired profile, and next to �Intent�, scroll to your desired intent.

 

 

My local lab has a Konica printer. Don't know if it is LED or what, but it is an RA-4 process from digital files machine. They are running Konica color paper through it which is lousy paper to begin with. That paper has an inherent crossover, green shadows to magenta highlights. It doesn't mattter what the file is like, or how good you profile it or add adjustment layers. It's just that crummy paper.

Try http://www.reedphoto.com/

 

They make light jet prints using Ilford BW paper.

One caveat about digital lenses- You can use a traditional lens on a diggiback, but you you must exercise care in using one of the Rodenstock or Schneider digital lenses with film. Make sure the lens is rated for film use also if you intend to flip back and forth. One reason- The earlier digital lenses were designed to plant the focus at precisely one plane, which is perfectly flat chip. A conventional lens is "compromised" somewhat so its plane of focus is a bit mushier to accommodate irregularities in the film surface, slight waviness, etc.

It depends on your intended use. If you are a lab, you choices are greater, such a Encad, Colorspan, Roland, Iris, Epson, HP and more. If you are a one man shop, or a pro-sumer, it appears that most of the discussion forums and tutorials are tailored to the Epson with that brand being supported heavily and sometimes exclusively by all of the myriad of 3rd party ink and paper digital art suppliers.

To get true wide angle on these diggibacks, people use the 6x9s. The Rollie Xact2, the new Sinar 6/9, and the Silvestri's come to mind. Schneider makes a 28mm large format lens, and if the diggiback has a chip the size of a 35mm frame, thats moderately wide. If the diggiback has a larger chip, 4x4 for instance, that 28 is much wider. The Rollie Xact2 has a funky reversed tapered bellows with some sort of inverted front standard that makes it abel to get that lens in close withpout the standards crunching in too hard. The standards on my Arca Swiss 6x9 F-Classic with a 45mm are pretty tight together, amking it not the best choice. Horseman makes a diggicam body that accepts all Nikkor lenses and you snap a diggiback on it. This may allow you to hook up your Phase 1 and use Nikkor lenses, however, the large 4x4 chip digggibacks may show circle of illumination cut off if using Nikkor lenses.

 

John Luke

From what I can tell, you are too close and too low here that even the best view camera may not help. This vantage point looks as if you are craining your neck up to see the top, as if you are almost seeing too far under everything, ie, the bottom sides of all the detailing The clock that looks like an ellipse was the tip off. At this close vantage point, you would not expect to naturally see a truly parallell image anyway. You may want to consider backing up or getting higher up to 1/3 to 1/2 of the building height. Often times, even if we had full corrections on a Sinar view camera with a lens that has a huge circle of illumination like the Schneider 72XL, very tall buildings look distorted with full corrections if you are too low and too close. I had a seminar by Nick Meers of England, and he shoots architecture with the longest lenses he can find- a 360 on a 6x7 camera for instance. He's often 1/4 miles away or more from his subjects. His work looks fabulous.

Although you can not scheimpflug on a 35mm style digicam (unless you have a Canon or Nikkor tilt shift lens), you can create that creative narrow band of focus (used by creative large format guys when they aggressively over tilt the lens) in PS by using a layer mask that is set out of focus, then you paint through it to reveal the areas you want to keep sharp. Many professional architectural guys have made the move to the Canon and Nikon digicam with fine results.

The new CMOS chips are having poblems with PC lenses, and even CCD users are reporting they don't get the full range of the shift as chips are not as good at seeing off axis light as film is. Even film I scan from my 4x5 needs a bit of perspective correction in PS. There are 2 plug-ins that have better features and can correct barrell/pincushioning as well.

 

Image Align from www.grasshopperonline.com, and Lens Doc from www.andromeda.com

The dedicated CF is designed to be placed where it should. If you place it further away to accommodate a resin filter, it may not perform as designed. I regularily affix my Lee 4x6 resins or square polarizer on the outside of my #3C CF on my 47mmXL. I have some tiny tiny plastic black clamps I bought at Ace Hardware. They are usually sold on a card with other mini clamps near all the other impulse purchase gizmos in the hardware store. . When I affix my glass polarizer in this fashion, I make a "safety harness" with a length of gaff tape tethered to the camera standard.

If we are talking soley Wratten Gelatin filters, it is fine to tape one behind the lens. If you need to use 2, putting a sandwich on the rear may cause a ghosting near strong high-key areas. Try one on the front, the other on the rear if you need the compensation of 2 filters.

 

For grads, polarizers, or anything of real thickness, the front is the way to go. Even if you place them on the rear, and re-focus to compensate for rear placement focus shift, the filter can disrupt the wave of the light in a more damaging manner than if on the front.

 

I't ok to put filters on the front. I know the stories about covering up the lenses multi-coating, but the pros put filters on the front all the time. How else do people use medium format? You need to pay heed to any raw light that may be hitting the lens. Pay special attention to ceiling track or can lights. With wide angle lenses, these can do horrors, as it is usually a light that is right above the camera that you aren't paying attention to. I always use several grip stands with black cards surrounding the lens to keep extraneous light off the filters and lens.

Your 1/500 is really firing at roughly 1/325. That's actually about 2/3 stops too slow.(250/320/400/500) Your 1/250 is dead nuts on. Your 1/125 is firing at 1/112. That's about

1/6 stop slow. Forget about compensating for that one. Your 1/60 is firing at 1/57. That's about 1/10 stop off. Close enough for that one also.

 

How did I get these numbers? Just take the reciprical of the decimal speed provided to give you the fractional demoninator of the true speed. (I have a calculator that has a one button 1/x reciprocal function.)