reish_lakish

Profile Conversion & Proof Setup · November 20, 2012

Thanks again, Andrew. Yeah, I had that feeling. Grateful for the confirmation. Thanks- Best to you both for a terrific start to the holidays-

Profile Conversion & Proof Setup · November 19, 2012

thanks Andrew and Emil. I'm grateful. Good advice. She's been good enough to send me her icc profile for the printer, so i think that'll help get me close to how the printer may interpret the image--paper and ink aside.

one more q: jpegs. i've got to make a set of jpegs for distribution. these will likely be seen on a variety of screens with varying calibration and set to varying color profiles. do you guys recommend something close to a standard i can use that may split the difference? or should i suggest that the viewers set their monitors to a specific profile? thanks so much for ideas-

best-

Profile Conversion & Proof Setup · November 18, 2012

Hello,

Apologies if this has been asked and answered. I couldn't find a close answer to my q when searching the forum.

I'm grateful for insight, pointers, instruction. I've converted the image's profile from sRGB to Dot Gain 20%, per guidance given by the printer who's printing the work. Makes sense that I should change my Proof Setup to Dot Gain 20% as well, no? I'd like to get the image on my screen to be as close to what she (the printer) will be seeing; and, more important, get a fair sense as to what will come out of the printer.

Again, I'm grateful for your help-

Best-

Software: PS/CS6

Monitor: Apple iMac (Factory calibration, Gamma = 2.2)

OS: OS X 10.8.2

November 9, 2012

Thanks, all. Yes, since I made my original post I got myself a proper education from Epson on the limits and capabilities of digital printing.

Thanks again. Best for the weekend-

November 8, 2012

Howdy,

I'm working with a professional printer who's telling me she can't print 32-bit images on her Epson Pro 4800. These image involve rather subtle tonal shifts and look best--on screen--in 32-bit. I'm guessing the same holds true when printing. So far, the 16-bit versions she's produced fall far short of expectations.

I'm grateful for guidance. If you have pointers to other threads, or ideas about solutions, I'm eager to read 'em.

(Other info: Photoshop CS6, Mac OS X, Canon 5D.)

Thanks in advance-

August 27, 2012

Thanks Walter. Works like a charm. Thanks, and thanks for the feedback on the PTK-640.

Best-

August 26, 2012

@Howard: Bingo. Thanks-

August 26, 2012

Hello,

Anyone have experience programming the Wacom Bamboo Capture/Create's programmable buttons so that they bring up a specific filter in photoshop? In other words: I use the lasso tool combined with Photoshop's Motion Blur--and other filters. The Wacom tablet offers terrific precision with the lasso tool; it'd be super if I could program one of the tablet's buttons to bring up the Motion Blur filter, say, eliminating the need to reach up to the filter menu.

I'm also grateful if you can share your experience with any of Wacom's tablets (love them/hate them) and write a little about how you use its programmable features.

Thanks in advance. Best for the weekend-

August 9, 2012

Thanks, Scott. No question, the retina display is a draw. More the ssd hard drives make all the difference. I should mention that the iMacs can be upgraded to include a 256GB SSD and 1 or 2 TB HD, which I plan to do. For now, the speed of the iMac I ordered is plenty fine. I'm also guessing that, within a year, we'll see a slew of price competitive SSD external drives, thunderbolt-attached to cpu's.

You also make a good point about attaching a 27" external display. But that'll give me similar resolution to that of the iMac; it won't give me Retina, yet. What use, then, the small screen. I work on several images at once, so real estate is important. Besides, the cost--$1k for the screen and $2.5 for the MBP/Retina--is steep at the moment.

Thanks again for your good advice and helpful views.

August 8, 2012

Thanks all. The deed is done. Grateful for your good advice-

August 7, 2012

Thanks for your quick replies. Spoke with Apple, which--wonderfully--does price matching. (News to me. Fate rewards those that ask.) With the savings on both the iMac and service plan, I upgraded memory, plus added some apps.

