gary m

David - When I first started shooting nature, I noticed the same thing. Sometimes it was due to how the meter was interpreting a high contrast scene as mentioned above. But when I started to really pay attention to what I was shooting, I noticed that a lot of times there were low clouds or haze on the horizon. Even though it seemed like a sunny day, when I really LOOKED at my composition in the camera, the sky in the composition really was a boring white hazy color.

I agree with the above posts - Colorado has some great fall Colors, especially the southwest cornet near Ouray, Ridgway, etc. I would normally recommend early October for the peak colors, but we've had a bit of strange weather this year. I've already seen a few (very few) trees starting to turn colors in central CO. There's an 800 phone number that gives updates on the fall colors, I'll try to track it down and post it here.<div></div>

Robert - As a first step, I suggest printing a photo that has the problem and seeing if it appears in the print as well. This will help narrow down where the problem is occurring. If it does not appear in the print, then you can eliminate scanner problems. If it does appear in the print, you can eliminate monitor problems.

I'll take a few guesses here...

 

If this started after you calibrated your monitor, I would suspect your monitor profile. Try recalibrating and see if that helps.

 

Have you tried turning your color management off when scanning? Perhaps your scanner profile got corrupted.

 

Could it be that you're looking at a gamut warning? (View -> Gamut Warning menu item)

Well, after a little guessing, I figured out how to create a profile in lcms. The results I get now when applying, then converting the lcms profile are exactly what I would expect - there's a noticeable difference when I apply the profile, but hardly any when I convert it to Adobe 1998!

 

I also compared the end results between the Monaco and lcms profiles. They're pretty close, but there is a difference. At the moment, I leaning towards thinking the lcms is more accurate. But, I need to work with it a little more before I'm completely convinced. Thanks for the info!

Patrick - I hate to admit it, but I've only shot Velvia slides so far...I really need to expand my film choices ;)

 

I took a look at your thread on the color shift. I agree that it sounds very similar, but reversed, from what I'm seeing. When I apply the profile, I get a very noticeable color shift similar to what was in your attachment. I haven't tried different settings for the intent and BPC, but it sounds like that didn't have any affect on your results. (I have mine set for 'perceptual' and BPC on)

 

I'll check out the Little CMS and post my results here.

 

And I know what you mean about the obsession! If I could only make a living doing just the type of photography that I like. I'm still waiting to make that one print that sells for $100K ;)

Thanks everyone. My current color managment gets me fairly close - even if the intermediate results aren't what one would expect. I do this as hobby and don't have a high volume of slides, so I can always make any final corrections in PS. I'll continue experimenting...although I'm sure it will cost me money ;-) (My monitor is about 4 yrs old, so that may be contributing to things). Thanks again!

Ok... I created a new scanner profile (and recalibrated my monitor while I was at it), and I'm getting the same results. I'm pretty sure the process I'm using is correct. I took a closer look at my original results which I thought were pretty 'good', and I think it would be more accurate to say that they are 'ok'. The blues look pretty close to the original slide, but I see a difference in at least some yellows and grays. I was going to try to upload an example to show everyone, but converting everything to jpgs just introduces another change, so I figured it wouldn't be that useful. Stupid computers ;-) (I work with computers for my day job). I've seen other posts where people were having problems scanning velvia. I've also seen posts where people weren't very happy with the results from the Monaco calibration s/w. Does anyone have any thoughts on the quality of the Monaco s\w? Thanks!

hmmm.... not sure where the question marks came from in my response, must be a PN thing...

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

Andrew ? I?m not seeing a difference between the preview and the actual command. At least I haven?t noticed a difference in the past.

 

Oistein ? I usually still have to do a little final color correction. (I used a Wolf Faust target as well). I haven?t done a lot of scanning yet, but there seems to be a tendency for a magenta cast which I remove with curves.

 

B G ? I was thinking the same thing. I just went back and made sure my Nikon color management was turned off, and it was.

 

I think I?ll try to create a new profile and see if I have any better luck. I?m using MonacoEZcolor to build the profiles.

--> If you are NOT seeing a difference before and after assigning the profile, something is screwy.

 

So far, so good - I do see a difference after assigning the profile.

 

 

--> The color you see after assigning the scanner profile should pretty much look the same AFTER you convert to the working space.

 

That's what I would have thought, but this is where things get screwy. There's a pretty big difference between the BEFORE converting and AFTER converting - with the AFTER having much better color.

 

 

Thanks for the response Andrew. It sounds like at least my method of assigning then converting the profile is correct. One of these days I'll have to experiment some more to see what's going on. It may be that my profiles aren't that great, but I'm getting lucky and the end result is good.

I think I have a pretty good handle on color managment, but there is

something in my workflow that I don't quit understand. I was having

a hard time getting accurate color when scanning velvia slides, so I

bought a velvia target and created a new scanner profile. My

scanner software doesn't support profiles (Nikon Scan 4.0), so I

scan a slide, use PS to <u>assign</u> the scanner profile created

with velvia, then <u>convert</U> the profile to my working space

(adobe 1998).

