david_glick1

<p>Did you ever get more information? I just received a used D300 and when I opened up an image to verify the shutter count, imagine my surprise when Opanda reported 2005538816 actuations! Seller claimed it was lightly used (is over 2 billion photos grounds for bad feedback?). I've also noticed that from one picture to the next it does not increment by 1 but some seemingly random amount...</p>

"What it does is show you the RGB numbers CORRECTLY and as everyone else would see them using an ICC aware application and a profiled display" - got it... maybe :). So the crux of the issue is that when I've got the correct monitor profile installed, LR displays the wider color space correctly on my monitor which can also display that wider color space correctly, right? So if everything were profiled, when I print (for example), the print would look exactly like it did on my profiled monitor in my profile-aware application...

 

So I'm still confused about outputting for the web, then. Why does the sRGB JPG output from LR look so different from the one output by Photoshop? How can I get the JPG output from LR to look like I think it should to the majority of viewers on the web?

 

BTW - thank you everyone for the help! This is demystifying a lot for me, and hopefully the conversation is helpful to others as well.

I understand I'm "lying" to my color managed programs about the capabilities of my monitor. That's fine with me given I can now edit and the output looks the same as my editing environment (isn't that really the point of color management anyway?).

 

What I don't get is, how would color management help the situation. If I profile my monitor and use a correct ICC profile, would LR then output perceptual sRGB JPG files that closely match what I see on my screen? I suspect the answer is no, in which case, all I would have succeded in doing is making it impossible to proof my output in my editing environment - isn't that a bad thing?

 

"People who don't calibrate their monitors have no right to complain about why images appear differently between applications." - tangential to this topic, the tone of this remark is disturbing to me. It suggests that everyone should know about color calibration and there is no excuse for not understanding it. It's a difficult and complex topic, and I'm guessing there are a lot of folks on here (myself included) who are just getting their toes wet and trying to understand how it all works...

Okay - I think I've gotten to the bottom of it. I noticed in my monitor settings (from Windows) that my display device was using a custom ICC profile that must have been installed with the drivers. I manually added sRGB as my display profile and restarted. Low and behold, LR and it's sRGB output now look nearly identical. This suggests that LR must be interpreting its internal ProPhoto representation for display using the device ICC profile (as it should) somewhat differently then Photoshop does. So the problem (if there even was one - it was probably more my misunderstanding of how color management works) was more with LR displaying an editing view that wasn't what was expected then the output not matching the editing view (if that makes sense).

To further test, I opened the JPG from LR in IE (enough acronyms?) and it looks the same as it did in Windows Image Viewer (or at least very similar).

My current monitor is not calibrated right now (though neither was the other one). The JPG viewer I've been using is the built-in Windows Image Viewer - it is not color managed, and uses the same API that most non-image-focused Windows applications (such as IE) would use.

 

I am going to try and calibrate my monitor soon - but I still don't understand why the conversion straight from LR->JPG would be so different from the LR->Photoshop->JPG conversion...and why the latter is so much better (in the sense of being closer to the LR version when viewed).

Hi all,

 

I'm hoping someone can help me with this because I've been searching and

reading for over an hour and can't seem to get a handle on it. I am having some

strange problems going from LR to sRGB JPGs for the web. In the past, I've

never noticed a problem, but I'm now using a different monitor and a different

camera (both around the same time) so one of those two things might be causing

a new complication that I don't understand. In any case, the problem is that

after tweaking a photo in LR to look just how I want it and exporting to an

sRGB JPG from within LR, the exported JPG looks very different (and worse) then

the LR equivalent. I've noticed this in several shots now. The JPG files seem

to take on a reddish tint and appear darker.

