robert_fisher4

An Intel-based Mac is an option but you're going to pay more for it. Macs aren't inexpensive. Windoze-based machines are so commoditized that pricing is much more attractive.

 

Are you even the least bit technically inclined? If so, then you might consider building your own computer. That way you get exactly what you want/need.

 

If you don't want to build your own then there are the usual players - Dell, HP, etc. The thing with Dell is that if you want to upgrade one of the components they really stick you for that in terms of a cost increase. Dell's customer/tech support has gone downhill pretty badly in recent years too.

 

In terms of the actual box itself, a dual core processor is fine. Something in the 2.4 to 2.8GHz will work well. 4GB of RAM and turn on the 3GB switch in the boot.ini menu. Stick with XP Pro if you can. The 3GB switch isn't available with XP Home. Vista is a bigger resource hog and typically a Windoze OS doesn't begin really work right till the first service pack. A really high end video card isn't necessary unless you're a gamer as well. A standard card with 256MB of RAM will be fine. If you do more intensive graphics work or video editing, then a card with 512MB of RAM will be better. Make sure the card has a DVI connector. LCD panels are digital and work best with a digital connection. If you want to use a 2 monitor set up, the second connection on the card can be VGA since the second monitor isn't as important.

 

As far as a monitor goes, there aren't a lot of CRT displays being made anymore so you're looking at LCDs. You want an LCD with an S-IPS panel type, good viewing angle characteristics and good user adjustable controls (colour sliders, colour temp settings, brightness/contrast). A lot of LCDs don't have both brightness and contrast, typically having only brightness (which is actually the backlight control) and that's OK. You're going to turn down the brightness level when you calibrate so a brightness rating of 300 cd/m^2 is more than sufficient. Look for a contrast ratio of 600:1 at a minimum and a bit higher would be better. Going beyond about 800:1 isn't going to bring any real benefit. Make sure you look at the static contrast ratio as well. Some manufacturers will tout the dynamic contrast ratio which is meaningless. Look for a maximum pixel pitch of .28mm. In terms of size, I use a 20" widescreen and have a second 17" monitor too. I use the 20" as the main editing screen and the 17" for palettes, tools, etc.

Doing as much as you can with layers is beneficial because you leave the original file untouched as much as possible, retaining the quality of the original. It adds flexibility.

The functionality is there in the event that you, or someone else, profiles other films. You might check the Silverfast forums to see if there's anything there. I expect there aren't a lot of people doing this because I don't believe a lot of people rely on the NegaFix default option.

Kelly, respectfully, if scans from a V700 look the same as scans from a 2450, then something is wrong.

 

I own and have used both the 3200 and V750. The V750 is a significant improvement over the 3200. If nothing else, it adds Digital ICE. Detail is better with the V750. It can reach further into the shadows than the 3200. It's simply a better scanner. Better enough? That's up to you to decide. Check out the review at photo-i.co.uk.

Yes, you should profile and calibrate your display.

 

Yes, if you're using a third party printer they probably want files tagged with sRGB so if you send them something with AdobeRGB there can be a colour difference but how big a difference will depend on the individual picture and the colours it contains. In some cases there may be no difference if there are no colours in the image outside the sRGB space.

 

A good book on colour management is "Color Confidence" by Tim Grey. It's not a "simple" book but it does start with the basics.

Neil, that could be more due to the backlight being uneven than the TN panel. I agree with you that TN panels are not the best choice for photo editing and I wouldn't use one but what your describing, especially the corner darkness, sounds more like a backlight issue. That said, my hope would be that a better display would have a better backlight; and generally I think they do.

It doesn't account for metamerism. The colour values in the target that are read by the spectro are compared to what the values should be in a data file. A set of differences or corrections is recorded which essentially becomes the profile. The RGB values are converted to LAB values with the proper corrections when the file is sent to the printer.

 

The profiling hardware/software doesn't discern what printer is being used. All it does is read the RGB values of the target that gets printed. That's all it needs to do.

 

Does the yellow cast appear when you print or only when you soft proof? Have you looked at the soft proof with both Simulate Paper White turned off and turned on and is there a difference that might be accounted for by a slight warmness of the paper? Have you tried creating the profiles with the light source set to 5000K which is the more common approach to profiling?

The Spyder doesn't need any information about what colour space you're using in Photoshop.

 

You set your working colour space in PS under the Edit>Color Settings menu. Set your RGB to sRGB, leave the others untouched. Under Color Management Policies, make sure RGB is set to Convert to Working and leave the others as is. Make sure the three checkboxes below that are ticked. Click OK, close and restart PS and those colour settings will be active.

