eric_perlberg

<p>Time passes...<br>

Just to add to the comment that regardless of camera used Sobol's work would look very much similar... Leica has released a short video on Sobol using a digital Leica Monochrome cam and his work doesn't look any different. You can also see him working in this video. If anyone can tell me his technique for letting total strangers who hardly speak English or Danish let him into their personal lives to the extent that he photographs lovers in bed I'd love to hear it...<br>

It must be stressful because there is one place in the video where he says he wakes up in the morning dreading having to face his photographic day. </p>

<p>

<p>Thanks for all the suggestions. I shot with Rinko this past summer and I know she uses a beat up old Rolleiflex. At the time I didn't have any interest in shooting film or MF but I asked her how she got her soft images and in her broken English she chuckled and replied that her images were merely out of focus as she should be wearing her eye glasses but was too vain. Then she said, its the Rolleiflex. Then she said, otherwise I would have probably bought a hassy.</p>

<p>I googled rolleisoft and she definitely wasn't using that, I would have noticed. It definately wasn't a rolleicord either, I would have noticed and I as I handled the camera I remember looking at the Rolleiflex logotype on the front. I wish I had asked her which model and what lens but at the time I didn't care. I'm still not totally sure whether I should look for a 3.5 or 2.8. Tom seems to have the same sensibility that I'm looking for. I guess in a way its reassuring that its not overly obvious even to you who are shooting flex's which suggests to me I won't go too far wrong with what ever I choose. Thanks for taking the time to respond.</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

Eric</p>

</p>

<p>Hi All, <br>

I really like the soft almost etherial look of Rinko Kawauchi's work. In an interview I read with her she said its a characteristic of Rolleiflex's and I know she shoots a lot with a nicely worn Rolleiflex. I've searched the web but haven't found out much more about the soft look, I assume she's shooting wide open as I know this camera is capable of being as sharp as the best competition presumably around f8. As I've wanted to try medium format for awhile and the Rolleiflex fits my style of street shooting, I'd like to buy one. But before I do I'd like to clear up this issue. I'm wondering if this soft look is a characteristics of all Rolleiflex models or something more specific like a 3.5e2 etc. or am I totally off base?<br>

Can anyone help with some clarification?<br>

Many thanks<br>

Eric</p>

There was an interesting discussion about this at a Leica User Group (not photo.net). One

of the people who was talking about his prints with the new Leica M8 is David Adamson

(http://www.adamsoneditions.com/) who is one of the top printers in the world having

done editions for Robert Frank and Lee Friedlander, William

Christianbury and tonne of other big name photogs and artists.

In his comments on a the quality of the M8 (he likes it a lot) he said that he always uses

Alien Skin's Blowup rather than PS's bicubic for upsizing and adds a touch of grain (and his

images are not generally grainy b/w street photos) using Alien Skin's Exposure (Alien Skin

being the manufacturer and not a product).

<i> never liked Bridge, it's very slow even on a fast mac.</i>

<p>

An interview with the product manager of Photoshop CS3 at Photoshopnews explains that

previously Bridge read the RAW file for its thumbnails while other software was simply

hitting

the attached jpgs and were thus much quicker. In CS3 Bridge goes for the jpgs too and so

its

very fast. When you click on the thumbnail the image rendered is from the RAW file. I think

(from experience) that Lightroom works the same way.<p>

I've played with Lightroom which I had planned on buying and played with Aperature which

is meant I think more for non-artist professional photogs (ie, people to whom keyworking,

searching, and other organising abilities, etc are critical). Those familiar with the new

advancements in Lightroom will find CS3 camera raw now is very similar to the Develop

module in Lightroom

Ooops, wasn't open-source, it just had that look about it... It's <a href="http://

wwwmaths.anu.edu.au/~briand/sound/"> here</a>. $25.

This won't be too useful because I can't find the link in my bookmarks (useful to bookmark

but after awhile counter productive sadly) but there is a freeware open source sound cleaner

I came across last week designed to take clicks and pops out of old records after digitising

them. Try searching clicks and pops. If I can find the link I'll post it.

If you feel like paying there's Bias's SoundSoap and SoundSoap Pro. And <a href="http://

digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2005/06/22/noise.html">this</a> article.

