dreamtimestudio

<p>I work on the basis of if the client can't be bothered coming down to the shoot or hasn't given me a brief then they get what they get, the simple reason is that I know that some clients will get the shots then ask "oh can we try one like this...." and after you've wasted hours of your time they then go with the first shot you did!<br>

When possible I always shoot tethered so if the client cares enough to be at the shoot then they can see whats happening right from the start this way I can alter or build on the shot until the client is happy and if something can't be done then the client is aware of it and you can even show them to satisfy their curiosity. This way when you've finished the shoot the client has effectively signed off on what you've done and if you do that you will never get any complaints (unless you do a really dody retouch afterwords).</p>

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I've just changed over from Nikon to Canon and I'm having a few issues with skin tones. I've been shooting with picture style neutral and processing in capture one pro, I've also tried the canon software which is even worse, the skin tones are very red/pink even under studio lights, I use a calibrated Eizo monitor and also shoot a color checker each time so it's definately the profile or processing thats the cause.<br>

I've tried messing around with the picture style editor, the simple settings of tone, contrast, etc are pretty useless, it seems my only option is to spend a long time trying to build a custom profile changing each color on the color wheel but I'm hoping there someone knows a better way since that will take ages and require adjusting over several shoots. Everyone else I know who shoots with one of the older canons seems to get a subdued yellow look which is preferable to the rosey red I'm getting.<br>

Any help would be really appreciated.<br>

Cheers<br>

Shane</p>

<p>Brett,<br>

I have an Eizo, Pc (xp), and spider3 pro, with color I'm a bit of a lamen but this certainly works fine for me:<br>

1. Calibrate the monitor with the spider, this then creates a profile which will be run in spider utility (spider utility runs at system startup and the icon sits in the shortcut bar), that will then adjust your monitors display on top of your entire system when you calibrated so therefore you don't change anything in any program.<br>

2. Use photoshop as you always did with no changes.<br>

3. Everything should be fine, the only thing I find is if the images are going to be saved as jpgs for the internet then they should be converted to the monitors profile just before you save them which seems to work better than converting them to Srgb (for your workflow this is probably irrelevant).<br>

I print images on an epson and they look very close to what was on the monitor and I've also viewed my images on other photographers calibrated Macs as well as other Pcs using the internet and they all look fine. When I supply my clients I assume they will lamens with color processes as well so I supply them with a print version (saved AdobeRGB, which is my workspace) and an internet version (converted to the monitor profile as a batch process).<br>

Hope that helps, if someone thinks that I'm doing it wrong I would love to hear of a betterworkflow.</p>

<p>Hi guys

,

<br>

I already have a few of the older Elinchrom 500w monos and a style 300w, I'm about to replace some of th

e older 500's with new digital Elinchroms. I've had a look at both the specs for the style and dlite4's and as far as I c

an tell the only real difference is the flash duration, recycle time and an extra stop of adjustment. I can live with all of

those flaws but have noticed that the Dlite uses different tubes to the styles and am wondering if there will be a

color difference between the Dlite tubes and the other Elinchrom

m

onos?<br>

Has anyone used both of these lights before and is it worth paying twice as much for a

personally i love film, ill have a look at the plug in but im very skeptical already. I use digital for my work because its

quicker and clients dont want to pay for film these days, but i wouldnt say it looks better, thats crazy talk.

Most of the time when people in

here tell me digital is superior they show me some example of an oversaturated, over sharpened and over processed

landscape that looks like it was shot on an alien planet. I cant wait to see the threads when photoshop brings out the

good taste filter or cannon comes out with the DTaste SLR

(Was that a bit harsh???)

 

<a href="http://www.dreamtimestudio.com/fashion_photographer.htm" target="_blank"><strong>fashion

photographer</strong></a>

I've been in love with capture one until i bought a d300.... Its horrible!!

does anyone know why is a perfectly exposed image transformed to be 2 stops under when you select it in capture

one?

Then it requires increasing the exposure in capture one by 2 stops to compensate.

Also a processed image comes out with wierd pixelating artifacts.

Does anyone know of a update or solution to this?

I have tried looking for updates on the capture website but no luck and personally i hate the workflow with the nikon

software its incredibly slow and awkeward. (hey nikon put preset white balances in capture nx you cheapskates)

 

<a href="http://www.dreamtimestudio.com/fashion_photographer.htm" target="_blank"><strong>fashion

photographer</strong></a>

Hi Karen, I just looked at your website and i would say you have already told her enough (about your equipment, processing, etc). It sounds like shes a competitor that doesnt mind taking the easy option, rather than pay her dues like the rest of us. If you do give her more information dont be surprised if you see your work mimicked and used to take some of your buisness. A few years ago I had a guy call me up wanting to join my buisness and literally called about 5 or 6 times almost begging, he said he had all of the things he needed to work in my field except the website (it was doing virtual tours), this rang alarm bells so i tactfully told him no, a couple of weeks later i found out that he was already lining up clients in my area and he was needing a leg up to compete, not nice....