I'm grateful for your good advice, JDM, about video editing on the laptop. You're right: the convenience and mobility didn't outweigh the costs. The iMac 27" is the right choice.

(The rub: we all know that Apple will announce a Retina Display across it's entire product line the day I take delivery.)

@Peter, thanks also for your reply. I'm not sure I agree. I've used PC's for years and never found the price/performance argument to hold. I'm forever buying into upgrades just to match the speed and ease of my partner's Mac hardware. I have no loyalty to the brand--to any brand. But I'm impressed by Apple's performance, design, and longevity of their products. I'm hopeful I won't be disappointed.

Thanks again-

August 7, 2012

I'm grateful for your views on choice and sourcing of a Apple new rig. My chief need: Still and video editing.

Part I.

Purchasing: a 27" iMac, standard config from Apple Store.

Noticed: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ACMC813LLAW.html">Adorama sells the same standard config, plus Apple Care for less $.</a>

Question: Anyone ever purchase a computer or other electronics through Adorama? (I purchase camera gear through them and have always been pleased. One disappointment, quickly remedied.) But I'm a bit iffy about buying computers other than direct from the manufacturer. I'm grateful for discussion of your good/or bad experiences to warn me off or set me straight.

Part II.

Retina Display Macbook Pro v. 27" iMac? Looking for updated views to what's <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00aUqP">here</a>.

Why I ask: Mobility. While I love the idea of the huge screen real estate offered by the 27" iMac, the mobility offered by the new Retina Display Macbook Pro, plus its amazing resolution, is a temptation. I figure: an additional (not Thunderbolt) monitor can add screen real estate to the MBP; that second screen being used for tools panels, etc. This is what I do now on a Linux laptop. Clearly, the answer resides in the value of the retina display, else I'd also consider the standard MBP. (I nixed that option due to price/performance when compared to the 27" iMac.) My chief concern: delivering the very best image possible to the printer. When comparing images on a 27" iMac to the Retina Display at the local Apple Store, areas of banding not apparent on the iMac show on the Retina Display. Being somewhat new to the Apple product line, I'm grateful for your views.

Please note: I'm aware of the many pros/cons of the standard configurations of each machine. The new MBP Retina Display offers more RAM, but less, though way-faster, storage. But since both RAM and fast flash storage are ugradable features on the iMac, the difference really does come down to the value of the Retina Display and the mobility the MBP offers over the desktop.

Thanks in advance. Best for the day-

April 11, 2012

:D

Screen. We're talking screen. Not print. 'k?

April 11, 2012

Thanks, Keith. I hear you on the papers and print--and am actually working with a phenomenal printer who'll do right by this project. Tho the more I learn, the better. So thanks for this (Plus, love the "Good old days" line. Suddenly, I feel my age. ;D

My most pressing problem: images for the screen. These will be seen first on the web/mobile, so there's that to contend with.

I forgot to mention: I tried adding a layer of noise w/Gaussian blur. It's a partial fix, but it ain't the genuine article. Looked at the plug-ins, too. May be a good way to go. I welcome you ideas.

April 11, 2012

I'm certain this question has been asked and answered, but i cannot find a thread covering this particular topic.

This pertains to screen, not print, though ideas on either are way-helpful:

The digital images I'm working on now are dramatically lit. The color--rich blues, greens and blacks--are equally so. Also: there's a terrific luminous sense in them that I don't want to lose. But the images feel plastic--there's no mass to them. I get a very different feel from film.

I've tried various things: reducing contrast (luminosity, color and local). I've layered over gradients and applied various blending techniques. Nothing quite works. I'm certain there's a simple fix, but, so far, have come up dry. I know of course the two media are quite different; each has its merits. I'm not looking to get into a "so shoot film" discussion. This job requires digital. I'm grateful for ideas, pointers, links and instruction.

Thanks in advance-

March 26, 2012

Thanks George. Makes sense. I should have guessed from the settings that flash was involved.

Nicely done. Both color and black and white. Very Caravaggio.

Thanks!

