ffrank

<p>Jeff.... do you mean a color managed "monitor" instead of browser? I have the same problem when uploading. My photos always lose their pop and I have always attributed it to the bright background Photonet uses. I do have a calibrated monitor and edit in Adobe 1998. I always convert to sRGB when saving the jpeg file. I edit them using a dark gray background in PS. After uploading to Photonet the color and contrast are greatly diminished with the very light grey back light when viewing. Is there any way to select a background when viewing photos on this site?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Vilnis........ I've never see one of these. It's definitely something to look into. Thanks<br>

Fred</p>

<p>Thanks Peter...... I went ahead and emailed the completed form back to them and asked for and received confirmation of the order. It just seemed risky. Most of the companies I have ordered from go out of there way to assure you that your credit card info is safe. Your right though...... just about any way it's done involves some risk.<br>

Thanks<br>

Fred</p>

<p>There is a fax number at the bottom of the page that I don't think actually goes to the parts dept. Same problem with faxing though. I don't know who I'm faxing my credit card info too.</p>

<p>Thanks Edward...... I have called the service dept a half dozen times (201) 818-9500, but it goes to voice mail and I never receive a return call. I know what the part number is and it would be simple to order over the phone but I need a live person on the other end. I might just have to take the chance on the order form.</p>

<p>Has anyone ever tried to order a spare part for a broken Gitzo tripod? I broke the main plate (the part the leg attaches to) on my GT2531 and went to the Gitzo support website. They now have Manfrotto distribute spare parts for them and provide a link to Manfrottos website. To make a long story short you can either call a number which always leads to voice mail or email the support dept and ask for assistance in ordering the part. They responded to my email after about a week and attached an excel spreadsheet that is an order form. It looks somewhat official but requires you to put your credit card information onto the form and email it back to them. No secure website or encryption. Everything seems legitimate but I think they should provide some security for making the order. I guess my question is does anyone know of another site where I can order the part? I'm kind of leery of sending my CC info to anybody that offers no security what so ever. Thanks for the help......</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>In CS3 I always convert to sRGB prior to converting to a jpeg. Edit>Convert to Profile>and choose sRGB in the drop down window. Or you can convert to sRGB in the save for web dialog. Either way you should be sure to convert to that color space before posting to the web if you want it to look like what you uploaded. As far as the size I always re-size to 640 pixels on the long side and PN never needs to re-size them at all.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks Andy.....that's kind of what I wanted to hear. "Lower contrast ratio and brightness are better for photo work." Since this is going to be a warranty replacement I pretty much have to stay with Viewsonic. The one I am looking at has the same contrast ratio and brightness as the P221W you suggested.</p>

<p>I am thinking of replacing my crapped out Viewsonic 930b-3 (still under warranty but discontinued) with a Viewsonic VP2365wb. It is a fairly new monitor but the reviews I have read say the color is accurate and contrast ratio is good but the brightness is somewhat low. Is that something I should care about in photo editing?? My old monitor blew me away with the brightness and I had to tone it down when calibrating anyway. This will be strictly used for photo editing. No games or speakers or watching movies. Maybe not so bright is a good thing for photo editing???? Any input on Viewsonic monitors overall?? This one isn't top of the line but is advertised as a professional grade. Thanks</p>

<p>Chas.....your right.......I do have that backwards. Spyder measures the ambient light at very low and then suggests using 5000K. I thought I should use 5000K any way because as stated above it was the color temp used when the profile was developed and I thought it would be important to use it in order to have a closer match between Costcos printer and my screen colors. Andrew....as for the gamma I am going to use the 2.2 but should I find out what the native gamma is and use it if it is much different? The Spyder had me adjust the brightness to 69% which seems dim but I was in a dark room too. I'll need to do some printing now and use some trial and error.....thanks for the help.</p>

<p>I am using a ViewSonic VP930b. I plan to start having my printing done at Costco. I don't know if that's a good idea or not. What I've done is downloaded the color profile specific to the machine that is in use at our local Costco from Dry Creek Photos web site. They say their color profiles are developed for print viewing at D50 (~5000k). They don't indicate on the website which gamma to use or brightness level and I don't know enough about it to avoid confusing myself. My Spyder software says to use low to very low ambient light with that white balance. I guess I'll stick with the 2.2 and try to match the ambient light to the 5000k.<br>

If I am editing for the web I take it I should have an alternate calibration profile to switch to for that purpose???<br>

