wadleigh

<p>I also recently used the tool in Spyder3Elite software that allows you to make 2 monitors target the same settings. It recommended around 79 cd/mm2 for brightness on both monitors. I made the adjustments but I'm still seeing some slight differences. For example, a photo in Lightroom that has really bright blue skies on my laptop monitor has kind of blue with light amount of purple in the Cinema monitor. There are other examples as well. <br>

You said to manually configure the laptop monitor using Sys Pref on Mac, but that's just not an easy method for me.</p>

<p>Ok everyone, here's an update on my calibration adventure.</p>

<p>I had Spyder3Elite with software 3.x. I decided to upgrade to the 4.0.5 version for $19. Well, I'm happy I did that! The 4.0.5 version is a much better product. Better interface, clear instructions, easily recognizes both of my monitors nicely, and really is just overall worth the upgrade! So here's what I did after I upgraded the software:<br>

Initially, I had both monitors setup with brightness as full power. I also had all my lights turned off in my room and window covered so light wouldn't come in.<br>

1. Calibrated the Macbook Pro display using native white point, 2.2 gamma. I used the calibrator with the counter-weight. It calibrated nicely and completed, saved and set the profile to the newly created profile. <br>

2. Calibrated the Cinema 27" Display using 2.2 gamma and it recommended 6500K as white point. However, I selected 'native white point'. It then began using the sensor with the counter-weight. Suddenly it stopped and asked me to reduce the brightness to within 4% of 90 cd/mm2. So I used the System Preferences->Display panel to do that. When I was within 4%, I clicked the Continue button. It completed the calibration and resulted in using 5000K for white point. The Luminance resulted in 0.21 Black Luminance and 90.0 White Luminance. </p>

<p>So now when I compare the 2 displays, it's better. Still not fully convinced I did all of this correctly. Why can't I have my Cinema Display at full brightness? </p>

<p>Any suggestions or advice? Perhaps a different method?</p>

 

<p>I have used Spyder on the Cinema Display to calibrate it. It looks good. Then I compare it to my laptop display and it just seems that, for any color, the color is brighter on my cinema display. It's not that colors are not calibrated correctly - whites seem white, etc. I just see a distinct difference in brightness of each individual color. I believe this is related to luminance, right? However, how can I increase this for the laptop display? (make the colors brighter) or reduce it for the Cinema Display? Not sure which monitor is wrong.</p>

<p>I'm using Spyder 3 Elite but with the 3.x version of the software, not the 4.0.5 version.</p>

<p>Scott,<br>

I will try to manipulate the white balance on the Apple Cinema Display. I found this article on the internet which also mentions that the white point should not be D65 but rather 5750° Kelvin.<br>

<a href="http://www.khulsey.com/monitor-calibration.html">http://www.khulsey.com/monitor-calibration.html</a></p>

<p>I have to say that using Apple's system preferences panel to calibrate the monitors is very difficult. Each of those steps where you need to make the apple image match the background is very difficult to do by human eye. That thing always was confusing to me. Using the Spyder calibration software with the hardware that sticks to the monitor is much easier since it can read all settings. </p>

<p>Here's another great article by Ken Rockwell on the 30" cinema display.<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/30-inch-cinema-display.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/30-inch-cinema-display.htm</a></p>

<p>I'd like to find a similar article done for the new 27" cinema display. </p>

<p>I just bought the Apple Cinema Display 27" model as a second monitor for my Macbook Pro 15" laptop that I've been using. The laptop was calibrated awhile back and seemed perfect for editing my photos, etc. I loved the large 27" monitor and decided to buy it so I can really see the detail in my photos and do more professional-level editing. </p>

<p>However, when I tried to calibrate both monitors (laptop and 27" display), I cannot get both of them to agree with each other. In other words, both were calibrated using the SpyderElite product. I verified that both monitors have their brightness level set to max. I've verified that both monitors have their color profile set to the profile I created with the SpyderElite product. Still though, when I display various pictures on both monitors there's an obvious difference. For example, red is definitely darker on my laptop and much brighter on the 27" monitor! Another photo of mine is black-and-white but in Lightroom I used the panel to add some light color to highlights/shadows and on my laptop it looks correct, but on the 27" monitor it looks more black-and-white (not much color). </p>

