eric_perlberg

For monitor calibration (colorometers as mentioned above), the standard pucks all do a relatively good job. <a href="http://drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration.htm">Dry Creek Photo</a> have done a comparison which outlines how various monitor pucks performed with various monitors and outlines "overall winners".<p>

For spectrophotometers for making paper profiles, you get what you pay for within price ranges up to several thousand dollars. So the really inexpensive scanner based profile systems are not very robust, reliable or accurate. The spectrophotometer systems like the eye-one (or i1) photo system or monaco pulse are very good for most purposes though if you only want a few papers profiled, its far more cost effective to have someone make the profiles for you. These systems are automated and the casual user can learn to use them without too much learning. <p>

At the next step up (another thousand dollars or so) you get more sophisticated software (eg ProfileMaker Pro from Gretag Macbeth) that takes sophisticated knowledge to use and most people will not want to learn that much to produce profiles but professionals who do this for a full time living do need these tools. It should be noted that people who profile CMYK printing presses really need these specialised tools because of the variabilities involved but this has nothing to do with profiling RGB inkjet printers.

<p>The final stage of this pyramid of tools (Spectrolino from Gretag Macbeth) is about automation to allow repeatedly accurate scanning of colour targets without humans hand scanning each target. The high end software still needs to be used to produce the most customised of profiles.<p>

Most people will find a colorometer to calibrate/profile their monitor and a few custom printer profiles from a reputable profile maker a good solution.

I'm having several problems which are possibly related and for which I

haven't found any relavent recent threads by searching or by going

through recent posts here.

 

First, when I visit a thread and click the Notify Me of Responses on

the right hand side of the thread, I never get notified of responses.

 

Secondly, I signed up for email alerts for 2 forums and never get an

email alert

 

Lastly, although my contributions to threads show up in the thread

they frequently don't (but occassionally do) show up in my Workspace.

 

Would love to get this sorted

Another option may be to ask <a href="http://london.photobloggers.org/blog/">here</a> or join in on one of the monthly meetups.

I have the 70-300 DO and a 70-200 F4L. The 70-200 has that extra bit of sharpness and

contrast and excellent bokeh which separates an excellent lens from a very good one. The

DO is none-the-less an excellent tool in the toolbox because a) in its own right its a good

lens and b) its the least-worst solution for a long walk around lens. I agree with the edge

sharpening comment using Photokit sharpener with the DO. The funny bokeh is not as big a

problem in real life as it is on the discussion boards.

Not a blog but:http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

 

Check out the tutorials and techniques sections

Just to add to what Ken said, watch the preview on screen. Look for areas where "halos", an artificial white edge, starts to show up around certain lines in the image. If you see them, you've gone too far in the Amount slider. If so you have 2 options. Either back off on the amount or click on Advanced and 2 more tabs are available. In the Highlight tab, back off on the Fade Amount until the halos disappear.

 

Also, look at the courseness of detail throughout the imaeg. The more you raise the radius, the more the image develops a grain like pattern. Don't go too far with this or fade it out in the Shadow tab. It's easy to oversharpen an image so it looks unnatural, at least for me. So back off to 50% or even 25% image size and look at the image holistically and see if it looks acceptable to you. Everybody else is secondary.

I'm not sure why Alan suggests you use sRGB "all the way", perhaps he could explain his

thinking. I'd suggest sticking with Adobe RGB, its a larger colour space and better make

use of your cameras abilities.

 

Your problem probably is occuring because you need to have a hardware device to profile

your monitor and you'd be wise to get custom printer profiles for each paper type that you

use with your printer. When an image contains a lot of out of gamut colours (you can tell

by using Soft-Proof in photoshop set up to softproof using your printer profile and then

turning on Gamut Warning) you might find that using perceptual intent in Print With

Preview rather than Relative Colorometric will maintain the out of gamut colours better. I'd

suggest starting by getting your system profiled correctly.