March 25, 2012

Thanks, all. Good points. I'm grateful.

@Richard: cracked me up and brought me back to a book I need to read again. I;m guessing tho that that's how the end-result histogram looks, and that the in-camera histogram has the elephant looking right. Just a guess. Thanks.

@ John: yes. I guess nothing really comes straight out of the camera. <a href="http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/videos/100">This vid of Ansel Adams talking about how he printed Moonrise, Henrnandez</a> was a huge eye opener. I guess the question is: How to visualize the print when capturing the scene, and what kind of exposure yields the best information to deliver such a narrow tonal range. (If "narrow tonal range" is right here.) Thanks again-

@Sarah: I'm with you on ETTR. I think more and more this is the rule. Again, the challenge (for me, anyway) is to visualize the print at time of capture. So, if you shoot at night as I do, exposing to the bright side often seems counter intuitive. Thanks-

@Jeff: true. Braekman and Caffery are way different. I was very taken with DFC's low-key images. Good point on the workshop. Checked it out. It's good advice for anyone interested in documentary work. She's dynamite. Thanks-

@George: that's a terrifically dramatic pic. Thanks for posting it, and thanks for the example histogram. I guess my question: that histogram is pretty clearly what you got in photoshop. It doesn't profile the image out of the camera. Though, if I'm reading the pic's exif right, you were pretty stopped down and @1/125; plus at a low ISO. I'm guessing to get the detail of the stone wall so right, the room was fairly bright, no? I've tried similar shots a low ambient light with my 5D and had to crank the ISO or go wide open. Grateful for a clue as to how the room was lit. Thanks.

Thanks again, all-

March 23, 2012

Hello,

I'm grateful for ideas, pointers to other sites, or instruction about making very low-key b/w images. The best example of this kind of work is <a href="http://www.dirkbraeckman.be/">Dirk Braeckman</a>. <a href="http://www.debbieflemingcaffery.com/">Debbie Fleming Caffery</a> also comes close. (She's wonderful for so may other reasons. If you're new to work, please enjoy the site.)

I'm looking for help in two areas:

<ul>

<li>Suggestions for what a histogram for this kind of print ought to look like. (At capture, of course.) Typically I expose highlights 1 stop or so above midtone, figuring that'll give a raw file with the most picture information--shadow and highlight. But I suspect to get close to Braeckman--in digital--I ought to overexpose highlights. Just a guess. I figure this will give the most contour detail. </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Suggestions for what to do in post. Typically, I'd convert to lab color and adjust the a & b curves (or use the channel mixer) to get to b/w. Then play the lightness curve by the numbers. (30 = zone 3; 50 = zone 5, etc.) To get close to Braekman, though, I'm guessing that bringing the values way down to between 20 and 50 is the way to go.</li>

</ul>

But my guesses ain't yielding such hot results. Hence the question. If you know of a sounder approach, or want to call me out on my typical method, I'm way grateful.

Thanks in advance-

January 28, 2012

Thanks all. (And sorry for my late reply & thanks. Crowded week.) This is incredibly helpful in getting me up and over a rather steep learning curve. I'm grateful.

@JC and Brooks, you open a new door for me (each with a different tool) and Roger, I think you helped me nail the problem.

Again, grateful. Best for the weekend-

January 28, 2012

You should perhaps try to eliminate as many variables as possible in order to make it easier to narrow down possible causes.

</blockquote>

Dan, this is sound advice and I appreciate it. Ditto your reinforcing the idea about the difficulties in low contrast.

re this:

One thing that frustrates those of us who try to help is when the poster sort of knowingly tells us that all of our thoughts are not possible explanations for the issue. At some point, we wonder then why the poster is asking.

</blockquote>

Please be assured that my reasons for posting are legit. I'm looking for answers. Much of what you wrote in your first post is indeed sound and I said so. I think to say more may detract from the discussion, refocusing it on board etiquette. I'm happy to have that discussion off line. Insofar as others may search this thread in search of answers, I'd rather stay on tack. But do take me at my word that I'm grateful for the suggestions, think they're sound, and add much of the advice offered into my practice. I learn from it all.