<a href="http://www.photofusion.org/education/courses.htm">Photofusion</a> has a

good reputation beyond the standard intro to photography evening courses you'll find at

some of the universities. If you want something more structured there are <a href="http://

www.arts.ac.uk/"> university programmes</a>.

I'm amazed by the price difference between Fr and DE and shudder to think how much

more it is here in the UK. Two additional points. I don't know how Eizo is organised where

you are but here in the UK the importer (not a dealer but Eizo UK who work with resellers

and won't sell the monitors themselves, they later referred me to a reseller) drove a demo

CG210 to my flat and let me use it for a few days before purchasing and before promising

to purchase it. They showed me how to use it, how to use ColorNavigator and made sure

everything was working. I've never had service like that. It's not like I buy bulk monitors,

I'm not a famous photographer or anything like that. I'm not important in any business

way. This just seems to be Eizo UK's standard operating mode.

And trying it on my own time and with my own tools was just unbelievable. Then, after

they took it back, they did a pretty persistent job of calling me regularly asking what I was

thinking and could they help. Then, when I bought it, they referred me to a reseller and I

was able to get about 10 per cent off the list price.

Fred, I purchased the CG210 after going back and forth between it and the Apple 30". At that point the Eizo was several hundred pounds sterling cheaper so I recognise that the decision has become more difficult.<p>

None the less, I'm very pleased with my Eizo. The picture quality is excellent and I think its better than the Apple's image quality though I think(?) I could have happily bought the 30" and never looked back. Some of the things I like about the Eizo:<p>

1) Quality of the whiteness of the screen. I can't give you details on this but I find the Eizo more silky smooth and "whiter"<br>

2) I remember noting that the apple has a very fine texture to its screen or at least the covering plastic it uses, the Eizo is smooth and I prefer this.<br>

3) The Eizo can pivot making it very close to the same size as the 30". I think of the Eizo as a 1600x1600 monitor compared to the apple 2560x1600. Admittedly there is more room for your pallettes on the Apple but I don't find myself squeezed on the Eizo.<br>

4) I did some simple tests on banding making various b/w and colour gradiants across the screen. The Apple monitor had significantly more banding (though it wasn't profiled except with the default profile so I don't know what advantage profiling would have brought.) I thought this very siginificant as banding relates to the ability to separate detail. The apple's banding was at the very dark end and to me the Eizo had more shadow detail.<br>

5) I liked the Color Navigator and the fact that it worked directly with the video card with a 10bit lut to squeeze out the best possible profile for the screen. But this is a more theoretical observation than practical in the sense that I can't point to anything in particular and say "here is the benefit of that" other than I find the image quality somewhat "better" to my eyes on the Eizo and the banding mentioned above<br>

6) I do like the hood. It only works in landscape mode but it does cut reflections. I use it almost all of the time.<br>

7) The Eizo warranty is significantly better for what that's worth unless you buy the apple care warranty in which case the eizo is still marginally better.<br><br>

The fact that the Apple has a few ports on the back is a nice plus for the Apple but not the core of why one buys a monitor. It's also a nicer looking monitor with apple flair but again, that's not the purpose of a monitor. As a long time fan of apple and particular the flair and style they build into their products, this was very hard for me to give up. It seems less important now though if I had it to do all over again I'd go through the same struggle.<p>

For colour critical work its my opinion and the opinion of many colour experts that the Eizo has the edge. That may or may not be important to you. There are a few archived discussions of this comparison at the rob galbraith site.

<i>Any kid with a computer can write any drivel he wants to an online forum</i><p>

Just to set the record straight, the drivel on photo.net is not written by kids.

<i> don't mind spend almost $3,000 on a camera, such as the MP, that will last a lifetime, but would feel like suckers if they spent the same amount of money on a camera whose specs will be superseded by the Leica Digital M within another two years.</i><p>

Camera specs since the beginning of time have improved from model to model even for Leica cameras. There are 2 things missing in your analysis:<br>

1) If the new Leica M meets your needs, is well built, produces excellent images at the size you want, then it's not wasting money any more than purchasing a Leica film camera and finding framelines added, faster speeds added, rewind dial improved, lens mount changed, etc. You don't have to upgrade your digital M just because a new camera comes out. A newer model digital camera in two years doesn't degrade the image quality of your current camera.<br>

2) When you buy a digital camera, you are buying the film too. If you shoot 10 rolls of film a year then a digital camera price must seem expensive. If you shoot regularly, then the savings start to add up quickly. Over time of course, the price of digital cameras will come down. But over time, you're not going to be here. carpe diem.

