luis_modesti

<p>Here is an interesting issue that is just bothersome and I cannot get around it. No idea why !</p>

<p>I use a color managed process that renders very satisfactory matching results when printing from Digital Files. By Digital Files in this case I am referring to files originally created on a Canon 5D MII , I shoot RAW and I use Adobe RGB as my default color profile from beginning to end. I print with Photoshop CS4 letting photoshop manage colors. My Printer is an Epson R2880 and use Epson papers with Epson profiles. All is good and colors match perfectly to my NEC PA241W series professionally calibrated monitor using Spyder Pro 3 and the NEC Spectraview Software. good with me so far ?. ok, However I also shoot in Film (film vs digital discussions aside) and then scan my 35mm slides with a Nikon 9000ED professional scanner. I also use Adobe RGB as the default output profile for files that come out of my Nikon scanner. After doing my standard Photoshop editing and enhancement , then print under exact same environment described above, I let photoshop manage colors and print to the same printer , same paper profiles as described above. Here is now the problem: sometimes some colors in prints will not match the monitor. (blue sky for instance looks towards purple in print, this is just one example I am citing...) . As a test, I let the printer driver do the color management, voila, colors now do match the monitor. Sky is blue as it should. (again this is one example, but it happens for certain colors).</p>

<p>What could possibly be happening here ? Has anybody experience something like this regarding film scans ?</p>

<p>Thanks all in advance for any insight on this .</p>

<p>Thank you all for wonderful comments and insight. A special thank you to Dan Mitchell for you inspirational advise, and story on the subject. You <strong>should</strong> definetely write a book. ! your writing style is refreshing and inspirational for me. I could've read and in fact, I have read tons of books on the subject and none of them have touched this point in the way you put it. Thank you ! I believe everything I read here may cause a turning point for me. I am concious about it now.<br>

I have to say; I do push myself and I am hard on myself. It is the way I have found. I always aim higher and to become better. One thing is true though; in the process I have overlooked an important point here made: enjoy myself and enjoy the moments. I will follow all your advises.<br>

Thank you once again !</p>

 

<p>I shoot mostly nature and landscape. I refuse to believe that is just plain luck; Short of doing wonders with Digital work which is an art by itself, finding the right conditions in nature and place myself in the right place and the right time must also be an art. I am sure a lot of experience is required, but even though I have been doing this for a while, I find myself unlucky guessing the right conditions and the right time. I know I have to shoot at Sunrise and at Sunset for the best light, I know storm and weather produce the most surprises. But beyond that , very few times I've been lucky to see something wonderful happening with colors and lights in the sky.... is it just my bad luck ? or is it that I dont know how to distinguish ... ?<br>

Any tips, help, articles, information or insight in helping me grow in my anticipation skills will be immensely appreciated.<br>

Thanks in advance,</p>

<p>Sonny,<br>

I posted a similar question about this issue not long ago in this same forum. This was intriguing me as well . This isn't really an issue or a software bug, you are shooting in RAW. <br>

The answer I got basically made me realize that , what is happening is that Bridge is showing you a preview of an already processed JPG file, once you click on the thumbnail, it reverts back to RAW default settings and it seems to lose the punch. In other words; it is unprocessed. If you compare the before "clicked" thumbnail vs. a JPG version of the same picture: *you shoot RAW+JPG" , they should be similar. I wouldn't know why Bridge would exercise this behaviour or if this can be changed, but I kind of settled with it.<br>

If you find a different answer or someone knows a different reason for this, feel free to post again. I would still be curious to know.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not sure if this is normal, or just mine does this but I have a curious situation , more annoying than an actual issue but since it is color related , it is bothersome.<br>

When previewing recently downloaded images in Bridge for the first time, thumbnails show up with a certain color, but as soon as you click on the thumbnail to preview the image, within a second of selecting the image, the color changes; It becomes dull and less saturated. <br>

Why is that ?, and what is exactly happening within that second of clicking and selecting a thumbnail ?<br>

thanks in advance,</p>

<p>I would consider a little crazy to shoot in JPEG considering these requirements. I would definitely go with RAW as you will obviously need resampling to do and RAW will be the first place to start once you export say into TIFF. Even after that I would consider more (resampling (upsample) in either photoshop or lightroom). Sharping appropiately should also be a consideration. View distance of the final product is also important as mentioned by others.</p>

