marc_rochkind

<p>@Tim:</p> <blockquote> <p>... questioning why you ask a question ...</p> </blockquote> <p>Should never happen on photo.net or any other Internet forum. Always unfriendly.</p>

<p>I try hard to behave ethically towards nature photographers. When they block the road in Rocky Mountain NP to photograph elk, often moving onto the grass to get as close to the elk as possible (two violations of Park rules), I do not shoot them or run them over with my car. I mean the photographers, not the elk.<br> I think shooting them or running them down is ethical, but only after a trial. I'm a big believer in our criminal justice system.</p>

<p>@Tim: So sorry to have upset you by asking a question here on a subject that you have admonished me for not knowing about.</p> <p>What I learned was how to control for sensor variation and illuminance by creating a DNG Camera Profile by photographing a standard target with that particular sensor in that particular light, running an easy-to-use utility (which I downloaded and tried out on a bogus target), and how to call it up from within Lightroom. Andrew was exceedingly helpful.</p> <p>I already noted elsewhere in this thread why that degree of control isn't relevant to most of my photography. But it might be someday, and I noted that, too.</p> <p>I really think you should be more friendly to people who ask questions. Often novices complain that they are treated with derision on Internet forums. I'm not a novice, and am relatively immune to Internet abuse, but please consider being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.</p>

<p>OK, thanks once again, Andrew.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info, Ellis.</p> <p>For Ellis, Andrew, and anyone else who can answer: How much do sensors vary within the same camera model? Creating your own DNG Camera Profile for each camera allows you to compensate for sensor variation... but how great is that variation?</p> <p>Andrew, have you ever attempted to measure this?</p>

<p>Well, as long as we are discussing things in this thread...</p> <p>Suppose Nikon decides they want to build a tool to make these "DNG Camera Profiles" for Lightroom, and their tool takes a NEF as input.</p> <p>What would the resulting profile be called? A DNG Camera Profile? A NEF Camera Profile? A Camera Profile?</p> <p>That's why DNG Camera Profile is a bad name. I'm not saying it isn't the actual name, or the common name, or the name used by Adobe and X-rite. Rather, I'm saying it's a bad name.</p> <p>(I understand that the existing tools from Adobe and X-rite need to work with anyone's raw data, and that taking a DNG is the simplest way, but that's not the same as it being the ONLY way.)</p>

<p>For a long time, the popular theory was that is was more reliable to format in camera than with a computer (card in card reader), and that formatting was more reliable than erasing, and that erasing the whole card was more reliable than erasing images here-and-there.</p> <p>That theory makes a lot of sense.</p> <p>However, I'm sure there is no statistically valid data to support the theory.</p>

<p>One additional note, Andrew: I have for years paid a lot of attention to color management of my display and when printing. I calibrate my display with a hardware device, get ICC printer profiles from companies I use (e.g., Adorama, Bay Photo), and do soft proofing. (I no longer print myself.) My ignorance was limited DNG Camera Profiles.</p> <p>And, about that name, DNG Camera Profiles, I learned of that for the first time in your post here. In Lightroom, they appear as the Camera Calibration Profile, and the two websites I looked at that provide them (one of them is Huelight) call them Camera Profiles. "DNG" is a misnomer because it refers to the technology used to make them, not to their purpose or function. So, please don't be so hard on Eric. ;-)</p>

<p>@Andrew (and @Tim?)--</p> <p>Watched the video, and it was all new to me. Very well explained.</p> <p>However, I never heard on the video a statement of the PURPOSE of DNG Camera Profiles. But, from the examples you showed, I infer that the purpose is to achieve accurate color.</p> <p>Now, for one of my original questions, also not answered in the video: "Is there some place I can get to with a particular profile that I can't get to with the various Develop Module sliders?" I suspect that the answer, even if "no", is not useful, since, as shown in the video, the production of the profile is automatic, and, even if the same result could be achieved in the Develop Module, it would (1) be a lot of work, and (2) there wouldn't be a way of knowing whether the colors were accurate, since there is no standard target.</p> <p>I also now understand why I've never looked into Camera Profiles before: Because I never cared about accurate colors. In my photography, the original image is input into a creative process that involves Lightroom and Topaz Adjust or Detail. I'm working towards a result that pleases me, often very far from an accurate rendition of the scene.</p> <p>But, knowing what I know now, if I ever got into a kind of photography where accurate color was important, I'd get serious about Camera Profiles.</p> <p>Thanks, Andrew!</p>

