david-nicolas

Thanks for your answers. How much the shot is overexposed is difficult to assess exactly. But when I made no correction before taking the shot, I had a raw image with which it was very hard, if not impossible, to get satisfactory results: too much was blown up. Now that I correct 1 stop or 2 thirds of a stop, I get nice colors from my raw image, often with little to change.

My EOS 20D seems to evaluate exposure wrongly in very bright, sunny conditions:

it overexposes the shot. Taking account of that, I find that manually correcting

exposure by 1 stop most often makes for a well-exposed image in very bright,

sunny conditions. What do you think about that? Is it normal? Or is there a

defect in my camera?

Please correct me. 1) When calibrating a CRT monitor and modifying the

values of the R, G and B channels: I should modify the gain value of

each channel, not the bias value. Right? 2) Then what about the bias

value of each channel?? HOW SHOULD IT BE SET UP? For instance, should

the value of each channel be equal, eg to 78%? Thanks!

All right, I may have been confused: I have to check whether I have varied the luminance values of the R, G and B channels, or the contrast values. But in any case, should the contrast values be all identical?

Thanks for your answer. All right, I was confused: it is indeed the luminosity (or luminance) values that should be varied when calibrating the monitor. But what about the contrast values? Should they all be identical ?? (At the moment they are not.)

My CRT monitor, a Dell P992, offers the possibility to vary the

luminosity values of the R, G and B channels. They are actually set

like this: R = 68, G = 80, B = 88 (for luminosity). Is this normal or

possible, or should the luminosity values be all identical? [NB: The

contrast values which I have varied when calibrating my monitor are

like this: R = 98, G = 84, B = 47.]

Thanks for your answer. I have another question. The luminosity values of the channels of my CRT monitor are actually set like this: R = 68, G = 80, B = 88. Is this normal or possible, or should the values be all identical? [NB: The contrast values which I have varied when calibrating my monitor are like this: R = 98, G = 84, B = 47.]

Hi, I have an EyeOneDisplay to calibrate my CRT monitor. It is a Dell

P992. This CRT monitor offers me to modify the R, G and B channels

both for luminance and for contrast. Which should I modify when I

calibrate my screen using my EyeOneDiplay? Thanks. (By the way, I have

noticed that, even before I start calibrating, the values of the

channels are all different.)

Otherwise, have you tried matte on a Fuji lab (compared to on an Epson 2200)? Are you as happy as with glossy ? (I guess I should just do the test myself, on a Fuji. On an Epson, which I don't own, it's also not so easy, in France, to find a retailer that will show you examples of you get on various papers.)

One problem I have with Fuji labs where I live (in France), is that I haven't yet found any that will print 30 x 45 cm. Their biggest format is 20 x 30. The best I found is, in one lab, 30 x 40, and always with a 10% white margin.

Can one profile for the printing made by Fuji? Of course, one can, though a technician told me they don't themselves use printing profiles when looking pictures on their screens, as this varies in time depending on paper and ink. (This may be this specific lab policy, though.) He told me that using sRGB as a profile would match best what I would get. Still, would anyone have such a profile available, so that I / we can test it?

Many thanks to all for your varied, detailed and informative answers. I won't try to summarize, but one can sees clearly the pros and cons of personal printers and of Fuji labs. In response to Robert, yes, it's important to convert to sRGB, as their machines assume that your pictures are in this color space. Also important is to ask for no correction: otherwise, you are left to the technician's tastes about come basic color and contrast correction (he will do some before printing). It happened to me once. My own feeling was that the technician was more often wrong, than correct, and in any case, it's only with no correction that the print will match most closely what you yourself have made in Photoshop and what you have on your screen.

Thanks all for your answer. What about matte prints (say A3)? Made at a Fuji lab, or made on the best paper on an Epson 2200? Is the Epson then better as for quality?

Thanks for your answer. By the way, is it important to frame the photographs under glass? Since glass reflections are annoying, isn't better to avoid it? What are the solutions then? Could one put a picture on the frame without the glass??? Thanks!

I would kie to make a small, home-made photographic exhibition. It

would take place in a friend's house, putting the pictures on some of

the walls. What advice would you give me? Should I print mat or

glossy? Should I frame the pictures under glass, or have them put on

PVC? (Lightning is of course important, but I can't afford any

specific equipment...) I would have a mixture of A3 and A4 prints.