 

The part that I don't quit understand is that when I assign the

scanner profile, the colors are way off. But when I then convert it

to Adobe 1998, the colors are very close. My end results are good,

so I guess I should be happy. But I'm curious if I'm doing this

correctly, and if so, why is the color so far off when I assign the

scanner profile?

I have an Epson 3170 that was getting pretty fogged up. I don't know if this is recommended or not, but I just removed a few screws and was able to get to the interior and clean the glass. I'm not in a clean room or anything, but it was certainly cleaner after I finished than it was before I started.

If you're just getting started in the digital process, you may want to start out with a relatively cheap flatbed. This will give you something to learn on before deciding if you want to spend the money for a higher quality scanner. As you stated above, having 'additional control of the process' is a big plus. My guess is that you'll be happy with the 8x10 results you'll get.... at least for a while ;) After that point, you may want to consider a dedicated film scanner to get a jump in the quality. Good Luck!

hmmm... I thought the 'natural' lightbulbs was a bit too easy ;-) Thanks for the info.

No problem Mendel. I'm still learning myself... Good luck!

Mendal - I was having similar problems with Velvia 50 even after creating a scanner profile with a Monaco system and a Kodak IT8 target. I ordered a velvia target from Wolf Faust (http://www.coloraid.de) and get better results now. My scanner s/w(Nikon 9000) doesn't support profiles, so I scan it in then assign the profile in PS. What is a bit strange is that at this point the colors are a bit off. But I then convert to my working profile (Adobe RGB). At this point the digital image is close to the original. Hope this helps...

Robert - If you made the changes using adjustment layers, you can open both the old scan and new scan in PS, then drag the adjustment layers from your old scan into the new one. Any cloning or changes made on the image layer will have to be redone.

I think you may be going about this backwards - there's really no benefit to making the lighting in your workspace match what you see on the screen. That may sound....wrong, but bear with me. As Michael stated, you want the lighting to match that of where the print will be displayed. Your print isn't likely to be displayed in an area with elaborate lighting, so there's no reason for your workspace to have elaborate lighting. The only perceived benefit would be so that YOU could compare the two and say they match. But when your print is displayed somewhere else, the only thing that matters is that the print looks good in the display lighting. (Ideally, you would want your monitor to match your display lighting, not vice versa)

 

Since it may be impossible to know where your print is going to be displayed, I just use daylight balanced ('natural' or 'full spectrum') lights in my workspace to avoid any major color casts. You can buy these lightbulbs just about anywhere now.

I thought I would add my 2 cents worth on the dpi question. I've run a few experiments with my epson 1280 and came to the conclusion to print at 360 dpi. It was pretty hard to tell the difference between the 300 dpi and 360 dpi for most prints, but for some photos it seemed like the 360 setting was a little better. The phots where this showed up had a lot of blue sky - the color transitions seemed a little smoother at 360.

I agree with David - Ouray and Telluride Colorado. I'd also recommend driving a little further north to Ridgway. I'm not positive on the timing, but September may be a little early for peak fall colors. I've attached a photo I took in October of last year in Ridgway.<div></div>

I don't think that I can provide a specific answer to the question that is significantly different from the responses above. However, I've read an interesting book that may provide a little insight. In the book "Drawing on the Artist Within", by Betty Edwards, the author asks the reader to draw several emotions such as joy, anger, peacefulness, etc. The drawings can't have recognizable symbols or specific objects - they just consist of lines and curves, differing pressure on the pencil, etc. I conducted the exercise as instructed, then compared my results to examples that were in the book. My results were surprising similar to the examples in the book. What this implies as it relates to aesthetics is that many people communicate in a similar way when it comes to a visual communication. A visual or 'artistic' communication is driven by the right side of the brain, whereas verbal communication and logic is controlled by the left side of the brain. If you've ever noticed that when you're "in the zone" taking photos or doing other artistic work, it's difficult to talk to others - you may seem a bit distant and have to "snap out of it" to have a meaningful conversation. This is because while you're in the artistic mode, your right brain is in control (that's the theory Betty Edwards presents).

 

Trying to put aesthetics (right brain) into logical, systematic terms (left brain) is difficult. Many people get frustrated when the dominant, logical left brain isn't in control. However, when it comes to viewing and appreciating art, I think that we have to allow the non-logical side to take control.

I ocassionally have the same problem with Nikonscan 4 and CS. I haven't found a pattern or a solution yet...

I haven't been to Yosemite, but Yellowstone is great. If you choose Yellowstone, make sure to spend some time at the Grand Tetons (just south of Yellowstone).

I agree with the responses above. Ansel Adams would spend days working to get a single print correct. Photoshop is just a new (more convenient) tool. It still comes down to the skills of the photographer - both in taking the picture and in the post processing.