<p>These things are really annoying! I was extremely excited to get this new monitor. Now I'm really nervous because I am not sure which monitor is wrong.</p>

<p>On my Macbook Pro, I'm using the new Lion operating system. Not sure if that matters, but at least it means I'm using all the latest software (I checked software update and I'm totally updated). I also have SpyderElite's v3 software. They have v4.0 but decided there was no real reason to upgrade at all. I am really questioning whether it's a problem at all with the calibration product. I doubt it! I think the problem is elsewhere, but I'm not sure where and what to do.</p>

<p>Your help is much appreciated!<br>

Thank you!</p>

<p>John Tonai - I agree with you. I have however one last hope - I have my card still, even though the camera formatted it, I will try to use some recovery software to get the RAW files back. I am crossing my fingers on this one!</p>

<p>I guess I was extremely shocked that they will not accept a DNG file as I understand it is the next best thing to the RAW file. Is it not the case that a DNG file is *exactly* the same as the original file except for losing some proprietary image properties that are specific to the camera make and model... ? </p>

 

<p>I just recently took some great wildlife photos that I wanted to submit to the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition. However, reading throught the rules it says that if the photo makes it to the final rounds then they will require the original RAW camera file to determine the modifications that have been made, etc..<br /><br />The problem is that I usually import my photos into Lightroom and have them all converted to DNG format, without the RAW file being embedded in order to keep the file size small. DNG format has its benefits and I like using them for these reasons. (too many discussions on this so I won't go into it)<br /><br />So I emailed the company doing the competition and they continued to say that they do not accept DNG files - they require the original RAW file. <br /><br />My arguement is that DNG files are simply converted from the original camera file. So there are no modifications done. Why would they not accept the DNG format?<br /><br />This is overall upsetting for me since I can't submit my photos. <br /><br />Anyone have any idea what to do here? Of course, I am now embedding my RAW files into the DNG format but this is rediculous. <br /><br />Here is their website - anyone else have experience with this competition?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a similar question - I am putting up a photography website using Smugmug, and they do watermarking for you. You provide the watermark and they apply it to the images that the user sees. I am wondering what the best method is on this. </p>

<p>1 - watermark the entire image with something that covers the whole image but is a bit transparent. The problem with this approach that I find is that it totally can ruin the "pop" of the image when users first see it. It can possibly lose you a sale. I do not like this, but the reason people have done this is because many people can just grab your photo and crop out the watermark if it is just located on the bottom-right of the image.</p>

<p>2 - watermark the bottom-right/left of the image; this way you at least put something on the image to show your website name or something (good advertisement); the downside is that people can still grab your photo and use it on the internet for things; just because the resolution is low, just means they cannot print it, but they can still use it on their Blogs or whatever they want.</p>

<p>What are your thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Patrick, which manual? where? I only got a small little book with my Mac laptop. Is there something on the laptop that explains this?</p>

<p>I made my decision and went with the Canon 50D. I figured I just did not need the high-end model (Mark III) for my photography. Sure it would be a great buy, but not needed. And I was not comfortable going from the 1.6x crop factor camera to the full-frame. Big difference and I really wanted that 1.6x extension to my telephoto lenses without having to buy another long lens to also carry around. I have wide angle covered with my 1.6x camera and that is good enough for me. So I simply upgraded my camera to gain all the great features of the 50D. I really wanted the bigger display with high res, plus all of the other bits of the 50D are great.</p>

<p>I am loving the Auto ISO by the way!</p>

 

<p>Alexander White - I also just bought a Macbook Pro 15" with glossy display (no option anymore for matte display). I have the SpyderElite 3 software and installed it last night and did a calibration. It seems gamma 2.2 with white point 6500K seems to be ok for me, but I am not 100% confident. </p>

<p>Perhaps someone else can confirm these settings? </p>

<p>It seemed the mac was fairly well calibrated when it arrived in the box. Am I mistaken?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. Ok, so I just installed SpyderElite 3 on my Macbook Pro. However, which gamma do I use? 1.8 or 2.2 ? Seems to be a big difference in contrast between the two. </p>

<p>What is recommended?</p>

<p>Yeah, I definitely know that you should not do critical work on the laptop, however for most of my edits in Lightroom I am 90% happy with being able to do them portably. It allows me more time to work on my photos instead of down in my office in the corner where it is no fun to be! :) I have an external monitor as well - not a fantastic one but good enough and I can always double check with that before printing or publishing.</p>