<i>if you only install your RAW converter and Photoshop on your pc. It's throwing away money</i>

<p>

Not according to <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/320005.html">Adobe</a>

<a href="http://fixationuk.com/">Fixation</a> is the most professional shop in London

but they're not open on wkends and don't give discounts.

<a href="http://www.7dayshop.com">7DayShop</a> which is an Internet based shop based

in the Channel Islands has perhaps the best prices but that would be awkward for you unless

you have a mate here who could help. Lastly, check the price at <a href="http://

www.cameraking.co.uk">Camera King</a>. London is not the place to go bargain shopping.

You might do better from Hong Kong or the US.

<i>100 megs? Where did THAT come from? You only get close to 100 megs if you convert them and save them as 16 bit tiff files.</i><p>

 

when you open a RAW file from a 1ds2 in photoshop the file size is 95+megs. This has nothing to do with saving them in tiff or any other format, it's the working file size in Photoshop. This is the file size you need to deal with when planning what your computer has to handle using photoshop with a 1DsMKII which is the subject of this thread. Even a RAW 5mpx camera file opens up at around 20mb in Photoshop.

<p>

RAW files from any digital camera are (nominally) 16 bit files. Working in 16 bit is one of the advantages of using RAW. If you want 8 bit files you have to convert the RAW file. Tiff has nothing to do with any of this. You do not convert an 8 bit RAW file to 16 bits.

<p>

The (8 bit) high quality jpgs (not RAW) straight out of this camera open up at 50mb in Photoshop.

The 1dsMk2 RAW files are 100mb in size. Chris, do your research. There's some significantly bizarre info above. You might want to have a read through some of the memory articles on <a href="http://photoshopnews.com/2005/07/19/photoshop-cs2-performance-articles/"> this page</a>. Articles are either straight from programmers on Photoshop or Beta testers.

Chris,

 

Although I personally work on a Mac, if you feel happy with a PC, there's no point in

changing. What you do want is a fast pc. There was a very recent discussion on this exact

point <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CtMR">

here</a>

<p>Basically you want a dual processor or dual dual core machine. You want fast hard

drives. You want lots of RAM. There are all kinds of strategies to max out Photoshop CS

including separate fast scratch disks. It was all in the discussion mentioned above. Getting

enough money is the only factor which is not covered.

<p>

The camera is great. Enjoy!

I checked speed tests at barefeats. Note that the iMac is a 1.6mhz and not the 2.0.<p>

 

For a basket of typical Multi Processor aware photoshop CS tasks<br>

iMac G5 1.6mhz: 64 seconds<br>

Mac Mini 1.42: 65 seconds<br>

<p>

For a basket of typical Single Processor aware photoshop CS tasks<br>

iMac G5 1.6mhz: 84 seconds<br>

Mac Mini 1.42mhz: 81 seconds<br>

<p>

iTunes convert MP3 to AAC<br>

iMac G5 1.6ghz: 109 seconds<br>

Mac Mini 1.42mhz: 134 seconds<br>

<p>

Complete tests and conclusion here:<br>

http://www.barefeats.com/mini01.html

<p>

If your rationale is based on keeping your monitor when you upgrade in several years then

you should know that we're on the verge of a monitor quality revolution. 3 years from now

there will be monitors with a larger colour gamut, close to Adobe rgb will be very

common, the first high end ones are just coming out. Also, the life of an LCD in terms of

picture quality is not much more than 3 years. If that is your sole reason for picking the

mini, I personally don't think the logic hold up. In either case, I don't personally think the

Dell is the way to go if you want a good monitor for photographic work.

I have a bit of experience.

 

I went several times to the Apple Store and tested the Mac Mini with the 20" and 23" apple monitors and a top end iMac. I created files in the 20-50 mb range and manipulated them in photoshop cs. The mini had 512 of RAM, the iMac 1gb.

