jason_elsworth3

I have been pleased with iView Media Pro, but I would definitely have a look at Lightroom before making any decisions.

The profile is defintely embeded rather than being read from the exif data. I verified this by downloading a script that makes Photoshop 7.1 ignore exif data.

I have used soft proofing (working CMYK) and gamut warning to look at some of the slides and there is defintely some clipping in saturated colours, particlay ***lows. This clipping seems to remain at the same level whether I leave in sRGB or convert to aRGB. Interestingly ignoring the embeded tag and then assigning a profile seems to make the out of gamut problem much worse. Having read a multiple of posts on this subject it all still seems a little confusing and confirms just why I didn't buy my own scanner :) Here's hoping my eventual move to digital wont be quite so perplexing:)This whole process has however taught me quite a bit more about colour management.

Try this: when you get that profile mismatch error try choosing the no color management option and then once the image is open in Photoshop converting to Adobe RGB(1998). Have tried this and it converts very quickly if that is anything to go on?

 

Jim - if memory serves me right Tim was refering to Nikon Scanner RGB, not sRGB

 

Thanks for evryones help so far. I am tending towards thinking it is OK, but am going to check what the actual capture space was.

I recently used a scanning service who produced 67MB tiffs for me

from 35mm slides using a Nikon Coolscan 8000. My expectation was that

they would be in the Adobe RGB (1998) Colour profile (the scanning

company said this was their default profile, it is the profile

required by Almay and is considered the best colour space for CMYK printing).

 

However when I open them in PhotoShop I get an

embedded profile mismatch message (because it doesn't match my working

space of Adobe RGB (1998) saying that Nikon sRGB 4.0.0.3001 is the

embedded profile. I am a bit concerned, as obviously sRGB isn't

generally consider a good choice for pre press work. I have contacted

the company who did the scans and they have just said I should convert

the images to Adobe 1998. Should I be concerned and is converting from a

narrower to a wider Colour space like this a viable option? My bottom line is

will these files be suitable for CMYK printing after conversion?

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

www.livebooks.com expensive but looks great

Many moons ago I asked the same question. you can see the replies here along with what I did. Just use a single flash, shoot some test shots using work colleagues and keep it simple.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0015DZ

Thanks for the replies so far. I was using a better beamer and shooting at about 10-12 feet away. I am shooting in a wood, so the flash was the main light. I was in manual mode on the camera and shooting at F4 and about 125 and tripod of course, plus 1 flash compensation set on the camera body (previous testing has strangley shown this to be needed even with medium tone subjects and the F100). Batteries were new and recycle tmes were low, however, they were NiMh rechargebales, so I may try it with a fresh set of non-rechragebale types. I was in normal, ttl mode, with sun and man flashing. I was trying it out a home last night on a wide angle and an 80-200 2.8 zoom and it seemed to be working well. I will do some more testing as per your suggestions and also with the 500 again. I have a feeling it may have something to do with the sc17 and the connection?

Using my SB24 with an F100 and 500 F4 P today I was getting a lot of

underexposure warnings, despite being within the range indicated on

the flash. Do flashes start to wear out and use power - it is pretty

old? Or am I missing something? In terms of a replacement I am

thinking SB-80DX.

Many thanks.

I would agree with Mark that digital makes a lot of sense for bird photography. I have just purchased my last load of film. If you want to learn more try searching photonet and vist Art Morris' site birdsasart.com. A canon or sigma 500 4.5 is probably the best value way to a proper bird lens and Mark mentioned some other cheaper, shorter alternatives in his post. One option I have been considering is a 300 2.8 with a x2 converter. With shorter lens you ust need to work on getting closer by using a hide, finding tamer birds or setting up feeders in your back garden. I also have a couple of articles on my website - "<a href="http://www.jasonelsworth.co.nz/howto.html ">Jason Elsworth Photography</a>"

Lowe Off Trail (kenesis set up would be even better) inside a proper hiking backpack if I am going to be walking any distance or carrying camping gear. Lowe Pro nature treker for short distances and if I don't need to carry much except camera gear. The chest mounting system seem too hot and uncomfortable to me.

