travismcgee

<p>What does "CC" mean?</p>

<p>Thanks, Joe. Great advice.</p>

<p>Old school, but I always reformat the card three times.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>To answer the question, I can think of two professional photographers who have encouraged me to submit my work. They've both made money at it, so perhaps I can too. You can't win if you don't play.</p>

<p>Good to know about Flickr. I really didn't want to go there and get lost in all the pictures of birthday parties and Disneyland. I have a little business on the side designing and maintaining websites and I own the domain name of my real name, so I'll probably hang up my own website with my images as soon as I have the time. That and apply to the stock agencies and a few magazines I have in mind.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've been studying photography for a few years now and I may be delusional, but I think some of my work might be good enough to sell. But where should I start? My stuff is mostly travel and landscape, and I don't shoot weddings, portraits, studio, or products. I'm thinking I'll apply to Getty and perhaps some other stock agencies and also send a few images to magazines that might fit.</p>

<p>Right now I don't have an Internet presence except for the images I post on Canon Thursdays. Is there any value in setting up a Flickr or Picasa account, or posting my images in a gallery on photo.net? What about a personal website? Do photo buyers search websites besides stock agencies? Would it be appropriate to suggest an editor check out my photos on Flickr or my website? How does all this work?</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

<p>All is right with the world. I reinstalled the ColorMunki software on the laptop and now ColorMunki Gamma is in the Startup folder where it belongs.</p>

<p>Yep, the trains in Tokyo are just like they say. This was on a Saturday evening.</p>

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

<p>We went to the Shinshoji Temple in Narita, which is the second-most important Buddhist temple in Japan. They were having services with lots of candles and incense, and the monks were chanting and beating drums. I respected the “No Photography Inside” sign, but this monk came outside to hit this bell at the appropriate times.</p>

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

<p>Good morning all,</p>

<p>I'm on vacation right now and I've been telling my parents how much I like Japan for a long, long time, so we jumped on a jet in Los Angeles last week and went across the Big Water for a visit. They loved it too! They're 85 years old, but they ran me ragged and can't wait to go back!</p>

<p>Mom and Dad on the streets of Narita, Japan:</p>

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

<p>No, I have a nice Dell monitor for the desktop and whatever was installed on the ThinkPad laptop.</p>

<p>Thanks, I've seen them from Adobe too. I'm just not sure why the desktop has one and the laptop doesn't even though both monitors are calibrated with the same software and both monitors look just about the same.</p>

<p>I have a question about ColorMunki Gamma:</p>

<p>I have a desktop PC and a laptop PC. Both are running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit and I calibrate both monitors with ColorMunki every month. It seems to work pretty well on both computers, but I've noticed the desktop has a shortcut to "ColorMunki Gamma" in the Startup folder, but the laptop does not. I've also noticed the program doesn't run on startup sometimes and the desktop monitor calibration is wrong until I manually click on the shortcut. An Internet search said that was a Windows bug that wouldn't be corrected. No such problem on the laptop because that shortcut isn't there.</p>

<p>So, what is ColorMunki Gamma and why do I have it on one machine and not the other? Isn't the whole idea to create a monitor calibration profile the operating system can read? Both machines are doing that just fine.</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A little off the subject and it's one we have discussed before, but I took all auto-focus off the shutter button and moved it to the AF-On button on the back. I shoot in AI-Focus and it works great. I assume "from the hip" means shooting surreptitiously, though, and it may not work too well for that. Never tried it....</p>

<p>The last I heard, Nikon Scan wasn't updated for Windows 7 64-bit so it supposedly won't run. I've heard there is a way to make it work, but I haven't tried it yet. Just be advised....</p>

<p>Nikon Scan and ICE did not work very well for me on a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 when I scanned Kodachrome slides. I've heard that the latest version of VueScan has solved that problem. Does anyone have any information on this?</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Enter the text to quote, then click on the little box next to the 123 ('').</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, thanks very much. I was going to try using HTML, but I was too lazy.</p>

<p><em>If you start looking at the very predicate shapes of RGB working spaces, and the very unpredictable and differing shapes of RGB and CMYK output color spaces, you'll see there are always going to be colors within and out of gamut of any two such devices in most cases. Nature of the beast but not something that should be problematic if all your ducks are in order.</em></p>

<p>Once the gamuts of the devices get big enough it will be a simple matter to reduce the gamut you're working in to keep it within the gamuts of the camera, monitor and printer and still get wonderful results. Some may argue we are already there.</p>

<p>How do you get the gray box around the quoted text?</p>

<p><em>Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.... I'm fishing for opinions on in-camera settings that yield the most accurate histogram of the captured RAW data.</em></p>

<p>I just re-read all this stuff and saw that Ellis and Tim basically agree on the answer. Many thanks. I'll be pulling out my camera and making some adjustments. </p>

<p><em>You would then have a choice. Would you rather see all the color in an image you are editing but reduce the gamut to other devices? Or work with data you can't see but could use upon output.</em></p>

<p>Therein lies the rub. You seem to be advocating the second option which means that even with everything calibrated, your print may contain colors you manipulated but never saw. I doubt that's much of a problem unless you're doing product photography and the red in the Coke logo has to be perfect. In my case, the fur on my images of Bigfoot may not be the perfect color, but it's close enough.</p>

<p>Yes, the technique of backing off vibrance and/or saturation when you don't see any more changes is very good, but my images seem grossly oversaturated and clownish long before I reach that point.</p>

<p>In reference to ETTR, I'm usually pretty happy with my exposures just using the normal metering in my camera. Once I get into Lightroom I will often tap the Auto Tone button and my image is then almost always <em>waaay</em> over exposed. I go back to zero exposure to fix it. I'm thinkin' that if I over expose in the camera I'll be reducing the exposure in Lightroom below zero to compensate. </p>

<p>Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.... I'm fishing for opinions on in-camera settings that yield the most accurate histogram of the captured RAW data.</p>

<p>By the way, I enjoyed Andrew's video. It made color spaces much more clear. Is there a companion video that discusses color spaces for monitors? My monitor claims to show Adobe RGB, but Lightroom is working in ProPhoto, so I'm obviously manipulating pixels I can't see.</p>

<p>Okay, so...</p>

<p>- the histogram on the back of the camera is for the JPEG preview, not the actual RAW data captured</p>

<p>- it's not perfect for analyzing the RAW data, but it's all we have at the time</p>

<p>- I'm guessing the "blinkies" are using the same data as the histogram</p>

<p>With all that stipulated, what camera settings in the menu system will make the histogram and blinkies the most accurate for the RAW images I'm capturing? That was an interesting concept and one I wasn't familiar with until now.</p>

<p>Many thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Re: secluded beach. Nah, it was right in front of the hotel. I just waited until nobody was walking by. You got me. (I wish I was there right now too.)</p>

<p>Re: Darwin. Got it, thanks. Darwin had plenty to say about birds and, by extension, bluebirds.</p>

<p>They do exist! (But you already knew that if you read the book.)</p><div></div>

<p>Sounds good to me....</p><div></div>