 

I know LR uses ProPhoto RGB as it's working space, and that this has a much

wider gamut then sRGB. My understanding, though, was that when exporting to

JPG, LR performs a perceptual color space conversion to try and maintain the

image as much as possible. When I send the file straight to Photoshop for

editing and perform the color space conversion there, the result is exactly

what I would expect. My only conclusion so far is that there is a problem with

the way LR converts from ProPhoto to sRGB color space (though I'm hoping I just

don't understand something). I really don't want to hear "well just always

convert in Photoshop" - that defeats the purpose of attempting to use a good

all around converter/editor like LR.

 

I've included a screen capture to show the difference. The image on the left is

the converted JPG from LR, and the right is the LR develop module. Thanks for

any help anyone can provide.

I don't know about it only being good for pros. I can't count the number of times I've composed a shot just the way I want it and had the composition thrown off due to cropping because I had to rotate later due to not noticing the horizon being off in the field.

Check dealnews.com on a regular basis. Specials on LCDs usually dip into the $160 - $200 range. OfficeMax has a 20 inch widescreen LCD display with good reviews for $155 after coupon right now (details are on the dealnews homepage).

 

(note that I am in no way affiliated with the dealnews site - I've just been using it for a while to keep track of bargains...there are several similar sites that work just as well)

Good answers, thanks. It sounds like the answer is to just be careful, which I try to do anyway. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a little overprotective of my toys.

I was wondering how people who use the Cokin system protect their lenses. I've

been purchasing some expensive glass (at least for me) recently and am

concerned about making sure it lasts. I've used and know most oother folks use

UV filters to protect the front element. I've been considering switching to the

Cokin system (probably Cokin holders/rings with Hitech filters), but am unsure

how that will affect my lens protection. I'm concerned because it seems that

when you're removing and mounting the Cokin holders and rings, the lens remains

unprotected. This seems dangerous because the very fitting and removal of those

components happens right in front of the lens. Does anyone sell the adaptor

rings with a built-in UV filter? I know you can get UV filters for the system,

but there again, the lens is unprotected when switching filters (especially

with the wide-angle holder which only holds one filter at a time). Thoughts?

"It's only a few Sigma lenses from the 7000 era that do not work on anything newer" - I didn't know this. It's funny, a week or two ago I picked up an older Sigma with a Maxxum 7000 film camera as part of a package deal (to get the old Minolta 50mm prime). I fit the lens to my 5D without problems, but for the life of me I couldn't get it to autofocus. Now I know why!

As long as the lenses are fairly new autofocus ones, they should all work. The older Minolta MD or MC lenses do not work. A good place to check is dyxum.com (generally a great resource for Minolta/Sony shooters) in their lens database. If it's listed, it should work.

 

As far as the camera goes, Sony has been announcing a lot of new bodies recently. From entry to advanced, they are A100, A200, A300, A350 (same as A300 with a higher pixel count), A700. Check out this page on Dyxum for a comparison: http://www.dyxum.com/gear/camera/index.asp

As a new father myself, that image stopped my heart for a second. Thank goodness he was caught (though I feel very sad for the children who apparently did die).

Cool - I stand corrected. Now I guess it's time for me to out and shoot my own Pulitzer Prize winning photo...

I recently went through this as I am becoming more serious and wanted to decide on a system before dropping a lot of money on lenses and the like. I started with the obvious two and added Sony because I like the established history of Minolta, and the in-body anti-shake. I ended up choosing the Alpha system primarily for the anti-shake and how it can apply to older Minolta lenses. To be honest, though, apart from the old glass, there really isn't a price advantage with the newer lenses. Sony has a history or charging a premium for the Sony name on electronics, and it appears they are going to do the same with their new DSLR division (at least with regard to lenses and other accessories).

 

Since this is your first forray back, you probably won't know for sure until you start using one. It will take a while before you start to understand what you like and don't like about whichever system you start with. Don't be afraid to pick one and then jump ship later if it doesn't suit you. That's also a good reason for holding off on a lot of expensive gear until you get the feel for it again. I would start with whichever one interests you the most right now - if it takes good pictures and you like the feel and ergonomics, then you can't go wrong (and nearly all DSLRs fit the "takes good pictures" category these days).

