Jump to content

chrissyone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    171

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by chrissyone

    iMac vs. Dell PC! Please help

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    I've been using Macs for years, but I use both Mac and PC in my work on Photoshop and several other Adobe products.<br>

     

    Simply put, the Mac will give you more enjoyment and less headache than any machine running Windows, and it will last

    you years longer than any Dell. Sure, you can do everything with a PC that you can with a Mac (well, aside from having

    a decent ColorSync workflow...) but Mac OS X takes far less time and effort to keep running well. I have one Mac that's

    been running my website for the last 5 years and I've barely touched it, other than to update software and add drives.<br>

     

    I would, however, suggest that you get the 24" iMac over the 20". As has been mentioned above, the display in the 24"

    is a higher quality LCD than that of the 20". Personally, I went one step further and added a 23" Cinema HD (same pixel

    dimensions as the iMac, but higher density and higher quality LCD panel) as a second monitor. It's my dream setup for digital

    photography, as I can

    run Lightroom and Photoshop side by side. <br>

    <a href="http://www.wileytradegroup.com/~chrissyw/krissys_krib.jpg">This is that it looks like.</a><br>

    My only beef with the newer iMacs is the glossy screens. I don't personally like them,and while they can be pleasing to watch a DVD

    movie on, they're a bit too contrasty for Photoshop work, and tend to block up the blacks a bit.

    OS X also has a feature called Spaces, that lets you have a grid of workspaces that simulates as many monitors as

    you like. Hit CTRL + DownArrow and your windows slide up and out of the way, creating a new empty workspace. Once you get used to

    this you will not be able to live without it, especially if you run a lot of real-estate hungry apps like Photoshop, Lightroom, Dreamweaver,

    etc...

    <br>

    -c

    The myth behind color management

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    @ Gerald Peake<br>

     

    I think you misunderstand the point of color management. There is something CM gives you that is far more valuable

    than any idea of absolute matching to anything. That thing is <b>consistency</b>. <br>

     

    Consistency is far more important to good color workflow than if one red exactly matches another. And you cannot have

    consistent results without calibration. It doesn't mean the result will be "right" (or your idea of right), it means it will be

    repeatable, and to some extent, *manageable*.<br>

     

    Should I stop using my light meter and just take bursts of 12 brackets every time?

    The myth behind color management

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    "I work in the SRGB color space in Photoshop 7 working on wedding and portrait images. My Samsung 19 inch CRT

    monitor is calibrated using Adobe Gamma. I set the kelvin temp on the Canon 20D for the lighting conditions (never use

    auto white balance)."

     

    There is so much wrong with this workflow.

     

    First off, you should start shooting Raw and not worrying about the color settings on your 20D. When you shoot JPG

    and let the camera bake in the color temp, you're stuck with whatever you get at the moment of the shot. Setting WB to

    Auto is just fine when you work in Raw, because the WB is not actually imaged into the file, but just set as a position on

    a slider. When you post-process later on, you can set the slider to whatever you want with no sacrifice to Image Quality.

     

    Next, stop using Adobe Gamma to calibrate. Get a better CRT or a nice LCD monitor and invest in a Colorvision Spyder

    or some other (relatively) inexpensive screen puck to make a decent monitor profile. This is the best investment in CM

    you can make, because inaccurate color on the monitor cascades down to every other part of your workflow. Make sure

    you're seeing the best possible image before you go any further. Unless you physically stick something that reads light

    onto the front of your monitor, it will not be calibrated. It does not matter what the promotional materials say.

     

    Now that you have a good raw file and a good monitor, it's time to retire sRGB. This is the Lowest Common Denominator

    RGB color space and it great for the web but not so much for anything else. Your Raw file conversion should use a

    bigger space like ProPhoto RGB and 16 bit, so you bring as much color information into a raster editor like Photoshop as

    you can. Further destructive edits will have more information to work with, and your gradients won't fall apart quite so

    soon. Use sRGB when exporting file to unknown destinations like cheap printers or the web, when you can't be sure if

    the target medium is CM aware or not, but don't work or archive in this space.