Thanks for the info.........</p>

<p>When calibrating my monitor with my Spyder3 it always gives me an option of which gamma and white point to calibrate to. I understand that the industry standard for editing a photo for print is 5000k. But what is the suggested gamma for this same procedure? I left mine at 2.2. I usually work in a darkened room. Also should I create another calibration profile for editing a photo to be displayed on the web and what gamma and white point would be considered optimal for that? Thanks for the help......<br>

Fred</p>

<p>Lex and Matt.......Your right about reading text with a dark background or anything other than white...it's hard on the eyeballs. I'm sure it would involve a lot of work to change the website but even just a gray background around the image might help..... leave the comment areas white. I suppose then you would have people accusing you of putting borders around their work. I'll try the local HTML file and see how it looks against the lighter backgrounds before I upload. Thanks for the quick responses. Fred</p>

<p>It just struck me as to why most of the photos I upload seem to be darker and more contrasty than when displayed on my monitor prior to uploading. I don't think P.net makes any adjustments to anyones images except obviously sizing which I suppose could alter the tonal qualities slightly, but I size all of mine to 640 pixels on the long side and so no resizing takes place while being displayed on this site... so that can't possibly be what is affecting mine. Any way I think the problem is the BRIGHT WHITE background P.net uses... which about blinds me if my room is dark. I edit my photos against a darker gray background and think I have the contrast where I want it and then upload. When displayed against the white background on this site minutes after uploading, I lose detail in my shadows and the contrast is too harsh. Same monitor, same image, different contrast. Is this just a visual thing because of the brighter background or is something happening at this site to alter my photo. I always thought it was recommended to edit against a gray backgroud so why wouldn't you also want to display with a similar background. I do convert to sRGB when I convert to jpeg in case your wondering. I don't like using borders and frames around my images any more because of the added file size. Does anyone else have this problem and would photo.net consider using a darker background for display purposes? Thanks</p>

Thanks for the help.....I'll try all three.

Does anyone know of any photoshop techniques or actions for simulating fog?

<div></div>

It is a Nikon D300. My first DSLR and a big step up from my Coolpix 8800. I have only used it a few times and am still fumbling with it quite a bit.----

"when shooting raw you actually get more information in your raw file than you do in your histogram which is based on a very compressed 8 bit per channel JPEG the camera produces from your raw file."----

I may have misunderstood what Ellis wrote above. If the camera view screen is showing me the RAW file then my question is answered. It would make sense to leave all in camera image adjustments at a neutral setting because the camera is showing me exactly what I recorded. On the other hand if I am seeing a compressed jpeg it would be of less value if the photographer is relying on it to decide if he captured what he intended. Also why wouldn't the photographer want to see a preview of his image with a small saturation boost in camera and a slight bit of sharpening or some other minor enhancements to give him an idea what his final product might look like instead of just a linear image with no adjustments? To answer my own question...I guess I never make any decisions on which file is best until I see them in ACR and do some tonal adjustments.

I guess maybe that's what I am not understanding. I know a Raw image is a linear image with any other settings,(white balance, exposure comp), in a separate file and therefore still adjustable in ACR to some degree before the image is converted into a tiff or jpeg and embedded into one file. (Excuse me if I am using the wrong terms.) But, don't you still need to rely on your cameras LCD screen as a preview of sort in order to determine if you captured the image the way you intended. In that case wouldn't you want some in camera adjustments applied to the preview? My questions isn't weather or not to shoot Raw, but if you can't view it Raw in the field, and your preview is a very limited jpeg, how do you know what you've got. I've been shooting Raw and keeping my in camera settings as neutral as possible like you Joseph, and when I put them on my PC they are kind of blah until some tonal adjustments are made but I guess you don't really know until then. I was just curious as to how a professional uses their camera. Thanks for all of your responses.

With all the in camera image adjustments you can make with a DSLR I was

wondering if a professional nature photographer uses any of them or does he set

them to neutral? I ask because so many professionals talk about getting the

image as close to perfect as possible in camera so there is a minimal amount of

post processing to be done on the computer. I am talking about shooting raw

files so exposure and white balance can still be fine tuned but does that also

go for saturation and contrast or clarity. I may be answering my own question

here but I would think in order to have the best color and clarity you would

have to tinker with saturation and maybe some minor sharpening, and other

picture controls in camera that might make the image more or less vivid.

Or...shoot neutral and do the rest on the PC. Does Marc Adamus make those

wonderful pictures by using neutral camera settings and his knowledge of the

weather and light in combination with filters and an extreme amount of talent,

or does he use some of those camera settings to get as close to what he

envisioned the final picture should be?

Congratulations.....This is a superb shot and deserves the praise.