Thanks again. Best for the weekend-

January 26, 2012

Apologies if this has been answered. I'm not even sure of what to search on. <a href="../search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Cropping+image+quality+inurl%3A%2Fdigital-darkroom-forum%2F+inurl%3A%2Fdigital-darkroom-forum%2F&qx=Cropping+image+quality+inurl%3A%2Fdigital-darkroom-forum%2F&sa=Search+This+Forum">These posts related to cropping or resizing and maintaining resolution</a>, while informative, did not quite hit the problem.

What I've got: a slew of images w/ pixel dimension: 2912 x 4378; and doc dimension (inches) 9.707 x 14.593 (aspect ratio 1.5)

What I need:

<ul>

<li>to crop these images, or resize each canvas, so that the images have a doc dimension = 8x10 (aspect ratio 1.25) for print. Resolution must be a least 300ppi.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>to create a batch of copies, each with pixel dimension = 800 x 1000 for screens. </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>the scale (for lack of a better word) of the subject in each image (a tree) must match the scale of the original, uncropped image.</li>

</ul>

The problem: When cropping/resizing, each tree gets a tad enlarged, impacting quality. Methods tried in Photoshop:

<ul>

<li>Using the crop tool;</li>

<li>Using select--all > transform selection, then image > crop;</li>

<li>Resizing the canvas. </li>

</ul>

When resizing the originals to 800 x 1000, I've tried resampling on and off. I've also tried resizing by changing the resolution of the smaller copies from 300 to 100, which--from the cropped original (now 2400 x 3000 pixels) returns the required pixel dimensions = 800 x 1000 required for the screen versions.

In each case, the result is a properly sized image with a slightly larger, improperly scaled tree; and with image quality impacted enough that more sharpening and retoning is needed.

I apologize for the long-winded explanation and the lack of precision in describing the problem. Not an easy thing to describe. I'm guessing this problem has been licked before. I'm grateful for ideas, workarounds or links to possible solutions.

Thanks in advance-

January 26, 2012

Thanks, Sarah. I appreciate your help. Good suggestions--particularly those about the sort of ground on which to place the tripod. In this shot I was on a concrete sidewalk on a pretty un-trafficked street. My camera bag, a big Kata, hung from the hook off the bottom. It weighs about 6lbs without the camera.

Re the noise, this is one noisy camera. I picked it up used from one of the larger, reputable, shops in NYC. Noise occurs even @ISO 200. I've had Canon look at the camera. The problem is known to them. I'll leave it there--but will say that, in my opinion, Canon is among the best companies I've worked with. Their service is excellent--as are their products. Why this particular problem, which they acknowledge, seems unfixable, is beyond me.

Again, I'm grateful for your solid suggestions--as I am to Peter and Dan.

Best-

January 24, 2012

Thanks, Dan & Peter. I'm grateful for the quick reply.

@Dan--terrific pics on flickr, btw. love the yosemite albums.

<ul>

<li>in lieu of a lazer i used a mag lite. (people in my neighborhood see a lazer dot and they run for their kalashnikovs. the red dot sends a signal. not kidding.) </li>

<li>no live view on my poor old 5D (classic).</li>

<li>wouldn't leave any camera in place for any length of time, out here, for reasons related to bullet 1. ;D</li>

<li>bracket focus: always a good idea. my defacto practice. the pic i posted was the best of the lot.</li>

<li>i seldom shoot wider than f/4; typically i'm between f/8 & f/16.</li>

<li>i shoot just two primes: wide @28mm & short-tele/portrait@85mm. when shooting long exposure landscapes or @hyperfocal distance it's the 28. so far, it's been plenty wide, esp for the hyperfocal stuff. and a decent lens for the money.</li>

<li>sharpness @100% is a problem here 'cause i'm printing--pretty much 1:1.</li>

</ul>

@Peter, thanks.