 

I would say that a 1.42mhz mini with 1gb of RAM is an acceptable but not fast machine for working with files from an 8mpx camera in photoshop cs2. Yes its "OK" for the tasks you mention given that ok is a pretty slippery term. I could live with it but I'm sure there are others who would be flaming me for saying that. The mini's video card had no problem with photoshop cs and a 1920x1200 monitor. It might have a problem if you wanted it for 3d work or games.

 

Compared to the iMac the mini is slower in everything from booting up to individual CS tasks but it's not intolerably slow (subjectively i'd guess there's a 20% speed difference, not really huge in a hobbiest work situation. For example, a 30 second task in photoshop like for example a gaussian blur on the mini might take 24 seconds on an iMac. So maybe on your workflow for one photo as outlined above the mac mini would take a minute or so longer through your whole workflow (numbers are indicative but made up). For the other tasks you mention (email, web etc) the mini is fine.

This colour vs b/w thing is so personal. Separating what's "better" from what one "prefers" is a difficult question. Seeing virtues in both does not make you a wimp, it says you're sensitive to complex issuess. In fact, you are allowed to keep both solutions.

 

As for the comments about grain, it probably explains why Kodak is going out of the film business. Too much emphasis on slow, grain free films. It sounds like they needed more grain (or probably a goldilocks like "just right" amount of grain as defined by...).

 

Personally, I'd say you're doing just fine and keep taking pics. Answers will reveal themselves through struggle and then change as you reach ever higher plateaus.

<i>I want to make prints and do it right.</i>

<p>

1) Buy a hardware profiling device to profile your monitor. Any of the current versions is decent. "Best" is a transitory and relative state<br>

2) Have a reputable firm create a custom printer profile for your fave paper on the 2400<br>

3) Learn about soft-proofing<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.computer-darkroom.com">Computer-darkroom</a> has some decent beginner info on these things.

Just because two companies use the same LCD panel, you can't necessarily deduce that they function similarly. There are electronics involved too and those are specific to the final vendor's specs. The Apple 20 and 23 should work with your laptop depending on what your video out is. The Apple 23" models have been plagued with magenta casts and other anomolies. Not so the 20". The Nec Spectraview 1980 is a decent monitor from a photographers point of view. LaCie markets the same monitor (can't remember the model number but you can google it). I've heard good things about the Eizo Flexscan L997. I know my Eizo ColorEdge 210 is fantastic but far too expensive for your criteria.

 

You'll need to profile these monitors with an external device for best results.

 

A monitor which can pivot, if it works with your graphics card is a real boon. When you work on a landscape image, you twist the monitor one way and maximise its long length. Work in portrait mode, twist the monitor 90 degrees and voila, you can still maximse its long side.

I generally concur with Mihaela over the excellence of the Leicasonic lenses. I noticed the FZ30 lost 2/3 of a stop at the long end over the FZ 20 and the one image that Phil Askey has at 400 ISO shows a fair amount of noise. Either the FZ 20 or the FZ 30 make a great combo with a D2. My FZ 20 doesn't produce the quality (tonal range, colour saturation) of my D2, nor does it go as wide, 28mm, and the 35mm setting of the FZ 20 has more barrel distortion than the D2 does at 28. The FZ20 noise characteristics at 400 are not as nice as the D2s but it has the IS and macro and now 8 mp (my guess is that the D2 will produce at least as good if not better images scaled to 8mpixels than the FZ30 natively does). But the Leica lenses on any of these cameras are very leica.

The media types in your printer dialogue (glossy pro, plain gloss, matte, etc) are really settings which tell the printer how much ink to squirt out. They correspond somewhat to the best characteristics for a particular genre of paper. Squirt x amount out for glossy papers, spray y amount for matte papers. Sometimes the media type name is misleading but usually its pretty accurate.