     

    As far as printing goes, it's a lot more complex than the OP is trying to sell it as, but I'm interested to see what he's cooked up. I have

    seen dozens of apps that have claimed to do the exact same thing over the last 15 years or so, and all of them fail to get around a few

    basic laws that we live by - chiefly that no device can know what it's doing unless you tell it. No printer can know exactly what it's own

    Red looks like unless you stick a print under an eye and take a reading. It's that simple. You can fudge it and estimate it, but the fact

    remains that inks and print heads are not perfect and can drift, just like any other device.

    Change to Rebel XSI DSLR or Medium format?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    As the owner of an XTi (the older XSi) I can say it's a lovely camera, but from your background I would tend to agree with

    some here and say you should find a used 5D. The XSi will give you great results for the money, but you will probably

    bump into its limitations too quickly and want to upgrade anyway.

     

    What you should really do is rent a 5D (if you can) and spend a weekend with it. Shoot Raw files and download a demo of

    Lightroom or Aperture to process them. Once you've seen how quickly and efficiently you can work like this, you might

    forget about scanning all that MF film.

    Wide angle zoom or prime? EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM or EF 24mm f/1.4L USM?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I use the 16-35mm with my XTi and the combination is fantastic. I have zero complaints. It is by far the sharpest lens I

    own.

    I would definitely not get the 17-40 just to save money, but I like the shallowest DOF and best low light performance I can get. I have no

    regrets spending the extra money for what is an entirely superior lens.<p>

     

    <a href="http://wileytradegroup.com/ivan_close_up.jpg">Wide open at 35mm.</a><p>

     

    -c

    RAW/TIFF/JPEG for storing files in the long term

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <b>"Also, I am surprised to read that whichever programme you first open a RAW file with, it will permanently affect the

    image in terms of colour. Is this significant?"</b><p>

     

    No, the Raw file will never be affected at all. Any changes you make to the Raw file will be stored in either an XMP

    sidecar file*, or in the database of whatever editor you use. Lightroom keeps its own database, but you can set it to

    either export changes to XMP automatically.

    <p>

    Permanent changes (data loss) starts to happen when you convert the Raw file by exporting to format like TIFF or PSD.

    At this point, your Raw settings like White Point, Contrast, Crop, Vibrance, etc, are "baked in" to the pixel information of

    the file. There is no going back from here. You can't, for instance, get that cropped out are back once you do this.

    <p>

    If you do as much as possible in Raw you will have the least data loss for an archive. If you use a raw converter like

    Lightroom it will also double as an image database, and it will manage not only the Raw images but also all your

    subsequent revisions in other formats, like PSD. You can also set ratings and color labels and add keywords and stuff.<p>

     

    -c

    <p>

    *And XMP sidecar file is just a text file that is saved along side your original Raw file. It stores all the changes you have made to

    metadata and is readable by other apps that support Raw formats.

    RAW/TIFF/JPEG for storing files in the long term

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <b>"RAW is a very poor choice of archive format. Some people like to save Photoshop edits as adjustment layers in

    PSD. What about DNG? I don't know if it is the answer, but nobody mentioned it yet."</b><p>

     

    It all depends on your workflow. I do over 80% of my work in Camera Raw (via Lightroom) and only break out to

    Photoshop for retouching and heavy detail work. But I still manage the PSD files in Lightroom as Versions of the original

    Raw image. There is no reason to convert a file to PSD that doesn't need to be. <p>

     

    As soon as you so much as choose a white point, you have made a processing decision, and you have lost data.

    Losing as little data as possible is the whole idea of an *archive*, so no, Raw is not a poor choice of an archive format.

    Managing a good file naming convention and organizing versions is what is really important. I can always do my PS

    changes again (and better, as imagining tools improve) but I can never capture the original image again.

    <P>

    -c

    Canon EOS 5D: Buy now or wait longer?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    Personally, I'm going to wait for the Mk II, but that's only because I have been so delighted with my cheap little XTi for

    the past year, so I don't have to have a new camera right now. If I didn't already have that, then I'd take advantage of

    the low prices on the current model.

