aaronp

My dues are up for renewel, but I can't the links to work. If I click on 1 year or 3 year, it links back to the same page. Am I missing something?

and here this is about what the print looks like<div></div>

Here is the original, which looked fine on my monitor.<div></div>

I am using the Kodak E-surface profile, which I did mention above. What is the AveragePhotoPrinterRGB profile? I don't have a flat bed scanner, but I can post an image I manually adjusted to visually match my print.

The dam is pretty smooth and slick from what I remember, and it's easier than it looks, it's kind of like surfing. That's why it's green? Dang, didn't know.

 

Have you had much experience with online printing companies?

 

Last night, in frustration over the whole monitor being to bright thing, I decided to try an old profile I had set up using QuickGamma from www.normankoren.com, and to my surprise it was pretty dang close to my prints. So, I guess I'll use that while getting this show together. Does anyone have any idea what I could be doing wrong with my Gretag-Macbeth Eye-One that it gives me such an incorrect brightness/gamma?

pps - just so you won't think I'm a stalker, I noticed on your bio you were from Kerrville; I've got some family that lives around there, and I visted them in the summer once.

ps - Tim, have you been dam sliding over in Ingram lately?

Frans, thanks for the info on the color temperature. I didn't realize there was such a difference between room lighting and monitor temperature. If (hopefuly when) I get a room devoted as my darkroom I will definitely try to incorporate that.

 

Tim, yes, I used the Mpix E-surface profile, however they print it on a matt surface instead of a glossy. I don't know how big a difference the gamut is between the two. With the profile gamut being less than sRGB, I guess it makes sense that some of my images seem to lighten when soft proofing since I have my intent set on perceptual. When you say its density is lighter, that means that the print should be lighter, correct? If so, that gets me further away from my desired output as my prints are already too dark. Do you have any recommendations for an online printer that would give better results?

 

Thanks again, guys.

Annie,

 

Does it make a difference if I soft proof in sRGB instead of Adobe 1998? I do have Mpix.com's ICC profile for the Kodak paper they use, but soft proofing with it primarily seems to change the way the colors are represented on my monitor and and not the overall density/brightness, though on a couple of images with warmer colors soft proofing seems to brighten what I see, which gets me even further away from the print. The local "professional" labs don't have any sort of profile I can use (one even said that they didn't think their lightjet was able to be profiled!) which is one reason I decided to try a trusted online company. I don't think that the differnce between my monitor and the lab monitor is an issue, because I asked for the prints to be made with no corrections, so if everyone is calibrated and profiled, then it seems like in my simple mind that it should be wysiwyg (what you see is what you get).

 

Frans, my white point is set to 6500K. I have no idea what my room lighting temp is, or even how to measure that. Would the color temp change the overall brighness of appearance, or just the color shift of the print? I'm fine with the colors I get, I just want them brighter.

 

Anthony, that is a good idea. I have a pretty good idea of what it would look like, but I might do it anyway.

 

Thanks again all for your time and effort.

Anthony, I'm not in front of my monitor right now (it's at home, i'm at my real job) so I can't say what color the yellow bar is. My brightness scale is turned down all the way, and I have started to turn the individual colors down just to get down to the 90 nits. It seems crazy to me that my monitor would be inherently that much too bright. When I get home, i'll try to see what it takes to get down to where only the 11.5 pluge is visible. Something still isn't adding up to me though, is it possible my monitor is messed up?

I chose 2.2, I know, that's what throws me off.

Thanks everyone for your responses. I ran the Eye-One again, this time on the advanced option instead of the quick option and it does have a brightness level setting. My monitor was set too bright, but that still didn't completely fix the problem. What I see on my monitor is now a little closer to my prints, but still between a half stop to a stop off, even when I adjusted the brightness down to around 90 nits. There is so much more detail in the shadow areas that just gets lost in the print.

 

Anthony, with my brightness set to ~90nits all three pluge bars are discernable. Should I go lower than 90nits?

 

I also downloaded the gamma chart from http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html and my threshold black level is up closer to 1.8 (I have a Dell desktop) and the gamma seems to be around 2.7. Does this make sense to anyone?

The Ultrasharp is an LCD, but at the time I bought it, it seemed to be about the best quality for photo editing for the money. I assumed that calibrating my monitor would take into account the brightness, but maybe I'm wrong. How would I measure the "nits" of brightness?

Hey all,

I have a series of photos that I am trying to get printed for an upcoming show

and this is the first time I?ve really tried to print color photos. I have

tried the two most ?professional? labs in town (Jackson, MS) and also mpix.com

but with all three places the prints come out nearly a stop darker than what I

see on my monitor. One of the local labs and Mpix use a lightjet, the local

lab prints on Fuji Crystal Archive and Mpix prints on Kodak Pro Portra Endura;

the other local lab prints using some sort of projection onto a Kodak photo

paper, I?m not sure what the exact print process is. So it doesn?t seem

related to a specific printer/paper. I have had all three places print

without any corrections, so it seems the problem is on my end.

 

I am really confused and frustrated and don?t know what to do short of adding

a curve layer to imitate the print and then another curve on top of that to

adjust to the way I want it to look (basically an ?inverse? of the first

curve), and then applying only the second curve when I get it printed. But

that seems like such an archaic and backwards way in this age of color

management.