I don't have this lens but I've read a lot that there is some variability in quality control on this

and other L lenses. Personally I've never had a bad L lens from Canon. But apparently If you

can take it back to your dealer, they can send it off to canon and have it tweaked to improve

sharpness. If you live in London, Fixation in Vauxhall is very good with tuning lenses but you

shouldn't have to pay for it, Canon will do it for free.

There are now several extensive discussions of the upcoming Windows Vista color

management module at the <a href="http://lists.apple.com/archives/colorsync-users/

2005"> Colorsync Users List</a> in the Sept archives. Look for the post titles: "Microsoft's

color-management claims" and "Goodbye ICC, here come Microsoft !" Reading through these

you'll get an idea that the colour managementt discussions here at photo.net are pretty basic

indeed.

Using a bag that doesn't look like a photo bag can go a bit deeper than trying to fool

professional thieves hanging around city centres. Probably yes, you may run into professional

thieves in tourist areas know what to look for. If the purpose is to avoid theft buy camera

insurance and be done with it and use any bag you want to.

For those who go off the beaten track there are plenty of reasons for being discreet even with

camera insurance. For me, it's about moving around more easily and blending in with my

surroundings a bit better.

I have a few Domke black canvas over the shoulder bags just for the reason you mention, they don't look like squared off always puffed out photo bags, esp when used without the internal dividers. The canvas ages by fading similar to jeans and doesn't have that nylon photobag look. The other thing I find is that adding the padding to keep everything in its place makes the bag look more like photo bag to me but you'll have to weigh the compromises to see if it suits you. I use Lowepro padded cases for my lenses.

Crumpler also makes over the shoulder camera bags which have a unique look. Once worn in and not stuffed to the gills with stuff, they look trendy but not techy. YMMV

You might also look at over the shoulder bike messenger bags.

It's not so much what is appropriate to shoot, its what you bring to the shot that makes it worthwhile or not. So much of what passes for street photography is attempts at "me too" shooting based on photographic styles that were cutting edge 60 years ago. With all the images from the zillions of cameras that are sold, there's precious little that's original or interesting.

Try to develop your own visual vocabulary/style so that whatever you shoot has a "Jenna G" look to it and doesn't look like all the hacks that take safe weekend snaps of easy targets in the city centre and then write about the decisive moment here at photo.net.

If you're a guy, its not a good idea to take photos of other's kids. If you're a woman, you probably won't have a problem even if you do.

A few last words of clarification above. Matthias had asked if the announcement signalled a

new and better colour space. No, What's involved is a well defined connection system so that

any device can join in the sRGB merryment. It may be possible (but I'm still not sure) that the

system will be extensible to handle other existing colour spaces or new ones that anyone

may come up with as is the current ICC model.

<p>

Lastly, I said: <i>there is nothing here about trying to improve the sophistication of

profiles</I> but meant to say there is noting here to improve the sophistication of colour

management.

I read through the Details posted by .[. Z and can't say that I understood it all either

through my own ignorance or Microsofts' marketing boffins ability to obfuscate. Several

points:<br><br>

1) Perhaps indicative of points further, where any other software firm in the known

universe would have published this white paper as a pdf, Microsoft published it as a Word

Doc.<br><br>

2) The paper starts with a detailed marketing analysis defining a growing gaggle of users

which the writer(s) define as not really getting colour management and not wanting to

including some professionals who the writers thought would know better. <br><br>

3) They first say that they will fully support ICC definitions for profiles but then go on to

say that rather than adopt the ICC's virtual Profile Connection Space an abstract space

based on CIELAB which itself is based on physiological research and which is like the glue

that makes it possible for different devices to have a common colour space from which to

generate profiles, they've decided to adopt the CIECAM02 which Mad wand

mentions. I'm not sure what this means and maybe someone like Andy Rodney would

clarify this a bit but the way I take it is that VISTA colour management is messing with

industry wide standards and then throwing in a bunch of marketing terms like "modern

color appearance model" which doesn't in and of itself say much more than the letters