 

Reprofile your display. Use a white point of D65 (6500K) and a gamma of 2.2. Don't input a value for luminance, have that be measured by the Spyder. Turn all lights off in the room when you profile the monitor. Once you've reprofiled and calibrated (the Spyder software does that automatically when you boot up), recheck the print against your screen. If there's still a large difference, use the profile you get from the lab to soft proof. Keep in mind that you're never going to get a perfect match because your monitor is transmissive light and the print is reflected light. The print will always look at bit darker even when everything is properly profiled/calibrated.

You don't need to go to a quad core processor. PS is not a processor intensive app except for things like Gaussian Blur and the Liquify Filter. It is; however, a RAM intensive app. 1 gig isn't enough. 2 gig will be OK but if you can swing it, put in 4 gigs and turn on the 3 gig switch in the boot.ini menu.

 

With all that stuff you've got listed, you're going to need a good power supply. A 700 watt ATX power supply would be a good starting point. Better if you can get a modular supply. With a modular power supply you only connect the cables you need to get everything working. There are no extra cables tucked in, hanging loose, etc. It makes the inside of the box look cleaner and improves airflow for cooling.

 

Make sure you get the CD that goes with the OS. You really do want to do a fresh install.

 

There's no need to put PS/PSE or any other app. on a separate drive from the OS. One drive for programs is sufficient. A second drive for data and to be used as the PS scratch disk will work with external drives and/or CDs/DVDs for archiving. You should be able to find an enclosure to put one of the drives in for around $30 to make it an external drive. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest buying a smaller hard drive (80 gig or so) to be used as your program drive, making the 250 gig drive your data drive and buying two enclosures for the two 320 gig drives to be used as external.

 

The version of ACR in PSE5 can handle RAW files from your D50, there's really no need to use a different third party software.

You want the measurement device flat on the screen. If it's not flat then there's greater potential for stray light to impact the measurement and if the device is angled it may not take an accurate measurement from the light emitted by your monitor. You want the screen to be as close to perpendicular with your line of site as possible, so not tilted in the way you describe. This is easier to do if you are able to raise the screen so the difference in height between your eye level and the screen is less. If you're using a laptop, those screens are going to be more impacted by viewing angle differences than a good desktop LCD. If you are going to use a laptop, then investing in an accessory monitor is a good idea.

As recommended by Radu, you need to profile and calibrate your monitor. A device like the Spyder is the best way to do that. Once that's done, the profile you create will be using to calibrate your monitor automatically and you can stop using AdobeRGB as your monitor profile.

 

You also need to make sure you're using a good paper profile with your printer. If you're using Canon papers, a selection of profiles should have been included with the printer software and should have been loaded automatically when you installed the drivers. These should be available to you when you print.

 

If you're using non-Canon papers then the paper manufacturer may have a profile for your printer on its website. If not, you've either got to experiment or have a profile made for you.

 

With all that said, I find prints different from Lightroom than PS. I haven't figured out quite why there's a difference yet but it seems there is. I much prefer results I get printing from PS and the match to my monitor is better.

Here's a link to a similar drink holder. Not exactly the same as the ones I bought but very similar, http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302696609&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442619790&bmUID=1202866020102. Looks like they're back ordered on the site so the store may not have any either. If not, they may have something similar. I'm not familiar with the Lowepro lens cases, sorry.

 

OpTech also sells neoprene cases for lenses, so you might want to look into those. There are also neoprene cases available that will hold a camera with a lens attached. Check out the OpTech website, www.optechusa.com.

If you use your camera makers RAW conversion software (DPP in your case) then the colour space will be used to render the image along with whatever Picture Style you might have had set. If you use ACR or another third party software to read your RAW files then the colour space is irrelevant because those applications only pick up the white balance from the camera. If you shoot JPEGs then the colour space you set in camera will be what gets embedded in the JPEG.

I was looking for something similar a few months ago. You're not going to find something in a dedicated photo backpack. On top of that, photo backpacks aren't the best choice for hiking. They're just not made to be comfortable enough.

 

A few people suggested the Kelty to me as well. They don't sell in Canada. Try MEC (www.mec.ca). They've got a ton of different backpacks that are similar to the Kelty. I ended up getting this one, http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442329177&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302700149&bmUID=1202823631138 because of the two internal pockets and that I could put my laptop in one of the pockets. A couple others to look at would be the MEC Spirit and MEC Brio. I bought several 1L neporene drink bottle holders and that's what I put my bodies and lenses in. Works well.