<p>I just received my 15" MBP and transferred my Lightroom catalog and photos and stuff to it. I cannot be happier with this laptop! The speed blows me away and I am super excited to be able to work on my photos where ever I may be. The MAC OS is just super and the design is ingenious!</p>

<p>However, I was just informed by someone that there was a "matte" option for the screen instead of "glossy". I was worried I made the wrong choice for the main purpose of photo editing. I did my research online and it seems for the 15" MBP there is no option on screen - only glossy! On the 17" the option exists. For me, the 17" was sort of defeating the purpose of a laptop - being portable and light... so I went with the 15". </p>

<p>My questions are...</p>

<p>1) For photographers using Lightroom and Photoshop, what is the standard considering the NEW Macbook Pro laptops that are being produced by Apple?</p>

<p>It seems either is ok, and that the only problem is with reflections on the glossy? Seems it is only a battle between bright screen with possible reflection issues, or not a bright screen with anti-glare.. ? Correct?</p>

<p>2) Since I really am not wanting the 17" laptop,</p>

<p>seems my options are limited to the glossy. How best to calibrate it? It really looks pretty good out of the box to be honest. I have Spyder3 so I guess I should just do that, but the problem is that I use my laptop in different environments. What is the solution?</p>

<p>3) Any other tips?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Yeah, another good idea Mark - I will look into how much that costs. I have seen high prices for renting the 1DMarkIII. </p>

<p>I have been thinking it over with all 3 cameras: Canon 50D, Canon 5D Mark II, and Canon 1D Mark III.... all 3 have their advantages and disadvantages.</p>

<p>I went for a walk yesterday with my current Canon 20D and its really great, but the shutter speed with RAW images is very slow. I am not a fan of photographing in JPG at all. I like to have the flexibility of editing my images with the full range of information from the RAW file. So this is something that is really important to me - shooting speed with RAW format. </p>

<p>Another feature that is required is the 3" LCD, but all of these cameras have that. Just at different resolutions.</p>

<p>I am tempted to get the 50D because I love the 20D so much, it would be an easy upgrade for me as far as functionality, feel, and little training needed. However, it would be the same darn crop factor and that bugs me with regards to wide angles. I will be keeping my 20D because I love it, but this is why I am leaning more towards the 5DM2 or 1DM3. </p>

<p>One question I have... my Canon 20D has about 8 MPs on it. The 1D Mark III has about 10 MPs. Doesn't seem like much of a difference - what is the gain here? Can my photos be printed in larger sizes with the 1D Mark III? </p>

 

<p>Ha! Sounds like a good idea.. I will do that.</p>

<p>Jacob, I agree - I think it comes down to me going into the store and getting a good feel for all 3 cameras (50D, 5DMII, 1DMIII) and figuring out what feels good and works for me. The problem for me is that it always it difficult to spend so much time in a store examining these cameras and then not ending up buying anything because the better price is always online somewhere! Plus, the guy just stands there next to you as you try the camera - you cannot really make a fast decision on a camera as soon as you do a few things on it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh, I can definitely not switch to Nikon. I would have to replace my entire lens and accessories to do that.</p>

<p>Wow! What a response - thank you! </p>

<p>I was actually also considering the Canon 50D as well, because it has the new high res 3" LCD and built well and I would also not have to buy a new vertical grip. The crop factor on the 50D is really helpful with shooting animals.. trust me, you DO need that extra length for many animals except slugs, snails and perhaps your own pets! :)</p>

<p>As for the comment about purchasing the 1Ds Mark II second hand, this is a good idea normally... however, if I am going to get a new camera with the money I received from my company's stock options.. I might as well get a brand new camera. Also, buying another camera with a small LCD would just piss me off. ha! I really love the 3" LCD screens. I can live without the high res version.</p>

<p>The 5D Mark II sounds really tempting, however I want to buy a camera that will will replace my Canon 20D - I will still keep it but use it for other things perhaps when I need 2 camera bodies. So, to get the 5D to replace the 20D is a BIG change for me because it moves all of my lenses down to their non-crop-factor focal lengths. So, with the lenses I have (70-200 f2.8 L, 24-105 f4 L, 17-40 f4 L, 50mm f1.4.. it seems I will definitely be wanting more reach in my focal lenses. </p>