NEW in a red starburst on the packaging for Vista. What may truly be new is that

Microsoft is creating a second standard which everyone will have to cope with in some way

if only to help your friends when they get hopelessly lost if something isn't going

right<br><br>

4) Microsoft then go on to talk about how this new colour management module will have

additional APIs (hooks for programmers to take advantage of the core module) to their

sRGB core colour management model currently. So it might be that we're looking at ICM on

steroids with external hooks.<br><br>

5a) At least the way I interpret all of the above is that the new colour model involved in

VISTA will be non-standards compliant in order to make a seamless colour mangement

model for any imagineable device which may hook up to it but at the same time flexible

enough so that if you're a "high end user" it will switch back to ICC rules and act

ICCish.<br><br>

5b) It is designed to make it so that documents seamlessly colour mangage in such a way

that the operator doesn't have to know what they're doing. I would say this is the ultimate

Point and Shoot extension to the Point and Shoot philosophy of photography. Mark my

words, Microsoft will market it as Point Shoot Print and it will have a cool dude clicking his

cell phone camera and a sweet young coed doing graphic design, etc and all will be just so

pleased with the accuracy of the colour output.<br><br>

5c) The APIs are there to encourage all vendors to make hooks into the model so that their

products will work with it thus guarenteeing that they won't be closed out of the Microsoft

vortex.<br><br>

So from what I can see from my admittedly not perfect understanding of what they've

written, there is

nothing here about trying to improve the sophistication of profiles but simply to make the

process more invisible to the non-critical user.

<br><br>

As anyone using Photoshop already doesn't use ICM, the new VISTA colour manager won't

have any impact.<br><br>

As you can probably intuit, I'm not personally optimistic about this development. YMMV

Hi Matt,

<p>

Many interesting images (strong composition and oblique points of view, esp with the 28mm end of the lens) at your site. Having once owned and extensively used a D2 for similar type of work, I agree that its mechanical rather than menu driven functioning make it one of the most M like of digital cameras and the lens and chip are excellent in my experience within their limitations.

<p>I wish people who expressed strong opinions about tools would have some real hands-on experience with them before categorically writing them off without explanation. We all gain when the strengths and weaknesses of various tools are discussed. But the need of some people to express categorical opinions without any explanation or rationale suggests to me that there are petty psychological motivations behind their posts, most unhelpful and childish. Al Kaplan... Good on ya for taking a stand! (and I love your one handed wide angle shots).<p>

Eric

If you separate out the marketing speak from facts here you wind up with something like: Microsoft is changing from ICM (their current colour management system) to something new. Since most of us use Photoshop and use Adobe's built in colour management system and turn off ICM (if they work on windows) then this announcement has absolutely no effect.

It's probably meant to replace the current sRGB idea which Microsoft also came up with along with HP and a few others. The goal is to make it foolproof for the average user to produce reasonably accurate colour management without learning anything about what they're doing. This could potentially be useful for the point and shoot set who make snaps with their pocket cameras.

If you're a fool then foolproof systems are pretty important. If you know what you're doing or you can think for yourself, you won't have to deal with the news blurb mentioned above.

If you find that Adobe RGB consistently makes images in your setup too dark then something else is wrong at your end. The reason its chosen by many photographers is that its capable of producing and showing all the CMYK colours a printing press can print. That's important if you're working in advertising, fashion, etc where your work is destined to be printed on printing presses.

<p>

Adobe RGB also covers many of the colours of a high quality inkjet printer though even the best inkjets can't reproduce all the colours in Adobe RGB but can produce colours that even Adobe RGB can't contain. Most inkjets can easily create colours outside the sRGB space. Some photographers working on inkjets chose even larger colour spaces like ProPhoto RGB.<p>

If you're finding your colours inaccurately saturated then something is wrong at your end. Adobe RGB doesn't saturate non-saturated colours. Perhaps its time to learn about calibrating and profiling your monitor if you haven't already.<p>

If you're finding that you prefer Colormatch because its more accurate by all means use it. sRGB likely is clipping colours in your files. You may not be seeing that on your monitor (esp if it isn't profiled) but your monitor isn't showing you all the info in your files or all the info you can print.<p>

It's not like saying a faster car is better as a general rule. It's like saying a dollar is worth more than 50 cents. If all you need is 50 cents then don't worry about getting a dollar. If you're happy with your prints in sRGB then fine, don't sweat it. <p>Professionals and serious amateurs are not generally happy with sRGB results because its too limiting. In which case, if you want to spend a dollar, you'll need one.