 

Jason

www.jasonelsworth.co.nz

http://www.commontunes.org/

Hi Gloria,

 

I hope you are still reading these. I am a semi pro and would agree with all the advice so far. Especially the need to prepare well and get some local knowledge. Have you considered writing a Blog of your trip, so that poeple can follow your journey. It may also help you to build up a customer base interested in your work. Finally don't be in too much of a hurry to keep on the move. One advantage you may have over working pros is that you could stay in one place for some time and get some really detailed coverage.

 

Jason

www.jasonelsworth.co.nz

I am left eye dominant and have often wondered if this means that I am composing more using the right side of my brain than the left?

Colour seems a complex subject to me. I have just been reading Color Confidence by Tim Grey and have learnt a lot. I am no digital expert as I still shoot film and don't even have my own scanner yet, but it seems to me that a lot of the questions that crop up on Pnet could be answered by just reading 1 or 2 books. I am not saying this is true in your case Steven, just making a general observation. Color correcting seems a bit of a black art to me and I still have lots to learn, many of the images that I prepared for my website a year ago now don't look quite right to me.

 

I recently had a similar problem with skin tones when I was color correcting an image of my son, who has Trisomy 21. I found Marc's method of desaturating the red (after I had selected the face area) to work well in the end, after setting the white and black points didn't quite do it.

Garry, personally I would never hire a photographer who didn't carry bear repellent. If a grizzly gets into the reception you are going to be in big trouble.

Art Morris gives his opinion on this in his latest bulletin, you can sign up at www.birdsasart.com. Have you conidered switching to digital. I am still using film, for various reasons, but digital seems to have some great advantages for bird photography. Also many users seem to get good reuslts with a x2 converter and a 500 IS.

 

Whatever lens you have getting close to a bird is still a huge factor in bird photography and using a blind can really help. However, they don't seem to be very popular with American bird photographers.

 

I have some bird photography how to articles, which include advice on getting close on my webiste www.jasonelsworth.co.nz if you are interested

Doug's work is jaw droppingly good. Makes me want to get everything I have ever taken and burn it and start again:)) He appears to be achieving commercial/advertising quailty lighting and look, whilst capturing the moment - wow. Obviously this is mainly down to raw talent, but I would be interested in comments on what lighting set ups he may be using, how much photoshop work has gone into these images and how many were maybe set up shots that look spontaneous.

http://weba.viawest.net/users/fcs/ho/

I have found bean bags to be cheap, easy to set up and fairly effective.<div></div>

Having emigrated to New Zealand 8 years ago I will have to have it in my top five. However I still dream of Snowdonia (North Wales) and the Isle of Skye (Scotland).<div></div>

For overnight trips or long day walks I really like the hip belt based system stuffed inside a proper backpack. Photo backpacks aren't really big enough for an overnight trip and they don't carry as comfortably as a proper pack. When you get to camp, or to an area where you want to photograph you can take out the hip belt based system, put it on, pick up your tripod and you are ready to go.

Not strictly about photography, but I like it.

 

"To those of you who will begin, as I did, at an early age to be interested in creative effort, I have a word or two to say: Follow no one. Only you can lead yourself. Be open-minded and ready to reject every extraneous influence. Use your own. Talk is cheap; let others talk. Pay no attention to them or to me. Shun them and me with your self-discipline. Value your freedom from the shackles of the strait jacket. A rose is a rose regardless of its position on the bush. Approach your line of activity as an individual. Be independent. There is but one law to obey, the law of freedom: and obedience to that law is liberty."

 

Samuel Aiwaz Jacobs

 

I also like F8 and be there 20 minutes early - for view camera users.

My parents went to LeicaLand and all they got me was this lousy t-sirt

I have really been enjoying using my Holga over the past few months - I take it on all my photo trips. I am not a wedding photog, but don't see any reason that you couldn't use it to take a few shots during the course of the day. You could also put one on each of the guest tables - that would really yield some "interesting" stuff. http://www.holgamods.com/ is a great place to get your holgas from.

Nike protest