andrea_javarauckas

<p>yes, it is a photo that i have in print. i will try the suggested remedy. thx.</p>

<p>yes, it is a photo that i have in print. i will try the suggested remedy. thx.</p>

<p>I know it's not the best calibration system available, but it's what I've got for now. I work under the same lighting conditions consistently. I've used the Huey for about the last year, with good results. When I turned my PC on today, a pic that I know was just about perfectly color-corrected looked AWFUL. Very orange and just not pleasing. So I figured I needed to run the calibration process (hadn't done it in about two months). I ran it and still the pic looked terrible. So I selected the "uncorrected" option through the Huey interface and everything looks great. Why does the uncorrected setting render better colors than the "corrected" setting? Is it my monitor? Do I need a new one, perhaps? Do they go screwy? It's not a fancy monitor, by any means. But it's also not very old...it's a ViewSonic flat-screen LCD.<br>

Any ideas, suggestions, etc. would be much appreciated. I always feel like I'm "unprotected" if I don't have a calibrated monitor, but it's so frustrating when you can't rely on the calibrated results. Thanks.</p>

<p>Andrea</p>

<p>The problem is with CS4. I am having the EXACT same problem, and so are many others. Apparently, Adobe doesn't have a solution, though they are aware of the issue. I am going to try and call them today.</p>

<p>I posted earlier but am still in need of assistance. I installed SpyderExpress2 on my new PC. The profile created has caused a hideous red/pink cast that I don't know how to correct, since there is no room for customization with Spyder2. If I uninstall it, will that force my monitor back to the default profile? I did remove Adobe Gamma from my start up folder, so that's not the issue with Spyder...wish I knew what the issue was, because it worked fine with my old PC (same monitor). Any suggestions for which of the installed profiles I should use, until I can raise enough $$ for different calibrating software? Thanks.</p>

<p>Yes, I did remove the Adobe Gamma from startup prior to the install...sadly, that's not my problem.<br>

So should I just uninstall Spyder, to get back to normal? I'll also email ColorVision and see what they have to say.</p>

<p>I just switched to a new PC and needed to install and run my Spyder2Express calibrator. My monitor is not new. Now that I've installed the Spyder profile, the color of my monitor is awful...totally a pink/red hue. I know that the Spyder installation causes the Spyder profile to become the default. Here are my questions:<br>

How do I switch it to NOT be the default?<br>

Is there anything I can do to get the calibration (with Spyder) to be better (there are no "custom" settings as it calibrates, since this is the "economy" version of Spyder)?<br>

I loved the calibration when I used it on my old PC...worked like a charm and colors were true. Why is it so awful now? The insall is pretty straight-forward, so I'm not sure what could have changed. I am now running Vista and had to download a new installer from ColorVision...could this be the problem?<br>

I see lots of other profiles in the Drivers folder. Are any of them worth using, in the event that Spyder can't be corrected? <br>

Thanks.<br>

Andrea</p>

<p>Got it. I installed the DNG converter...works like a charm. The "got it" at the beginning of this post originally ended in an exclamation point, to demonstrate my enthusiasm at having found the answer...but I wasn't allowed to post it that way....apparently, exclamation points are not permitted. Oh well. Thanks.</p>

<p>Ok, here is the quick scenario:<br>

New PC<br>

Newly installed CS2<br>

RAW images from my 20D open fine in Bridge and in CS2<br>

RAW images from my Nikon D40 show a file type of "NEF" in Bridge and will not open<br>

Says "not the right kind of document"</p>

<p>I'm guessing I need to install some sort of RAW update...I did that (verion 3.4), but still no luck. Any idea what's going on and what I need to do? Thanks.</p>

WW - I really appreciate your input and your follow-through. You offer some interesting points that I plan to

investigate further. I've never considered messing with the meter setting....guess I should start experimenting with it.

As it turns out, I took some shots of my daughter yesterday (outdoors) and the shots were a bit closer to what I'd

expect from my set up. I had already boosted the in-camera sharpness, contrast and saturation by about 1, prior to

you mentioning it. I'll keep at it, I guess. I need to find a good, local workshop/class. Hopefully, I'll be able to do

that. Thanks to all who contributed...if anyone else has any suggestions/tips, please do share. Thanks.