Jason,

<p>

1) There isn't a "correct" answer for what colour space to use any more than there is a correct answer to what car should I buy. That being said, Adobe RGB is used by many photographers and for now its a reasonable choice for you until you learn more.<p>

2) If you're working on a PC you can use Adobe Gamma. If you're working on a Mac, you can either use the colorsync utility for setting your monitor or there is a shareware programme whose name escapes me at the moment. In both cases (PC/Mac) setting the gamma and colour temp of your monitor is not the same as what a hardware profiler will do and if you are coming at this with a critical eye, you will still not be satisfied. Adobe Gamma/Colorsync are not adequate substitutes for hardware profiling your monitor. At least now you know what to ask for for Christmas.

<P>

3a) Setting the gamma, whitepoint/colourtemp and creating a profile for your monitor to accurately reproduce colours (which you can't do without a hardware device) are independent of the colourspace you are chosing for your file. The former is a method for calibrating your monitor so it is accurate regardless of the files colourspace and the later is the shape of the container your file data will be poured into.<p>

4) Given that you have a 300D I would suggest that you look into shooting in RAW. If you shoot jpgs then yes Adobe RGB is probably your best bet. But RAW has many advantages. Sites like Luminous Landscape and others have lots of information about how to use RAW. <p>

5) You might want to invest in a book like Martin Evenings' Photoshop CS (or 7 or CS2) for Photographers or Blattner/Frasser's Real World Photoshop. I have lots of links at <a href="http://www.stonequay.co.uk/links.html"> my web site</a> with which to get started.

Oh dear. At the bottom of the Adobe Camera Raw you should have a drop down menu with

choices of several colour spaces. If you want to preserve quality in your files for printing

etc make sure its set to Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB (though if you're going to use the

latter read up on it first). If its set to sRGB then you're loosing too much of your original

data.<p>

Take a look here for a brief explanation: <br>

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/techniques/process.shtml">Luminous

Landscape</a>

<p>

I have a lot of good info for begginers + on my website, particulary the first 3 pdfs:<br>

<a href="http://www.stonequay.co.uk/links.html">Stone Quay Studio Links</a><p>

Anyway here's how I work:<br>

1) In Camera RAW I do initial setting of exposure, contrast, etc, fix any vignetting in the

lens and because I'm using CS2 I do some tonal controls with curves<br>

2) I set the colourspace to Adobe RGB or more often ProPhoto RGB and in 16 bit (depends

on the speed of your computer)<br>

3) Once in Photoshop I sharpen, do further tonal controls first using levels to set the black

and white points and then curves to get a pleasing contrast, crop etc, all in Adobe RGB/

ProPhoto and when happy(ish) I save that file with a new name in psd format in a folder

with the date and location of shoot which itself is inside another folder called SAVED

WORK.<br>

4) Now if I want a file to print, I'll duplicate the saved file above and save it in a folder with

the date and location of shoot which itsef is inside another folder called PRINTED WORK. I

then use Soft Proofing (see my links page) using the paper I think I'll be using and adjust

the file for printing until it looks good on my screen. I save it and print using the Print With

Preview and the paper profile and an appropriate rendering intent.<br>

5) Now if I want a file to put on the web, I open the file from the SAVED WORK folder and

duplicate it. Then I resize it using IMAGE RESIZE and bicubic sharpener and size it to what I

want. At this point I convert it to sRGB using Convert To Profile. It may or may not need

some little bit more of sharpening or a tweak of tone control (levels or more likely curves).

When I'm happy I use Save For Web and save the file in a folder where I keep all my jpgs

for posting on the web which I personally call JPGs but you might be more creative. I

generally aim to keep my saved jpg files at under but just under 100k which I think is the

limit here at photo.net even though I don't keep my jpgs at photo.net.<br>

<br>

Hope that helps.