DPP is OK but not nearly as good as ACR. Personally, I'd bag DPP altogether and just stick with a PS/Bridge workflow.

 

The only camera setting third party RAW converters pick up is the white balance so you're right changes you make in DPP, if you don't convert the files to TIFF or JPEG, won't be picked up in PS/Bridge.

I think what Ty is saying is that the paper type in the print setup isn't giving him glossier media options.

 

Have you checked the PK cartridge to make sure it's properly seated and are you sure the printer is recognising the cartridge? Have you tried uninstalling and reinstalling the drivers for the printer? Download the latest version from Epson's website rather than use the one that came on the disk with the printer.

This is going to sound like a dumb question but have you tried cycling the scanner on and off or uninstalling and reinstalling the scanner itself?

I'll add my vote for Evening's LR book. It's a good one.

Glad you got it sorted Howard. Happy printing.

If you can add it, add more RAM. Add another 2GB and turn on the 3GB switch in the boot.ini menu which will let PS use up to 3GB of what's installed. With your set up you're going to be limited, I think, in what type and speed of RAM you can add but an extra 2GB will help. I'm running a 2GHz dual core with 4GB of 800MHz PC6400 DDR2 dual channel RAM and my machine is still fairly slow with medium format scans (a 4800ppi 6x7 scan is something around 700MB.

 

Trying to pull 500MB files from an external hard drive is not going to be quick. Depending on where you have your scratch disk set up, PS could be trying to use the external drive which is going to be painfully slow and using an external drive is not recommended. Put a second drive in the box and allocate that as the scratch disk. The PS scratch disk should be different from the disk the program and the OS are on.

 

PS isn't a processor intensive app. except for certain utilities like Gaussian Blur or the Liquify Filter so a faster processor won't make a huge difference unless you use some of the processor intensive utilities a lot. That's really where the processor cache comes in handy.

OK, from those readings it sounds like you have your Eye One set up to compensate for ambient light? Do you? If so, turn that selection off. Profiling your monitor with ambient light compensation turned on can give really whacked out results. Recalibrate your monitor with it turned off. Calibrate your monitor with room lights turned off to prevent any stray light from affecting the colorimeter. Once that's done, try another print and see what happens. Calibrate to D65 (white point 6500K, 5500 is too warm) and gamma of 2.2. If you have the ability to choose luminance or brightness to be measured, do that rather than input a number or use a default.

You do a gamut warning by going to View>Proof Colors and then with the proof setup active you go to View>Gamut Warning. Anything that's out of the gamut of the paper/ink combination will be highlighted.

 

The unsychronized warning is irrelevant. What it means is that your colour preferences are not consistent between Bridge and CS3. The thing is that unless you're running the entire Creative Suite the colour settings in Bridge aren't available. Even if you are running the entire Creative Suite, the warning is irrelevant to what you're doing in PS.

 

The strong metamerism that was an issue with the first generation Ultrachrome inks has been dramatically reduced - nearly eliminted - with the second generation K3 inks. That's what Frans is referring to and it shouldn't be the cause of a major difference with your 3800. I've got prints from my 3800 displayed under different lighting conditions and metamerism isn't a problem.

Check for Adobe Gamma as William suggested. Also, try to get into the habit of doing a gamut check. This will tell you before you send the job to the printer whether you have any gamut issues that need to be taken care of. Depending on how big a gamut issue you have and what rendering intent you use, that can have a noticeable impact on the print.

 

And as Frans noted, what type of colour mismatches are you getting?

 

Keep in mind that you'll never get an exact match simply because you're comparing two different things; a monitor which is transmissive and a print which is reflective. There will always be some brightness differences as a result.

Choosing NA PrePress 2 is NOT essential. What this does is simply give you a standard set of Working Spaces. If your working space is different from what is set in one of those standards then the standards are irrelevant. For example, I use ProPhotoRGB as my RGB working space so the selection in Settings is Custom.

 

You say you're calibrating with Eye One "software". I presume you're using the Eye One colorimeter as well?

 

What paper are you using?

 

Are you soft proofing your prints? Are you doing a gamut check?

Ron, there's a difference between using flash in the rafters as you describe and using on camera flash. High powered strobes in the rafters is fairly common. And no, that likely won't be noticed. The only time I notice it is when I happen to catch a shot as some other guy's strobes are firing. Messes up your exposure pretty good.