 

Oh, WW - Yeah, I love her name, too. She's Number 10 of 12, so you start to run short on creative names after a

while.

Oh, I should also point out...I was leaning on the kitchen table, in quite a stable fashion, when I took the above photo (that's Sage the cat, by the way...she's SOOO sick of me and my camera)

So, that picture is unedited...right from the camera. Shot at f/1.4, 1/50 shutter, hand-held, window light.

Now, I know that a likely culprit is the 1.4...but that will disappoint me, as I'd hoped the fast lens would

allow me more wiggle-room with the indoor shots that I predominantly take...without a tripod. A local

photographer that I had tentatively hired to do candids of my daughter and I was kind enough to share some of her

equipment/technique details with me. She uses a Nikon (don't remember the exact version) with a 50mm/1.4, in all

natural light, no tripod...and her photos are sharp, sharp, sharp. Is it possible that she takes 100's of shots

and just crosses her fingers that a few come out usable? I guess that's why I'm really frustrated...I know she

has TONS more background and experience than I do...but how do sharp photos come from experience, all things

being equal?

Soft picture from 20D and 50mm/1.4.jpg

 

Not sure if I'm doing this right...never uploaded to the forum before...<div></div>

I will try to post some examples (at work right now).

WW - I will try to answer your questions below (from memory)

 

1. what aperture.

 

Never smaller than 5.6, so far

 

2. what shutter speed

 

Shooting in Av mode, so whatever the camera decides

 

3. hand held or tripod

 

Hand-held

 

4. what AF point(s) used

 

Center, mostly

 

5. what AF mode used

 

AI mode

 

6. what JPEG image quality set

 

"Fine", I believe

 

7. what processing parameter set

 

?

 

8. filter on the lens /or not

 

No filter

 

9. lens hood on / or not

 

Yes, lens hood

 

10. light source and its axial relationship to lens

 

Mostly indoor, window in day, tungsten at night...also some flash from a 430EX, bounced to ceiling

 

11. metering system used

 

Evaluative

 

12. any metering overrides?

 

no

 

13. shooting mode used

 

sometimes one shot, sometimes continuous

 

14. subject distance

 

close

 

15. contrast intensity & colours at AF point(s)

 

quite contrasty subject vs background (white/black cat against light green background)

Though I am definitely an amateur (I've read a ton on technique/theory etc...but I've not put it to use nearly enough), I'm under the impression that you can only "tweak" soft images to a certain degree in post-processing before they start to look obviously over-processed. As I mentioned above, I have lots more experience in post-processing (I use CS2)...and I know that C+ photos can be turned into A- photos in minutes. But I guess I'm just confused and frustrated by the fact that a better camera and a FAR better lens are producing "eh" images, right out of the camera.

I have the manual and I'm very familiar with all of the custom settings. I have no "odd" functions, or combination of functions accidentally enabled, so that's not it.

Ujwal - I'm intrigued by what you say about the difference between the D40 and the 20D...you really notice that much of a difference? Maybe I should re-write my letter to Santa this Christmas and ask for Nikon lenses instead of Canon. I'll keep working with the 20D and my 50mm/1.4...perhaps I'll have a "duh" moment and realize what I'm doing wrong. Thanks to all who have contributed ideas.

The 20D was given to me, free of charge. I wasn't looking to change, but figured "why not?" I'm far more skilled in PS than I am with actual photography. I was hoping that by up-grading camera and lens that I would be spending less time in PS, though.

Rob - when you say learning curve, what do you mean, specifically? I've heard that the primes take some getting used to, but I'm not sure what that means. Do I need to be steadier (not sure how I could be, without a tripod)? I just don't get what I'm supposed to be looking for to improve. If the exposure is correct, and I'm fairly steady, what else is there? Sorry, I don't mean to over-simplify...just trying to express what I'm experiencing, as a total amateur (ugh).

