ryan_schettler

I have been taking macro shots for a while with my Sigma 70-300mm with the macro

feature of the lens, but I am looking to get shorter lens to do the job. I do however have

some concerns that I am having trouble finding the answers to.

The 2 lenses I am looking at are the Sigma Normal 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro and the

Sigma Telephoto 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro. The 50mm has a minimum focus distance of

7.4", the 105mm is 12.2". I have a Canon 20D, and with the 1.6 focal magnifier they

become an 80mm and 168mm, respectively.

So my questions are:

1. With the focal maginifier of 1.6, does that change the minimum focus distance of each

lens? If so, how much?

2. With the previous answer in mind, which lens would be more functional for macro? I

like taking pictures of flowers, but I'm looking to expand the types of subjects I shoot.

Would it be better to be physically closer or to have some range? Does one have more

advantages over the other? 168mm seems to be getting further away than necessary,

unless I'm looking at it wrong.

Another consideration is I plan to get a ring flash to go with it in the future.

Thank you in advance for any help you give, I've had really good luck on this forum in the

past.

What are the pros and cons of using a pseudonym? Is this common for photographers? I

was considering using one for a couple different reasons, but I'm not sure. Other than

possible problems with copyrights, any good reasons to use or not use one?

Ok, I think I might have it. This morning I played some more with my monitor calibration. I calibrated my monitor twice yesterday following the advanced options, but the problem still persisted. Then I realized that I had the box checked for "Show profiles for this display only" in the display preferences under color. There were a whole bunch more available, most of which didn't seem to change the screen at all. I also played with the color sync utility a little, and learned a little more.

So what I did was set my display to sRGB profile. When I went back in to look the photoshop settings people had suggested, I realized that the flowers I have been working with looked like the same crappy flat image as on the PC! So I opened one up, made different adjustments to make it look how I wanted it, then I did 2 tests. I did a save for web with ICC checked. Then I opened the image in Safari, and it was even more blown out, way too much color. Did another save for web, this time leaving ICC unchecked, tested in Safari, and I got the correct results! It looks exactly the same as in photoshop. I can't upload the photos to the web until tonight to test them on the PC, but I think this is going to work.

Eric, I did go to Image>Mode>Convert to profile, and it was already set to Perceptual for the Intent setting. Does this mean it was already set correctly, or would I still have to convert the image before saving for web? Am I going to have to do this for JPEGS to when I shoot like that, or is this something for RAW?

I can't thank all of you enough for the input. I'm still going to check into those books, I think I still need a better understanding of color.

No, my PC CRT is not profiled. I kind of figure that most peoples aren't. I don't expect the

PC to look as good as the Mac, but it's strange that it looks flatter. Usually the PC monitor

makes things look more "blown out", like an over abundance of color. It could also be that

this is the first time that I put a picture on my site with so much color in it. Usually I stick

with darker images, or black and white. I actually posted one of the pictures in question in

my portfolio here if anyone wants to look. I definitely plan on checking out those books

this weekend.

Ok, I got home and tried several of the suggestions here, but I'm still not haveing any luck.

Here's what I tried:

1. Opened in RAW, set to sRGB, 16 bit. Made my adjustments, save for web to JPEG, ICC

unchecked. Result: Looked like crap on my PC and my Mac.

2. Same as above, except this time I checked ICC. Looks fine on the Mac, still crap on the

PC.

3. Opened in RAW, set to sRGB, 8 bit. Made my adjustments, this time instead of save for

web, did save as, saved to JPEG format, maximum. Same result as before, good on the

Mac, crap on the PC.

I even tried the suggestion about switching gamma. I went into Color Settings and

switched it to Web Graphics Defaults which switches it to Gray Gamma 2.2. Still the same.

Am I just fighting a lost cause? The colors I use on my website don't even look the same

as on my Mac, why should I expect my pictures to? Is it just that Macintosh screens are

that much better? Granted, the only 2 PC monitors are are CRTs, I have no idea if the

images look any better on the flat panels.

I just wanted to thank everyone for their input. Still a lot of good information here.

Couple more questions...

When I open the image in the RAW plug in and set it to sRGB, do I want to change it to 8 bit or 16 bit, and why?

Second, do I want to manipulate the RAW picture and do a save for web from there, or should I be saving them as a TIFF first, then saving for web?

Wow, you guys are awesome! I tried the Display calibration, and I switched it to gamma 2.2. That really made a difference. It even made the picture look better. I also tried opening the RAW and setting it to sRGB first. Then when I go to Image>Mode>Convert to Profile, it's actually already in sRGB, so I don't seem to have to convert it. I'll have to wait till I'm at home to try to resave these pics and test them. I'm going to try to just do a Save As instead of Save for web and see if that makes a difference. I tried to a save as to PNG, but apparently that doesn't embed color profiles.

Do any of you know a good resource to learn more about color profiles and color in general? Seems it's pretty important to understand that.

Thanks again for all your input!

To preface this, I did look through the forums, and searched the web,

but I'm just getting bits and pieces, and it's just making it more

confusing. I just bought a Canon 20D, and I'm having 2 problems with

the RAW format.

1. What to do with the files. I've read things that say you should

convert to TIFF right away, or save to JPEG. Do I ever want to get

rid of the RAW, or is that like throwing away the negative?

2. Saving for web. This one is causing me all kinds of headaches.

I'm using photoshop cs, and I have the raw plugin. I'm using a Mac

with OS X Panther if that helps. For instance, I have some macro

shots of flowers, and I opened them and saved them as TIFF right away.

Then I made manipulations to the TIFF and did a save for web. I had

it set to JPEG, Maximum, and checked the ICC profile, and it's set to

use the document color profile. The problem is the original that

shows in the 2-Up looks like crap, but the one I'm saving looks great.

Then I uploaded it to a web page, and on my Mac in Safari it looks

great. Then I went to a PC, and it looks just like the crappy image

in the original 2-Up. Like all the color info is missing.

I've read things about color space, calibration, converting profiles,

but none if it gives me a complete picture. Can ANYONE please help

with this? If there are any websites that give good explanations to

novices, that would be great too. It's very frustrating to spend that

kind of money on a camera and not be able to do what you want with the

photos. Thanks in advance!