 

The Ilford ICC profiles you refer to are created from a tiff file with lots of squares of different colours ranging throughout the colour spectrum. The numerical data needed to produce those exact colours is the known starting point. Ilford then prints that tiff file out on their paper using your printer and ink type combo (but pointedly not your printer) and the above Media Type which they have decided is best amount of ink to squirt out. Then they take the printouts from the tiff file and scan them using a spectrophotometer which gives a set of numbers describing the colours your printer produced. The difference between the original tiff file numbers and the scanned target numbers from their printout gives two tables of numbers. A table of corrections is generated which is called an ICC profile. You put that in your computer and use it for softproofing and printing in photoshop or another colour aware programme.

 

Ilford of course has not made their paper profiles using your particular printer. As inkjet printers of the same model and make vary from each other (sometimes not much at all and sometimes significantly), it can be beneficial to have a Custom ICC profile made for your own printer. Here, you download the tiff file, you print it out using your printer/ink and chosen paper. You send it off to someone who then using a spectrophotometer measures your printed out results, compares them to the original numbers and creates a translation table, the ICC profile, based on the characteristics of your printer.

To those that think that a Canon 20D or 350 is an alternative to the D2 miss the whole

point of the D2/LC1. If you want a DLSR then the D2/LC1 is not the camera for you. You

can't rip of a string of fast images (3 in 2 seconds is the best you get in jpg high quality). If

you want interchangeable lens so you can do tele or macro then the D2 is not for you.

 

If you want a very quiet (silent, not something you get with a dSLR), light weight (total kit

weight), versatile camera with a great, fast, contrasty lens (equal to Canon L glass in

quality) that works manually like older rangefinder manual cameras (meaning twisting

dials rather hunting through on screen menus and electronically controlled aperature and

shutter speeds) then there is no competition for the D2. It's a matter of style and

temperment. There are things I can do with the D2 that I simply can't with my DSLR (and

vice versa).

Sean probably knows more about this than I but when I looked into using XP pro to make use of dual core chips I was warned that lots of standard drivers don't work with it which could impact you in unexpected ways.

Join the <a href="http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users"> colorsync users list</a> and ask the same question or browse the archives. Not limited to Apple, its just a place where serious people of colour hang out. It's on a different plane than photo.net.

 

There's also the <a href="http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-dev"> colorsync dev list</a> for developers working with colorsync

My RAW workflow goes something like this. Download files from camera and save RAW files in a folder. View and rank RAW files in Bride. Open RAW file, generally in ProPhoto RGB in 16bit. Do basic sharpening and tonal adjustments, convert to B/W if I am so inclined and save file in a new folder as a psd file. Then I work this psd file and depending on its destination (desktop printer, web, outside printing) I fine tune and if needed convert working space to sRGB for web/lightjet and save in one of 3 folders (desktop printer, web, lightjet).

I own one and agree that its a fine camera. Like all cameras it has strengths and weaknesses. Like the best cameras, its strengths make you smile.

it seems to me that these 2 lenses were designed for different purposes without too much cross over. You don't specify which "field" you've noticed quiet a few users using the 70-200 glass are in. Are you using the DO for nature/landscape photography? street/travel photography? portraiture?

 

The DO lens (which I also own) is brilliant for walking around on streets (compact, lighter, discrete/black) yet reasonably fast, reasonably sharp in a way which the 70-200 2.8IS (heavy, bulky, attracting attention) would not be. In situations where bulky attention attracting lenses are not an issue, the L lens is, well, an L lens, a few stops faster, a bit sharper, more constrasty, a bit richer colour etc. Not night and day different but better. That's not to say the DO lens isn't good, but given the design brief, compromises had to be made.

 

A kind of compromise lens is the 70-200 f/4L. Have you considered that? It's not as bulky as its bigger 2.8 bros, but bulkier than the DO, its wonderfully sharp and contrasty maybe even as good as the 2.8s, its significantly lighter and shorter than the 70-200 2.8IS and its white. It's also a lot less pricy than the its larger siblings.