<p>@Tim: Strange message. You are telling me that I do know about camera profiles??? So what, I am posting a fake question?</p> <p>As for what I REALLY want to know, I made that very clear in the last part of my OP starting with "Tell me..."</p> <p>Instead of lecturing me about what you think I do and do not know, it would be more in the spirit of PN if you would just answer my question. Or don't answer it, if you don't want to. As I said, I am planning to watch the video later today.</p> <p>(I don't understand how DNG got into this discussion, but was going to put that question aside until I watch the video. I haven't used DNGs in at least 5 years.)</p>

<p>Yeah, Edward... I think we may be in the same club. I'm going to check out the video Andrew pointed me (us) to tomorrow.</p>

<p>I've been using Lightroom for forever. Since the public beta, over 10 years ago. I've never paid any attention to Camera Profiles. I don't even know when they were introduced; perhaps they were always there.</p> <p>I've processed maybe 50,000 images, nearly all raw, and all with whatever the default is, which looks like Adobe Standard.</p> <p>But, lately, I've been reading about how horrible that profile is, why there are better ones that match a camera's "styles", and why I should pay $10 for better ones. Experimenting a bit, I see that the choice of profile changes the appearance of the photo.</p> <p>But I don't give a fig about camera styles.</p> <p>My question is this: Is there anything going on with the choice of profile other than changing the starting point for processing? Is there some place I can get to with a particular profile that I can't get to with the various Develop Module sliders?</p> <p>Tell me if I'm wrong about the following. Profiles are a way to:</p> <ul> <li>Get the benefit of camera styles when you're shooting raw, and/or</li> <li>Speed up your workflow by starting at a point closer to the desired final result.</li> </ul> <p>Anything more?</p>

<p>I see two ways to go:</p> <p>1. Keep your big system for when you need it and get a Sony RX100 IV or V, which is smaller than any Micro 4/3 system.</p> <p>2. Get a Micro 4/3 system, which has the largest choice of lenses of any mirrorless system, by far. As a DSLR user, you might like an SLR-style body the best, such as an Olympus OM-D E-M5 II. (I got an Olympus-reconditioned one for $800.)</p> <p>In ditching my Nikon D700 system, I couldn't really decide between #1 and #2, so I did both!</p>

<p>@Phil: Except that in the linked-to article, Highsmith is claiming (through her lawyer) that she did not mean to relinquish the copyright. So, if that is part of the litigation, then it is a relevant issue. And, of course, so is the fraud.</p>

<p>I think there are a couple of questions. Regarding Getty infringing Highsmith's copyright, I think their defense would be that they relied on the clear statement on the LoC website (and the absence of am IPTC copyright notice inside the image file itself).</p> <p>As for fraud, that's something else. Don't know about that.</p> <p>Probably CC would have been a better choice for her. I use that for my own works that I donate to Wikimedia.</p>

<p>Don't know where you're getting the CC stuff. Can you cite a source?</p> <p>On the Library of Congress web site, in the Highsmith Collection section, there is this statement: "Carol M. Highsmith's photographs are in the public domain."</p> <p>Link: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/482_high.html</p> <p>As for the legal question about whether she can still claim a copyright after "Ms. Highsmith has stipulated that her photographs are in the public domain", also on that web page, I have no idea. My guess would be no, if Getty took the photos from the Library of Congress site, as I did when I put together a few iOS apps with Highsmith's photos. (After I did the work, I told her about it, and we worked together. She even gave me some photos of the World Trade Center for use in my 9/11 app.)</p> <p>She's a wonderful person and a very generous photographer. Take a look at her LoC archive if you haven't already.</p> <p>I sell my apps (but not the 9/11 app), so you could argue that I am selling Highsmith's PD works. (I also sell PD works by Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Ben Shahn, and others.) However, that is legal. Once a work is in the public domain. the public may publish that work however it wants. The original author or artist no longer has any rights.</p> <p>As for sending her a cease-and-desist letter requesting payment, that's a different issue entirely. I don't know what the law says about claiming a copyright on works for which you don't have a copyright. I do know that I have used works (such as Photochroms) for which various outfits claim a copyright, but these works were published around 1900, so I knew they were wrong, and just ignored them. Had they written to me, which they did not, I would have asked them to send me a copy of their copyright renewal. (Nothing published prior to 1923 is still copyrighted.)</p> <p>Interesting related story: I wanted to republish an IBM computer manual from the 1950s, and wrote to IBM asking them if they had renewed the copyright. They very nicely wrote back to say that (1) they had no idea, they don't track that stuff, and (2) I should go ahead and republish it if I wanted. Very nice folks!</p>