I would think that there has to be some establishment of the photographer first as well. As others have said, the "iconifying" of an image happens more as an artifact of the public consciousness and less because of some label applied by a photographer, paper, magazine, etc. You can't just take a great shot and call it iconic. The need for some measure of fame or professional stature is because an image will never become iconic if lots and lots of people don't see it, and lots and lots of people won't see it if it was taken by an amateur (I'm sure there have been some exceptions, but I'd guess very few).

"We will see in a few years." - Perhaps the most true statement of them all. They'll either become a major third player, or fall flat on their face. I don't see much middle ground for Sony. Once thing's for sure, you can't fault them for not coming out guns blazing...

(didn't realize the attachment would show up as a link - here it is embedded)

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2304/2192640943_c555aacdcb.jpg">

You might be surprised at what can be pulled off on a very low budget. The following is from a basement studio I just built to play around in and learn. It's a $100 backdrop kit (which came with the one roll of white seamless), a cheap (both cost and quality) eBay 2 lightstand/umbrella kit, and some cheap worklights from Home Depot. I also use my existing strobe. Total cost was around $170 or so. It's not the best setup, and it certainly takes more patience and tweaking than a better studio setup, but it does produce decent results.

"i would never buy a camera with the name "sony" on it." - this is a very short-sighted statement and is exactly the reason Sony has an uphill battle. My read is that most serious photographers (professional or advanced amateur) have had "Canon or Nikon" pounded into their heads for so long that even if Sony releases a technically superior and cost effective product, it still won't be immediately taken seriously. It will probably take several generations of cameras, and a slow trickle of new photographers or family jumpers outputting high quality results for Sony to gain any credibility with the serious photography market. This will take time ? Canon and Nikon didn?t build their brands in a few years. And even though Sony is starting with the Minolta heritage (which in my opinion is the only thing giving them much credibility with that typical serious photographer at all right now), they have to convince people that they?re still ?photographers? and not a bunch of home theater nuts.

 

On the other hand (and as someone who thought long and hard about choosing a family to start investing in and settled on the Alpha mount), I think their strategy is excellent. It appears as though they?re focusing on the consumer market first ? as well they should. Get some of those people in the door and some of them will grow to be more serious. Arguably, that?s how any camera brand builds their large loyal base ? no one picks up their first camera and just starts shooting professionally. This will take time. In my mind, the full frame sensor is way more important as a carrot than a real professional camera right now. When new photographers who think they might want to be professional or advanced in the future are thinking about which family to choose, the ideal that they may some day end up in the top-line of full frame > $4,000 or $5,000 bodies has to weigh on their decision. The new body will help convince these people that Sony is serious and will have something for them down the road when that time comes. While those folks are getting better, Sony can refine their flagship and hopefully bring over some of the established pros as well.

"You could be known as "the photographer formerly known as David Glick"." - Who needs a name! Anybody got a cool idea for a symbol?

 

Seriously, thanks a ton for all the discussion everyone. It's been extremely helpful. Perhaps the best advice was not to worry too much...

"Time for a visit to your lawyer." - Heh, I was afraid of that. It's too bad it's so delicate to do this right just to sell some art.

I'm certainly no expert, but it seems that in a lot of cases artists become famous not so much for their actual work as for the back story or personality behind that work (and a lot of luck). Obviously, the work has to meet some minimum set of standards (or at least the artist has to be able bullsh*t that it does, especially if it's technically unimpressive). In the end, I think good art is about evoking a feeling or response - and Shore's photos have a sense of nostalgia or history to them. They seem to capture a view of the American landscape that is being forgotten. And as observers, we should never under-estimate the planning that goes in to what may seem like a banal scene. Often those can be the hardest to get right (though I have no idea how much effort or planning goes into Shore's specific work). Just two cents from someone with a couple college art classes a while ago...

You could try switching between ADI and TTL mode. I've found that ADI gives inconsistent results for me...but then I'm currently shooting with a 5D which is older and less featured than the A100.