Any thoughts are welcome!

How do you react to the following thought? Labs (like Fuji) print

cheaper than home printers, and perhaps with equal or better quality.

Does anyone have contrary opinions on this, e.g. that a printer like

Epson R800 or Epson 2100/2200 makes better prints (or longer lasting)

prints than, say, a Fuji lab? If not, then why buy a home printer?

Thanks all for your answers.

Would you agree with the following?

With an EOS10D, it's a good idea to shoot RAW (if you have enough memory of course).

Then you have to decide what to convert it into, eg AdobeRVB or sRGB, if you want to process it in Photoshop. [That is, if you are shooting RAW, choosing on the 10D sRGB or AdobeRVB would make no difference(?)].

If after that you sent it to be printed, mostlabs (or many) will ask a file in SRGB, so if you were working in AdobeRVB, just convert it into sRGB.

In many cases, it's simpler (and just as good for the overall purpose) to work in sRGB. But of course, if you are an image editing expert and have the time, you will (or may) get a better result with the more complex workflow...

Thanks all for your answers, including the well-explained webpage.

I guess I was a little mixed up. The following would seem to be more correct.

With an EOS10D, it's a good idea to shoot RAW (if you have enough memory of course).

Then you have to decide what to convert it into, eg AdobeRVB or sRGB, if you want to process it in Photoshop.

If after that you sent it to be printed, mostlabs (or many) will ask a file in SRGB, so if you were working in AdobeRVB, just convert it into sRGB.

As the webpage makes clear, in many cases, it's simpler (and just as good for the overall purpose) to work in sRGB. But of course, if you are an image editing expert and have the time, you will (or may) get a better result with the more complex workflow...

I have an EOS10D. Is it better to shoot in color space Adobe 1998 or

sRGB? Does it depend on the purpose? Manipulating the image in

Photoshop, it's better I suppose to have shot the image in Adobe

1998? And then convert it to sRGB if needed (like for the web and for

having printed in a lab using only sRGB)? I noticed that my images

loose some "vividness" when converted from Adobe 1998 to sRGB. Any

advice? Thanks, David

I have an EOS10D. Is it better to shoot in color space Adobe 1998 or

sRGB? Does it depend on the purpose?

Manipulating the image in Photoshop, it's better I suppose to have

shot the image in Adobe 1998?

And then convert it to sRGB if needed (like for the web and for

having printed in a lab using only sRGB)? I noticed that my images

loose some "vividness" when converted from Adobe 1998 to sRGB.

Any advice? Thanks, David

Thanks all for your answers. I'll try my best!

I just want to connect a few times my computers (a labtop and a regular, office style one) to share files quickly (including, at least first, gigas of images, so that CDs are not convenient, and I don't have a DVD burner).

I don't need to access internet from both. Nor to access internet while I am sharing files.

For the moment, I haven't found out how to set up IP adresses (so as to just use my crossed cable by directly linking the 2 computers). Nor ho to set-up an ftp-server on one computer (is that really needed?)...

I realize all this must be quite simple once one know how to do it, but...

The websites have alas been little help : I couldn't find tutorials; or one website was just explaining about WIndows 95, 98 and NT - but not XP...

I have two Windows XP computers that I want to connect, so as to

transfer all the images from one to the other. I have a network cable

(RJ45 crossed K0827C). I connect my computers with it. But I can't

settle any new network, or see in any way one computer from the

other. What am I missing?

Thanks,

David

To use Photoshop with photographs, the best book I have found is Micheal Kieran's "Photoshop color correction" (Peachpit Press). It tells you very clearly and with a lot of details of the basic techniques to improve the colors of a photograph (and why colors work that way).

Thanks all for your answers.

Reading forums, I am becoming quite pessimistic about personal photo printers. Is there any interest of having one? If you want to look at your (digital) pictures or even show them to you friends, a labtop is fine. If you want a nice print, you'll get a much nicer result at almost any photography store (provided you find out what ICC profile they are using), a print that will last long, than using any personal printer. Or is there anything I am missing?

I am hesitating between these 2 scanners, that sell almost the same

price (in France).

I want to scan 24*36 color slides.

Any idea?

Is the Nikon software better than the Minolta's? (If yes, is this

easily dealt with by buying the program Vuescan?)

By the way, up to what size may I expect to be able to print from

either scanner?

Thanks,

David