<p>Best looking Canon ever. And, it takes modern batteries. (Voltage regulation circuit.)<br> <img src="https://basepath.smugmug.com/photos/i-7ZSDbKf/0/O/i-7ZSDbKf.jpg" alt="" width="512" /></p>

<p>Bryce Canyon. Infinite possibilities, all terrific.</p>

<p>John has the answer.</p>

<p>Every tripod buyer needs to read what Thom Hogan says about it:</p> <p>http://www.bythom.com/support.htm</p> <p>He can save you $700. ;-)</p>

<p>Hi Philip!</p> <p>We miss you here...</p> <p>(I ordered a copy from Amazon.)</p>

<p>I've been doing it this way for years. I've always lusted after the snazziest microwave ovens. I used to go to appliance stores just to try them out. I regularly travel to Germany for the annual microwave oven show. I love them all! I go to microwave oven swap meets, follow the ads on Craigslist (even when I'm not planning to buy), and scour the Sunday paper inserts for sales and the gorgeous color pictures. I've replaced my microwave oven so many times that the cabinetry is starting to fail.</p> <p>I always save the boxes. There are now enough in my attic to provide serious insulation.</p> <p>Sometimes I boil water for tea not because I want tea, but just to have an excuse to touch those sensual buttons a few times.</p> <p>I used to just buy whatever camera Sears had on sale, but no longer. From now on, I'm going to think of digital cameras as microwave ovens.</p>

<p>I think the crappiest lens may have been the original 24-120 zoom. Which I have, but stopped using years ago. If you get one, on eBay, say, which won't cost you much, be careful of bait-and-switch. You might get the 2nd or 3rd iteration. Make sure you get the original, and don't settle for anything better.</p>

<p>Richard--</p> <p>The sample I posted here isn't typical of the ones I'm printing, which are family photos. I didn't want to post a family photo here.</p> <p>For those, the integrity of the image is of minor concern, and the date is very important.</p> <p>Unfortunately, with LR/Mogrify 2 in Lightroom, it's not possible to put the date in the border, and many images don't have a suitable border anyway.</p>

<p>I have a digital backup scheme as good as anyone's, involving multiple cloud storage providers and various levels of local disk.</p> <p>But some say that for important family photos, there's nothing like prints. Prints have other uses, too, of course.</p> <p>Recently, like a few days ago, Amazon announced a printing service that costs only 9 cents a print for a 4x6, which is much cheaper than anyone else. Shipping is free, too. And, the file you've printed stays on the Amazon cloud, making yet another cloud storage for me (CrashPlan + Amazon S3 + Amazon cloud). (I have Amazon Prime, so I don't pay anything, or at least not very much, for this service.)</p> <p>If you like, you can just export JPEGs from Lightroom and upload them, using an app from Amazon that seems to run very well. But, I wanted the date on each photo. Ideally on the back, but Amazon doesn't allow that. So, I put it on the front, centered on the lower edge.</p> <p>The problem is that Amazon crops all photos that aren't in a 4:6 ratio, often cropping out the date. And, I don't want my photos cropped at all. So, in the Lightroom export dialog, I used LR/Mogrify 2 to add the date and center the photo on a 4x6 canvas. Lots of horsing around to get it right, but now I've got it. My setup is shown in two photos attached, along with a sample.</p> <p><img src="http://basepath.com/public/Capture1.JPG" alt="" width="400" /><br /> <img src="http://basepath.com/public/Capture2.JPG" alt="" width="400" /><br /> <img src="http://basepath.com/public/MJR_20140127_0092x.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p><div></div>