<p>I got rid of my DELL U2410 because of the Pink tint on one side and green tint on the other side. Dell sent me a replacement with same problem Good monitor but not consitent luminosity throughout the screen. </p>

<p>If you have an NEC PA241W, please do a quick test for me and let me know your findings.<br>

- Change mode to HIGH BRIGHT .<br>

- Open a Windows explorer window or any other bright white window, and leave it on screen without moving for 5min. nothing covering and make sure Screen saver does not activate.<br>

- Then minimize or close it, and tell me if you see "image permanence" that last for a few seconds or more.<br>

I have received two replacements from B&H and one directly from NEC, same thing on each monitor. I have used different computers with different video cards and always same behavior. It is not critical as it goes away but just annoyes me. I am closer to conclude that this is normal in this type of monitor.<br>

Please keep in mind that this behavior is almost not noticeable in any other mode but HIGH BRIGHT.<br>

Thanks for any clarifications.</p>

<p>Nikon dropped support and discontinued the production of film scanners. You would have to find another brand and third party support. There are good alternatives out there that I cannot speak about , but I find Nikon quality unrivaled. Another loss for film shooters... </p>

<p>Does it actually save ink printing at 1440dpi instead of super photo ?<br>

I print 8x10 and 13x19 ? I am guessing 8x10 wont see a difference but will 13x19 benefit from superphoto settings ?</p>

 

<p>For those that have downloaded and installed the Epson Premium ICC profiles for R2880.<br>

I ended up with the two profiles for Glossy and would like to know the difference between them;<br>

- R2880 PrmGlsy Photo.icc<br>

- R2880 PrmGlsy SprPhoto.icc<br>

Same applies for Luster and SemiGloss paper profiles, they all have an additional "Spr" profile for each type of paper</p>

<p>What is the difference ?</p>

<p>What is EXIF ? and how do I use ?</p>

<p>Phtoshop CS4 has a Blur Texture under the Blur filters section. It does very good job removing texture , however it comes at a high price. overall softness.... <br>

When texture is bad , we have to learn to compromise. I just had a small job of a picture from 1943, the paper texture is about the most annoying I've seen , it showed as little perfect squres of high contrast all over the picture, even worse, over people's skin. I had to settle on the softness and then high pass sharpness. I did not like the results. </p>

 

<p>Stella,<br>

What looks better is a subjective matter, I print in Exhibition Fiber paper and I love it, somebody else may not like it. Try different type of papers (Epson has a sample pack with different type of papers), I just went through one pack and my two favorite choices were Exhibition and Hot Press Natural. <br>

Additonally, when printing you have two choices, you can let the printer driver to the color management or you can do the color management in your application ( I use Photoshop). the results again are subjective. You must try and pick your own favorite.<br>

Regards,</p>

<p>Stella,<br>

What looks better is a subjective matter, I print in Exhibition Fiber paper and I love it, somebody else may not like it. Try different type of papers (Epson has a sample pack with different type of papers), I just went through one pack and my two favorite choices were Exhibition and Hot Press Natural. <br>

When printing you have two choices, you can let the printer driver to the color management or you can do the color management in your application ( I use Photoshop). the results again are subjective. You must try and pick your own favorite.<br>

Regards,</p>

<p>Hi Michael, thank you. but see that is exactly what I am trying to avoid; going into pure 255 White. Because I dont want to blow the whites, that's why texture is important. I don't want the subject to look like it is floating in space. The white has to be detectable but seemless. Paper or Vinyl seem to be the right choice here. Unless anybody has any other ideas.<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>Tom,<br>

Thank you. This sounds like what it actually has to happen. you made it clear in my head that the face does not have the same hue/saturation and even tonality across the entire face. That's key to solve the problem now that I think about it. I think this will require a lot of patience but I may post the results once tried.<br>

thanks again.</p>

<p>I tried these two :<br>

1- Color Solid Layer with color mode and then played with layer opacity.<br>

2.-Painted with Brush in color mode (played with brush opacity) . I dont remember if I tried soft light . <br>