<ul>

<li>Cars may be a possibility, though i made the effort to wait for cars for fear the headlights would ruin the image. it's a quiet road with houses along it vacant for a while now. an ideal place to shoot. (and, sadly, get shot at.)</li>

<li>i use a wireless remote trigger.</li>

<li>you're on to something with the daylight test. i re-shot the neighboring tree which sits in better street light and used only manual focus. the results are significantly better. i'm wondering if the problem is less lens and more sensor. (your suggestion about eliminating the long exposure part in the test is excellent. thanks.)</li>

<li>again, no live view. (and, agreed, viewfinder focusing--never mind composition--is a nightmare at night.) candidly (no slight to anyone reading this here in a canon forum, nor to canon) i decided against upgrading to the m2, waiting instead for a pro mirrorless camera. the time's come.</li>

<li>re something sharp on the tree: banyans are good for that. plenty of hard definition. better than Schwarzenegger in his glory days.</li>

</ul>

I'm grateful for the ideas, Dan & Peter. You've raised good points to keep in mind for my future practice. I think my problem is light. I chose the wrong set of trees--too dark. Is it possible that the hardware/firmware has trouble interpreting a dark edge from a dark area? Like I say, tonight's results, made in better street light, are a world apart--though the settings and my distance from the subject were identical to last night's fiasco. I'm just saying.

Thanks again, both. Enjoy-

January 24, 2012

I'm grateful for ideas, your technique/work-around, pointers or instruction. The problem is likely my technique; not the lens. I've just tested the lens (an EF 28mm 1.8 USM), in good light and bad, and it performs as it did the day I purchased it.

These images tell the tale of a difficult night with a Banyan tree. Yes, the tree is hardly well-lit; but I have similarly poor results with better lit trees using manual and auto focus.

The details: f/4, 30 secs, ISO 100. (This low ISO because significant noise is introduced even at ISO 200--with noise reduction on. I did shoot alternate versions at ISO 200, 400 and 800, stopping down with each change. No improvement in sharpness whatsoever; but quite a lot of noise in the shadows did result. I did not bother to process these.)

Metering: highlight = patch at the tree's base; midtone off a card.

Mirror Lockup: enabled.

Noise Reduction: On.

Tripod: True and trusted.

Remote trigger: check.

Wind: no wind.

Earthquakes: none.

Focusing technique: For this particular shot I tried both manual and auto focus. I stood about 3 meters from the tree. For auto focus, I aimed a flash light at the tree and targeted the beam. The auto focus read the same as my manual focus setting.

The problem, illustrated:

Screen shot 1: in Raw Therapee. Please note the focus problem in the magnified "pop-out." (<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15041793-lg.jpg" target="_New">CLICK</a>.)

Screen shot 2 shows a gruesome detail while post proc in Photoshop. (<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15041794-lg.jpg" target="_New">CLICK.</a>)

Final image: an attempt at salvage--two unsharp layers and significant cropping later. The picture is completely unsuitable for screen or print (<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15041792-lg.jpg" target="_New">CLICK.</a>)

Again, I suspect--like I've said many times before over expensive dinners--it's me, not it. And, again, please keep in mind that this problem is occurring with many (not all) of my night/long exposure shots--even those where the subject is better lit. The problem is inconsistent though my technique is roughly the same. Inconsistent as it is, it's becoming increasingly more common in my night shots.

Thanks in advance-

January 11, 2012

Thanks all.

@Dan: good points on focus to make a part of my practice. Re the "tool"--Yeah I made one and fixed it to the hotshoe--not dissimilar to the more polished product that Brano shows here. (Brano, like Pierre says, your Rupogled has some promise.) I thought my gizmo would work like a finder on a telescope works. But I must have been off in my measuring. It missed the mark. I think Brano may have better results.

Also Dan, the 5DM2 is the better tool--no question. It--or it's replacement--is on the wishlist. Just as soon as they clear up that pesky Eurozone thing.

Thanks all- much appreciated-

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by reish_lakish