 

Has anyone else had trouble with this, or have any idea where the problem

lies? Any help would be hugely appreciated.

 

I use PS 7, am working in sRGB, and have a Dell Ultrasharp 19? monitor

calibrated with the Gretag-Macbeth Eye-One.

 

Thanks,

 

Aaron

I picked up a drainpipe from Adorama's used section a few months ago for under $500. It came with the tripod mount and lens hood. I've seen a couple more on there for the same price since then, you just have to keep a close watch.

If you really like zooms, you should consider the old 80-200 f/2.8L; I picked one up at Adorama's used department for under $500 a few months ago, and it has treated me well. I've seen several others there for the same price, so if you keep a close eye on their stock, and bide your time, I think you could get one.

I just got back from the Masai Mara a few weeks ago. The rainy season was just starting around the first of November, but it didn't interfere with game drives much. We had some periods of rain, but mostly sun; it was actually nice to see the different types of weather. If you really want to see rhino, I would recommend going elsewhere, as poachers have been doing their job and the known number of rhinos on the Mara is in the single digits. Other than that, there is a plethora of animals, and the Mara is amazingly beautiful. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll do my best to answer them.

Another option is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. This is equivalent to a 27-112mm on a full frame camera. I have had it for several months now to use on my 20D, and I have been very pleased with it. B&H has it for $389 right now. It would be nice to have a constant 2.8 aperture and it's not quite up to par with Canon primes or L series, but it is hard to go wrong for the price. I have used the 18-55 kit lens some and the Sigma definitely beats it in terms of image quality and build quality. Still it's not bad advice for you to get the kit lens for a $100 bucks or so and use it until you get a feel for the camera and your shooting needs before plopping down some serious cash for a lens. You would not regret being able to make an informed decision.

 

Another third party lens to consider is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which runs $450 at B&H. I understand if you want to stick with Canon lenses; that was my sentement as well (I have a smattering of Canon primes and one L zoom), but I do not regret getting my Sigma 17-70 and have enjoyed it tremendously.

Oh, sorry: Your Mileage May Vary

 

Don't know if it will help, but check these out:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18125_3556/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm

I agree with Carlos on the primes, especially normal primes. I think it could be frustrating to walk around with a 105mm lens especially on a crop camera, but it really does open up a whole new world with a normal lens. I have used my 24mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2.0 considerably on my 20D (which equate to a 38mm and 56mm respectively). At the risk of sound cheesy and pretentious, when I use my primes, it forces me to adapt to my surroundings in terms of composition and what I see; whereas with a zoom I tend to force my surroundings into my often narrow view and not really think about what I'm looking at. In other words, for me it is often the difference between me seeing what is (with all the nuanced possibilites) vs. me seeing what I want to. But, as with most things, YMMV.

 

Jeff, as far as the 80-200 leaving you further away on the short end, you wouldn't really have a noticeable gap if you got the Sigma 17-70. Despite no USM, no IS, the 80-200L is still a wonderful lens, still comparable to the new 70-200 2.8, costs way less, and is black. You could get the 17-70/80-200 combo for under $1000 easy. As far as repairs on the 80-200, you could buy two for the price of one 70-200. Just some thoughts.

 

ps - you've got some great images in your portfolio, Jeff.

Jeff, another option that I don't think anyone has mentioned is going the used route with the magic drainpipe, i.e. the Canon 80-200 f/2.8L. In the last month I have bought both the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 80-200 and have been quite pleased with both. Before that I only had an assortment of 2.8 and faster primes (24,35,50,135)for my 20D. The 80-200 goes for about $750 on ebay, but it seems Adorama's used department has one every few weeks for under $500 (which were I got mine).

The only downsides to it are no USM and non-compatibility with Canon's teleconverters (though you can use third-party teleconverters). Here are Bob Atkins thoughts: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/80-200L

No, I'll only be there for two and a half weeks. And if I shoot film (rather than take my 20D) I don't want to mess with the film getting fogged in all the x-ray machines.

Hi all,

 

Does anyone have any idea how easy it is to buy film in Addis Ababa? Do you

know prices and what types are available? Also, where exactly in the city I

could get it? The same goes for processing (all I would need is negatives,

prints would not be necessary). Any idea on prices, reliability, turn around

time, specific locations for processing? I am just looking at my options.

Thanks!

Mark, I really appreciate your very pertinent contribution to my post. Thank you.

Well, the Panasonic LX1 has 8.2mp and the LX2 has over 10, so image size shouldn't be a concern (granted, that is in widescreen mode). Noise does seem to be a concern with the LX1, even at ISO 400, but Panasonic claims that the noise is much better controlled in the new model (they included an ISO 3200 setting for goodness sake), though that remains to be seen. And it is fully manual, with image stabilization, a zeiss lens, and raw capture. Seems shutter lag and increased depth of field are the main downsides (and the ~$500 less to spend on lenses for my 20D). But the non-intrusiveness of a P&S is really appealing. I guess I should ask my sis what her thoughts are on me following her around with my 20D verses a P&S.