richard_bach

<p>heres the curves i used:</p>

<p>It can all be done using some tasteful curves moves. Its a pretty extreme s-curve as to not really blow everything out rather just raise a lot of the highlights. The gradual shoulder is what gives it the film like look. </p>

<p>That "honey" sort of look is achieved by a mild s curve on the blue channel. I use this for everything, at adds a beautiful subtle glow to everything and nicely flattens things out a bit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That being the case, my suggestion would be just render once in ProPhoto. That’s your master image. Do all your image processing in Photoshop. Duplicate that, size and convert to sRGB and post. It will save you a ton of time just doing this all once. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is similar in concept to what i was suggesting but using the RAW file as your master. This way you avoid conversions and work the RAW data the whole time. Its much quicker than it may seem and a lot of the same adjustments can be done quite effectively.</p>

<p>Like I said, this is splitting hairs.</p>

<p>I believe that test is not quite accurate because there would have to be some conversion from one space to the other, there cannot be two different color spaces in one document. Sometimes color spaces ae more like a tag to pass along to other devices ( the Assign Profile command ) then something that actually converts your RGB numbers ( the Convert To Profile command ). And everything is then funneled down to the limited color space of our monitors. Anything in levels is mapped to our monitors, which are often much different then Adobe RGB and a lot of output devices.</p>

<p>I find that using something like ProPhoto is almost TOO wide of a gamut. There is so much information it becomes a little unpredictable on some output devices ( in my personal experience Adobe RGB has always been wide enough, but thats only because of my printing situation, others will vary ). And throwing out that information when converting down is kind of like downsampling in size, it could introduce some artifacts ( like the one this thread started from ).</p>

<p>Really the best thing to do is just test test test. This is all pretty theoretical. I dont think anyone's technique/viewing situation really stands up to these extreme differences. Makes for a fun discussion though :)</p>

<p>Oh and remember 8 bit for web because it wont support anything else, and 16 bit for print because of the added color detail that will certainly help with those wider color spaces. Converting from 16 bit down to 8 bit for web isnt that much of a problem, and starting in 16 bit will give you a nicer latitude for extreme adjustments.</p>

<p>And the good old Save For Web dialog in Photoshop will automatically do most of the proper conversions for you. This is great for an already cooked file, but remember doing all of this from RAW will give you the best results.</p>

<p>So here's my my experience from someone who is a web/print designer who does a lot of their own photography and printing...</p>

<p>Always keep our output in mind when cooking your RAW file. Remember that you can have mutiple files made from one RAW, and in my world we often do.</p>

<p>For example, if you know you image is going to web, you can choose the color space ( sRGB is the standard for web, most browsers wont support anything else and will do a sloppy conversion if you give it a different space ) and the size you need. Choosing the size in ACR or wherever is better because there is up/downsampling ( remember these are both equally as destructive! ) because it is all raw data at this point ).</p>

<p>Then if you are going to print the same file, you can cook your RAW at the size you need for printing. Again, keep in mind your output. knowing your printer's color gamut at least very basically is a good idea - Something like ProPhoto will add complication and may not give you any real advantage if it is out of your printer's gamut. I usually use Adobe RGB and have never needed anything wider, but again this aries per printer.</p>

<p>As for color space conversions, its best to avoid them. Do it all in RAW and save out multiple files for different uses. You may need to tweak a little bit to keep the saturation consistent, but this method will give you pretty consistent color. Adobe RGB will give you a noticeably wider color space, but not everyone will be able to see it on the web. Its just fact of life that we must deal with.</p>

<p>Long story short: do it all in RAW to avoid any conversion artifacts. Keep your output in mind and plan accordingly.</p>

<p>Keep in mind this is all splitting hairs. Proper exposure, proper sharpening and really knowing how your output will handle your image is far more important than all of these things. But since you asked haha...</p>

<p>Most of those mages don't have anything special done in photoshop, its al in the lighting. The lighting in your image is lat and dull, where as the lighting in the images on that site is poppy and warm. Your white balance IS off, but that deosnt account for the flat feeling of the light. its the quality of the light itself. Perhaps you could even shift the white balance a bit on the warm side, as is often pleasing for portraits. But, like anything don't overdo it.</p>

<p>I would be willing to wager most of those shots were made late in the day on a sunny day, which is why you get that nice "poppy" look you're going for (because of the directional shadows vs/ the flat light in your picture that illuminates everything somewhat equally). Als the warmth of the light greatly enhances the pictures on the website. This is not something one can easily do in Photoshop. There is a difference between warming the picture afterwards and warm light.</p>