3.- I gaussian blured the color on the above layer to create more transitions.</p>

<p>none of them made it realistic. it looks cartonish.</p>

 

<p>I posted a similar question about skin color, this one is about paper texture. I have a few 1943 photos from my grand-father I want to scan and colorize. However, a very textured paper was used that shows up as little squares on the digital image. They are all over the place, but most importantly on his face. very contrasty squares.<br>

Any techniques and recommendations to minimize or eliminate the paper texture on the scan. ?<br>

Here are a few things I already tried without much success due to extreme visible contrasty texture.<br>

- scanned selecting descreening on the advanced settings of my Epson Scanner.<br>

- Blow up to 400% , then reduce the image down to 25%, it made the squares litle but they are still there.<br>

- Gaussian Blur painting over another layer, it softens the skin beyond a realistic look of an italian soldier from 1943... they didnt have soft skin... LOL</p>

<p>thanks in advance,</p>

<p>I have a few 1943 photos from my grand-father I want to scan and colorize. I pretty much have everything down except one important item: coloring the skin of his face. I color-picked what it seems the right skin tone from another picture , but when colorizing the skin , it inevitable looks artificial and unrealistic. There is no "substance" in the transitions... Everything else grabs color fine but skin is usually more of a challenge.<br>

Any techniques recommended to make it look more real ?<br>

thanks</p>

<p>Can the experts out there give me any recommendations for a perfect white background for portraits. ?<br>

I personally like the seemless white where you can actually tell the subject (person) is laying on something white and you can see the seemless transition up the back-ground , however still shows as bright white and not an overexposed background, I know some photographers choose to blow up the background with more power. <br>

Thanks for any insight and background materials / product recommendations ?</p>

 

<p>There is a lot to say about this subject, and you won't get a straight simple answer. Start here (link below) so you can begin to understand the complexities. I know you are asking for printer, but calibration is a work-flow that starts with the camera capture , and most importantly the monitor , lastly the Printer. Many elements in between.<br>

<a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/calibrating.htm">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/calibrating.htm</a><br>

good luck.</p>

<p>Beside the grain/noise advise above, Your challenges may also probably lie in contrast, brightness, luminosity, saturation, sharpness. These are all features of digital imaging that make a digital image pop above a film equivalent. Reducing this qualities may help you achieve your objective. If your images are in RAW , you will have many possibilities to play with. Sky and white clouds is one thing that comes to my mind when you mention "plastic look" , play with Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks to bring features down to more of your desired look. Usually an overexposed sky will give you that "piece of plastic" looking shape. hopefully recovery can help you there.<br>

regards,</p>

 

<p>Beside the grain/noise advise above, Your challenges may also probably lie in contrast, brightness, luminosity, saturation, sharpness. These are all features of digital imaging that make a digital image pop above a film equivalent. Reducing this qualities may help you achieve your objective. If your images are in RAW , you will have many possibilities to play with. Sky and white clouds is one thing that comes to my mind when you mention "plastic look" , play with Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks to bring features down to more of your desired look. Usually an overexposed sky will give you that "piece of plastic" looking shape. hopefully recovery can help you there.<br>

regards,</p>

 

<p>I have had both , DELL U2410 Ultrasharp and the NEC spectraview PA24W1.<br>

I have to say if you can afford it , go with the NEC. Price has dropped to $799 for 24". Its a real professional monitor for photographers. The non-glossy screen favors a photo-editor that needs to match prints to monitor view. Yes the Apple Glossy monitors make pictures look fantastic, but not sure if it is an issue when you need to match to paper color. (I assume it may be more difficult).<br>

The Dell is a multifuction monitor as it has several modes for Fast Video modes for HDTV, gaming etc. if you like the deep technical details and like to see reviews and comparissons I recommend to visit <a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/</a> They have reviewed both monitors I mentioned here and many more. Just search for the model you like to check.<br>

In fact I am selling my Dell Ultrasharp U2410 in favor of the NEC. I wonder if I can post it here for sell if anybody is interested.<br>

Regards,</p>

<p> </p>