To the guys who said sRGB isnt a profile perhaps they should buy a book on color management. sRGB stands for "standard red, green, blue" its the profile used to represent the color space of a standard PC monitor, use this profile if your images will be used on the net. Im not an expert on adobe gamma but i thought it was more to set a white point which shouldnt really worry your profiles (i think...). When your in photoshop try using "assign profile" and set it to adobe rgb and you will see the difference as a preview. Use "assign profile" as opposed to "convert profile" since convert actually changes the basic data, if you have converted a picture to sRGB and saved it, the extra color information the original had is lost, whereas assigning a profile keeps the data but tells the computer how to display it. hope that helps

thanks for that, i had a look at ebay the only problem is they are in the US, postage to Australia is about $200 for something that heavy, but if they go cheap enough that will certainly be a good option.

at the risk of being linched in here, i run a pc with an eizo screen, i get more bang for my buck that way. the eizo

screen will blow the pants off any mac screen. Alot of pros who love their macs are now ditching the mac screens in

favour of an eizo after all its the photo thats important not the desktop.

I've used the Imac in a studio i worked in previously we took it on location instead of a laptop, its good for that but i

wouldnt be using it for color correcting.

let the linching begin......haha

sorry didnt upload, here is the porta<div></div>

35 point and shoot porta

Hi again, ive attached 2 snap shots of my girlfriend one shot on the fuji s5 (which i think has better skin tones than

the d300) which was processed from raw and the other was taken on a olmpus xa 35mm point and shoot with porta

160nc then cheaply scanned low res at the local minilab, both shot on a cloudy day. To me the porta is 100 times

more pleasing to the eye and bear in mind these are only the most basic snap shots. Unfortunately these are the

only 2 shots i can dig up with similar lighting and subject. When i do my pro work i do all of the things you

mentioned before and get great results off the phase one, but not off the nikon, the shots in my album were all shot

on phaseone.<div></div>

Thanks guys, and also to Edward im new to the forums and have now found lots of threads on this scanner, for proofing it seems fine. But on the digital aspect I've freelanced in many product/still life studios in london and am used to seeing files from phaseone etc, now that im starting my own buisness i need to be frugile, hense bought a D300 and i have to say its fine for many things but when it comes to critical color rendition like skin tones it just doesnt cut it (i spent an 1hr searching through profiles, layering, selective color etc on a portrait last week to even get close), since the 6x9 cost $500 and a phase one is about $30k that combo should do for now.

hi,

I started my photography career just at the change over from film to digital so I know nothing about film and

processing but have always been dissapointed with the results i get from digital when shooting landscapes or natural

skin tones, so much so that I just bought a second hand Fuji 6x9. I love the look of porta 160NC and now that I'm all

inspired to finally do some landscapes etc im wondering what type of scanner i need. The epson v500 has caught

my eye as a low price option, the idea is to shoot porta then scan for use around A4 and if I decide to go any larger

get a drum scan. Does anyone have one of these scanners, would it be of a high enough quality to get faithful color

and detail from a 6x9 to go to A4? Obviously there are better scanners out there but my budget is below $1000 for

this project. thanks...

Sorry David I have to agree to disagree there, i like your shot but to me it still looks "hyper real" its super saturated and over sharpened I've never seen a rain forrest look like that with the naked eye and for me thats the whole point of a camera, to capture things as they are, if i then want to alter them unrealistically its my choice not the camera's.

heres what i mean, this was shot on a olypus XA which is a 35 year old point and shoot 35mm film camera with a built in 28mm f2.8 lens, I used porta 160NC then scanned from the neg at the local minlab for about $2. The camera cost me $100 off ebay and went all around europe with me was dropped several times, lived in my pocket and had a bucket of water thrown over it (water fight in tailands new years celebrations) and still works fine, do that with a d700. Oh and it had no post processing done at all.<div></div>

I have to agree with people who say the DX size sensors make images look flat, I had only ever shot fashion digitally on Dx sensors and always wondered why they looked so 2 dimensional and fake until i used a phase one, all of a sudden everything looked 3D and the skin tones near perfect and this is with no post processing, but even the phase falls short of the tonal range of a good portrait film.

Alot of fashion photographers in London shoot neg film then hand print and finally scan the print, the fact that they are going to that amount of work says digital still has a way to go.

Well my opinion is a little more than just the camera since i was using capture one to process my images and now that i have bought a D300 it has caused all sorts of problems, since capture one's profiles for the D300 are terrible and unuseable and nikon capture Nx is the slowest most awkward program ever I think you should wait. 12 months from now there will be a new D3x etc which will more than likely be full frame and 16-22 mp. Even if your like me and cant afford that the price of the other models will drop enormously and it will also give time for programs like capture one to get their act together. Let the boffins buy the newest cameras then wait for them to iron out all the bugs thats what i do.

if you are going a couple of hours before sunset and there are clear skys the sun will still be a harsh point light source, so bearing that in mind you will want that behind them as a backlight which will act as a hair light. If you have 2 people to hold the reflectors then you can put one reflector either side of the camera but at different distances so you get a soft fill light kind of like having 2 umbrellas in the studio, by varying the distances you can adjust the amount of fill on each side of their faces. Also if you can hold them higher than the kids it will look more natural as nothing looks worse than lighting someone from below. hope that helps.