<p>Aa far as Photoshopping goes just a little curves can go a long way. If you brighten your highlights and darken your shadows a bit then youll be a little closer to that look. To my monitor, the other images look a little flat, as if they brightened everything equally rather than only brighten the highlights which is what you want. Keep the shadows dark, as this will add contrast to your image. Things like sharpening the eyes, smoothing the skin, etc are only the icing on the cake, and will not make a mediocre image into a great one. As always avoid surface blur and most other skin blurring techniques that remove the skin texture. Unless, of course, you want your eople to look plastic.</p>

<p>Have fun and hope this was helpful!</p>

<div></div>

<p>from a (not too snooty) designer's perspective...<br>

make your name stand out! it is the part you want people to remember the most, so maybe make the whole david bell part a little bigger (maybe the same width as photography). maybe nudge all your type over to the right just a tiny bit, it looks like about its to fall off the left side!<br>

besides that it looks great!<br>

as far as the picture goes id try to use something that complements the colors you already have...<br>

hope this helps!</p>

<p>So I am stepping up form my 20d after many years of use to the 50d. I am also considering a telephoto zoom to round out my setup. The 70-300 DO seems tempting, though pricey.<br>

My question is how is it really?<br>

so many posts seem to be a rant one way or another. I understand its not as sharp as the 70-200,s but quite frankly i wont use those because of their size. The DO seems to be a sweet spot of size and weight for me, and i don't want to spend $1000+ on a lens and find I wont use it because it is too big, though I don't want to lose ALL optical quality for that compromise.<br>

Since it is a tougher lens to find I cant really try it out to rigorously. <br>

Any thoughts or comments will be appreciated.<br>

-Richard.</p>

<p>Aa Lad partially suggested, you could be blown out your red channel, giving at a nasty look. Especially in the lighting shown in that shot that is predominantly red, skewing everything towards red. Open up your channels pallet and look at your red channel and see if it is overly white or blown out. My guess is if youre getting a reading of red 255, you have.</p>

so i finally went ahead and ordered the 30mm f1.4 sigma after long debate. i was apprehensive knowing

the experience other users have had with backfocusing, front focusing etc.,also this is my first non canon

lens.

 

first, let me say this lens is FANTASTIC optically. the bokeh is gorgeous, the colors and contrast are some

of the best ive seen, even wide open. really, its spectacular.

 

so here comes the "problems" part. right out of the box, the autofocus makes a terrible squeal when it

racks in and out. not when it travels short distances to fine tune focus, but if i, for example, put my hand

in front of the lens and move it.

 

also, while the AF seem particularly accurate in most case (even at f1.4), the leftmost AF point never

seems to quite lock, always hunting.

 

i dont know if this helps or not but im using a 20d. anyway, i was wondering what my options are, having

never deal with this situation before. send it back t the seller? send it to sigma for warranty work? im

reluctant to part with it, but that may just be necessary.

 

any help at all would be greatly appreciated,

Richard

hello everyone,

 

I am currently looking for a fast normal prime for my 20d. I am seriously condsidering the Sigma, but

haven't had the chance to try it out.

 

Even at f/1.4, is 30mm too wide to allow shallow depth of field? my main purpose besides low light would

be shallow depth of field applications. how well would the sigma work for this?

 

any other general comments on the lens are appreciated, as every resource on the lens has had a different

opinion on it.

 

Thanks in advance.

Richard

also, i might add, the images i have seen from the zeiss 50mm f/1.5 seems spectacular. any

thoughts?

Hello everyone. I am planning on entering into rangefinder photography and need some advice on a

camera. I am looking in the not so expensive range ($1000 - $1500). I am primarily a wide-angle shooter

but would someday like to own a noctilux (from what I understand focusing at such small DOF is more like

focusing a telephoto...). The zeiss ikon seems like a good choice for the price because it offers many

features no leica at the same price has (autoexposure, etc.). Realistically what would I gain by going with a

leica for the same price that lacks most of these features? Second of all, because I am looking to keep cost

somewhat down, any opinions on the zeiss 35 f/2 biogon vs. the 35 summicron? Thanks in advance for

any information,

Rich

Hi all,

I have been dgital for years now but have now decided to make the jump into rangefinder photography.

Being that i dont belong to the financially gifted, a digital ranefider is out of the question. any

recommendations on what film/scanner combination will give me something close to what i am used to

editing from my dslr? my preference is extremely saturated color or contrasty black and white nad i will be

using leica and zeiss lenses. a huge plus would be if i could shoot in color and convert to black and white

as i could digitally, though im not sure how possible this may be.

 

any insight into this would be welcome. thanks in advance,

Rich