John Di Leo

geese, actually

@reinhold_s. beaver whats????

The file settings box in the export dialog is set for AdobeRGB(1998). I will need to shoot a test, create a copy, process one with the trackpad and one with the Wacom, and then I will post. I suppose if they come out the same size, then my origanal question becomes moot and it is just all the different things that make one picture different from another. Thanks again for all the input

Thanks all. I do not have the resize image box checked in export, image quality is always set at 100. I will look at posting to dropbox and post a link when done...thanks

Thanks for the suggestions, Much appreciated. The absolute sizes don't really bother me, but the suspicion that I am doing something inadvertently gets me. I definitely did that, ie, varied stylus pressure. I am just getting used to it so there was some amount of finding the sweet spots for pressure, some very hard, some very soft. I am not aware that I did that (and I don't know that I did not), but you are SO right about hitting something inadvertently, dragging something, untoward taps and hits, so, I could have without being aware I did. I am typically not ham fisted handling this stuff, but there is a muscle memory learning curve for the stylus, much more than I thought there'd be. IOW that could have happened?? Camera settings were the same, shooting straight RAW, no accompanying jpg. ONly LR for post and no changes to the export dialog. No other software involved. I will do that. I used the mediainfo app to examine, and am including 2 screenshots. I notice on the top one it is describing the image as "video" and the other as "image." The left one is before the Wacom was used. Both jpgs, both stills. The Wacom was used on the right one

Thanks, DigitalDog, A lot of info there and your info makes sense. To be clear, if I download your sample pallets and print them, they are going to print properly, assuming the paper profile is correct. IOW, they take the monitor, and the way it looks, out of the equation...is that correct? If so, is it possible to "reverse engineer" the monitor's display to make it look like the printed sample? Not actually having a printer (yet) makes all this theoretical for me, thus harder to get an practical understanding. Thanks

This is strange, I hope I am describing this properly, I shoot in RAW, Nikon D810, Lightroom, no change in camera equipment or software or technique excepat as noted below. I recently added a Wacom Intuos Pro S to my post processing. Prior to the wacom I was using a trackpad. Since the Wacom, my edited jpgs have remarkably increased in size. Prior to the Wacom, out of the camera the RAW files were 42-ish mB and they still are. The pre-Wacom edited jpgs would range from maybe 3mB to ~~12-15mB. Since the Wacom my edited files are rarely under 8mB and usually 38ish mB. The Wacom is the only change I have made, but I cannot see how that would make a difference. I've looked at the mediainfo data and other than some edited sizes being different I see nothing. The edited sizes are in the same range as my pre-wacom images. Is there something I can look at for comparison, or does anyone have any idea what's going on? It's really puzzling me. TIA

So, printer calibration is achieved by icc profiles specific for a particular printer/paper combination as well as custom profiles provided by the paper manufacturer if you send in a sample. Correct? And that custom process or using supplied icc profiles STILL REQUIRE the monitor to have been calibrated for satisfactory results. Correct? So, your spectrometer allows you to set your own custom icc profile, bypassing the need to involve the paper manufacturer in a custom icc, Correct? The device listed above ($50 discount for only the rest of the day) would perform only the part of the calculus above involving calibrating the monitor...and then it's on the the "next step" of the proper icc profile...do I have that right? TIA

Thanks for the response, Ed/ Sorry for a noob question...so, when it is said "if you're going to print your monitor must be calibrated" would this model be sufficient for that? Thanks

A bit OT: Monitor calibration. I am on an iMAC 27" 5K 2017 running 10.14. The MAC has a monitor calibration in the "System preferences" folder. Is that sufficient to achieve WYSIWYG in the print? Or, must a separate calibration tool be used like a ColorMunki or Spyder? I saw a JToolman video that said the "$500" model must be used to calibrate the monitor and to put the monitor and the printer on the same page, that the cheaper models ($129-149) are not sufficient for that task. Maybe I heard him wrong? Do you use a separate monitor calibration tool? which one? With the cost of this endeavor it would seem that, as pointed out above, Trial and error can be pretty expensive.

Grandchildren (minus 1) daughter#1 , the naughty side of the card

Roman forum of Augustus at Nimes, Fr.

Caesar Augustus, Roman Museum, Zaragosa, Spain (PS Livia did it)

shake tiles on the roof of Chene Vert, Baton Rouge, La., designed to mimic the flow of water

Transit of Venus 2012 ( and a few sunspots)

I saw a video the other day about street photography and the author was recommending shooting shutter priority when shooting street. I usually do not shoot street and I usually shoot with aperture priority and a fixed ISO though I've shot some street and can recognize the advantage in street of shutter priority with a floating ISO--for me. When I am shooting with aperture priority I usually have time to set up the shot, not so with street, and as a result I may get a blurry image. So, it was just something new I wanted to try, ie have "street" settings in one menu bank and normal in another. What I am finding is that the "extended menu banks" only go so far; that setting does not appear to include focus points, but does save iso? Thanks for the explanation though; I think I was confusing Shooting menu and Custom Menu selections. I definitely need to play with it some more.

Thanks...I had much of that, but the "Extended Menu Banks" was OFF so the Mode was not being saved. Now it is. Many thanks!