I just became the proud owner of a used 20D. I know the original owner and I know he took some great shots with it,

and I know he handled the camera with the great care and kindness. My camera before this was a Nikon D40, and I

mostly used a 55-200 zoom on it (with VR). I just bought a 50mm 1.4 for the Canon. Here's the problem: I've been

testing the 20D under all sorts of conditions...and the quality just doesn't seem to be the same as the D40 with

the "eh" zoom. How can this be? The pictures are soft and the exposures are all over the place. Does the VR

make that much of a difference? My hands aren't really that shaky, so I don't think that can be a big factor. I'm just

a hobbyist, for sure...so maybe I'm missing some obvious thing here...but right now, I feel like I want to put the 20D

away and go back to the D40. Is that crazy?

Thanks, Robert. The thing is, the one other thing that my local photog told me was that she was pretty much opposed to much post-processing. I found that a bit difficult to believe, but I had no reason to doubt her. Do you really think that's where most of the impact is coming from?

www.angelacrutcherphotography.com

 

The work of the photographer at the above link is, to me, the epitome of artful, beautiful, candid photography. I had

the opportunity to speak to a local photographer who has the exact same style as Ms. Crutcher. She was willing to

share that she mostly used an 85MM, f1.4 lens on her Nikon camera, all natural light and that the camera was hand-

held....indoors and outdoors. That was all she was willing to share.

 

I was curious to know whether any of you might be able to evaluate this style and share what other techniques are

giving these photos that special "look" (that I can't put into words, other than to say the contrast, depth, bokeh, and

focus are simply AMAZING). I would love to hone my skill enough to be able to mimic this style...just looking for any

advice that others would be willing to share....thanks.

I do make sure to select NO color adjusting on the Kodak web site, so I don't think that's the problem.

 

I just sent a test shot to EZ Print...we'll see how that compares.

 

This whole color mgmt thing is so frustrating...I've researched and researched about proper settings in PS and the importance of calibration, color spaces, profiles,etc...and then when I got desperate yesterday, I switched PS back to "Let printer determine colors" (plus a small magenta tweak) and it's the best result I've gotten yet. Figures. I guess sometimes less is more.

Oops, my fault. I was working in sRGB...I forgot I had changed it...so I guess that is not my problem, after all. And boy, the picture I'm playing with sure looked awful in Adobe RGB; I didn't realize there was such a distinct difference.

Thanks to both of you for the ideas. I am working in Adobe RGB (another debate I keep getting caught in the middle of...sRGB vs Adobe RGB). Is that likely to make a difference in the output?

 

I will check for Kodak's profile.

 

Good to know about the Canon...that kinda makes me feel better. I just wish Canon made 5X7 matte photo paper. Oh well.

I'm having a tough time getting true colors in my prints (I know, the age-old

struggle). Anyway, my monitor is calibrated, and the pictures look absolutely

true-to-life on screen. Recently, I finally caved and realized that sending the

pictures out to be printed (via Kodak Gallery) was much more cost effective than

doing them at home (not to mention the printing machines used are tens of

thousands of dollars and undoubtedly far more sophisticated than my dinky little

Canon). However, I'm continually disappointed at the results. They lack

"punch" and seem to have a slight green cast. Are there any steps I can take to

ensure that I get what I'm seeing on my screen? And just to add...when I DO

print them at home, the color comes out very true to what I'm seeing in PS

(after making a slight magenta adjustment, but at least it's consistent and can

be applied to all pictures I print). Thanks.

I like to print directly from PS. But when I do, it's never the exact size of

the media I'm using. I have the "scale to fit media" box checked and I always

select "Front Image" before I do any cropping. I'm using a Canon printer and

Canon 4X6 paper. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks.

I am very new to the world of DSLRs. I've been doing lots of reading and

practicing, so hopefully I'll be taking some great pictures before long.

Anyway, for now, I've been using the Programmed Mode (and sometimes Auto).

Sometimes, when I press the shutter release half way down (as if to take a

picture), the lens goes back and forth, as if trying to focus, never comes into

focus, and then the shutter won't fully release. I was taking some pictures

indoors last night and when it started happening, I just figured the camera

couldn't find suitable exposure for the shot and therefore, wouldn't let me take

the picture. But I tried again today, in full sunlight, and it still does

it...with no apparent rhyme or reason. Anybody know what's going on? Thanks.

 

Andrea