     

    As far as the battery grip goes... I have one for my XTi. I thought I'd only use it when I was traveling or really wanted to

    battery capacity, but it turns out that I have never taken it off since I bought it. I rarely use the vertical grip, but the

    extra height balances the camera nicely and provides a better hand-hold than the body alone. I have used a 5D with a

    grip and think the same applies, especially if you have freakishly giant hands like I do.

     

    I also agree with Adam - I've always liked the look of the vertical grip / motor drive. The one on the 5D make is look

    pretty mean. This isn't just for your own vanity, though. When you shoot with an XTi and a normal lens, you are just a

    person taking pictures. Add a battery grip, and suddenly people see you as a Professional, because you have a 'big

    fancy camera'. Add an L lens and most civilians will think you work for Vogue. This can be a good or a bad thing, depending on where you

    are shooting.

     

    What I would really like is if Canon makes 2 kinds of 5D. They keep the current model chassis basically the same for the 5D Mk II,

    but add a 5Ds model with a built-in grip and weather sealing. This is a ridiculous fantasy, but hey, it's Friday, and I can

    dream, can't I?

     

    -c

    Perfect lens to shoot live shows for a 400D

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    Christophe,<br>

     

    Agree with other posters who say it would be easier to advise you if we knew more detail about the kinds of shows you

    shoot. But if it's anything like my situation shooting raves then I offer this advice: <br><br>

     

    Get a good flash. Don't use the internal pop-up (you didn't mention if you use an external, do you?) because you'll

    have to put up with the XTi pre-flashing to find AF, and that's just no good at all. A good speedlight will have an AF

    assist beam that shines in low red light to help you find focus (and you'll actually be able to find it). Bounce it if possible, as suggested

    above, but pay attention to the color of the ceiling. <br><br>

     

    Personally, I use either my 15mm fisheye or my 16-35 L when I shoot parties, but those are very small,

    crowded events and I'm not trying to see Bono 300 yards away. If you're shooting bands on stage, you'll need

    something longer, but it sounds like you get pretty close, so wider is better.<br>

     

    I like to shoot long exposures, from 1/4 to 3 seconds, to capture the pretty lights.<br><br>

     

    Here are some examples if you're interested...<br><a

    href="http://www.wileytradegroup.com/~chrissyw/SnoochyBoochies3/">http://www.wileytradegroup.com/~chrissyw/SnoochyBoochies3/</a

    >

    Shooting Firework with EOS 5D - Exposure Questions

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    With film I used to just leave the shutter open, and hold something opaque and dark over the lens (caring not to bump it)

    until something pretty happened, then just move it away for a few seconds to capture it. You can then control which ones

    you want, and keep the background lights under control. But my XTi only opens for 30 seconds at a time, so I guess it's

    going to be a bit harder to pick and choose - this will be the first time I've used it on fireworks. I tried shoot fw's with my E-

    10 years ago, but I wasn't very happy with them... I think the beam splitter may have been to blame (I didn't cover the

    viewfinder).

    Regreting my XSi

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    Eric,

     

    Let's not make straw men where there aren't any crows. I agree with you on the 5D pic being about as useful as wheels

    on a tomato, but I think the general mood of the thread leans toward helpful. The OP regrets his purchase based on the

    provided pic, and most of us are trying to get to the bottom of why that pic seems so far below the quality we're used to

    (lens battles aside... what kind of photographers would we be if we didn't argue about lenses...?)

     

    If I'm getting the kind of sharpness that I do with a non-L lens (the cat pic, my second link above) and 2 less megapix in

    file size (XTi vs. XSi) then the most likely thing I can think of to blame is the kit lens. It might not be the case, but it's

    my gut feeling.

     

    But the OP wants to know:

    "Do I sell the XSi, and get an E-520? Is it just the 18-55mm or do I invest another $1000 bucks on a high end lens?"

     

    My suggestion was to rent a better lens before he dumps the Canon. If he still gets poor results, then by all means, this

    former Oly shooting Canon fan thinks he should go back to Oly.

     

    Amen.

     

    -c

×
×
  • Create New...