<p>One of my favorite things is to photography on my travels. I enjoy photographing lots of various stuff when in new cities. I find I mostly use my 17-40 L lens but occasionally I put the 70-200mm on my camera to be able to zoom in close to something or to capture portraits of people on the streets. </p>

<p>With my 1.6x crop factor in the Canon 20D, my 70-200mm lens becomes 112-320. Not bad! Now that covers most things in my world. But if I move to the 5D and take this with me on my travels, I will only have a 200mm reach. However, as others mentioned, I will really love the wide-angle benefits of the 5D.</p>

<p>Now the 50D is also interesting to me, but I am not sure if the camera is a tighter build than the 20D.. I like the 20D, but the shutter button just is not as great as more the pro level button... different feel entirely. </p>

<p>Tough decision!</p>

 

<p>I just got some extra cash from some stock options I sold and am looking to get a new camera.. I currently own the Canon 20D with vertical grip. I find the speed on the Canon 20D not so great when I shoot in RAW mode, however speed is not my top priority.. I would like the bigger LCD screen, and other features as well that are out lately..<br /><br />So far it is between the<strong> 5D Mark II</strong> and the <strong>1D Mark III</strong> cameras. Here is what I see as the good and the bad... can you recommend based on the fact that I normally do not do sport photography, however I would like a pro-level camera... ? I do landscapes, nature, animals, portraits, events, and indoor photography like for restaurants and hotels...<br /><strong>5D Mark II</strong><br />+ full frame <br />+ high resolution LCD <br />+ perhaps the HD video<br />- too high MPs means massive files I may not want to deal with, which may slow down Lightroom and Photoshop in post-processing<br /><br />- HD video.. perhaps just a little gimmick that i never use <br />- not pro level.. no small LCD on the back showing ISO, f-stop, etc.. helpful info! <br />- no vertical grip unless you buy it extra.. <br />- weather proofing not as good as pro level</p>

<p><strong>1D Mark III</strong><br>

+ speed!<br />+ pro level weather proofing <br />+ back screen showing ISO, f-stop and other exposure info without having to see it through Viewfinder, etc. <br />+ 1.3 crop factor - removes the natural problems lenses have along the edges.. <br />+ 10 MP - managable size files.. <br />+ more AF points, so faster on focusing and more accurate..<br>

<br />- 10 MP, why does this still seem a little low? or does it even matter? <br />- LCD resolution still is the same as older cameras! this sucks! of course you should not base your decisions on the LCD in the first place, but nice to have the high res screen! <br />- heavy (not a big deal really since I use my Canon 20D with grip and its heavy enough)</p>

<p>What else? Thanks!</p>

<p>Yeah but it just seems odd to me because in the Lee Filters book that is published with professional photographers using the hard-edge filters and showing how they angled the filter but within the holder... and I just cannot understand how they avoided blocking the light for the various little trees and what-not that rise above the horizon.</p>

 

<p>I have the Lee filter system with ND hard grad set and I recently used it for some photos in Morocco.  I

noticed a problem though with how it graduates from the sky to the landscape... in most cases the landscape is not

this flat line - there are buildings or mountains or hills, etc and these end up being part of the grad and are totally

affected and underexposed!  I have read through the Lee Filter professional book that shows many landscape

photographers using the filters and showing how the filter was angled, etc.. but even still it cuts through land and sky

and creates an unnatural image with underexposed areas that should not be. </p>

<

p>I even looked at the Lee Filter booklet that shows their filters - what a joke, I cannot imagine how these photos w

ere taken without affecting the other bits in the image with that grad-filter. </p>

<p

>Can someone please shed some light here for me and help me with this?  It must be easier than I am se

eing it.  Right?</p>

<p

>Ok thanks,</p>

<p

>John</p>

<p

> </p>��

<p>I have found a website that lists some options to turn off and change on any 3D graphics cards that are standard with the graphics cards today.  My ATI Radeon 3D card seems to be using that technology for displaying the graphics in Lightroom and drawing the thumbnails, etc.  It seems there are parameters to change to "Performance" option to make things go faster.  I changed a few of them and this really seems to affect Lightroom and make it operate smoother overall.<br>

If anyone wants the details of what I changed, let me know and I can post them.</p>