jonathan_mcgraw

Thank you n-j I'm familiar w/ oxymoron. Although it fits as an answer to my question, it would not have stuck in my head as a question. I really liked the term & would like to have it back in my eroding brain, Jonathan

Hi All Some years ago I read a term used in a photo forum site. I think it was Photo.net. I liked the term very much, but I can't remember it. It was from the field of aviation & it meant for two functions to be mutually exclusive. It was, IIRC, more succinct than the words “mutually exclusive”. If someone knows the word I'm looking for, I would be very appreciative, Jonathan

John I'm curious, are entire rolls underexposed or is it individual frames or part of individual frames? Also what is the reason(s) for using a yellow filter? It's one more variable going into the total exposure. You do realize that if you shoot an object (person, statue) in an empty field & expose correctly for the object, that most of the rest of the negative is going to clear or almost clear. Regards, Jonathan

Test original post jonathan_mcgraw How could I have missed that? I guess that I've started looking after I've opened the page. Thank you so much, Jonathan

Hi John When you say “ black and white filter” exactly what do you mean? Is it a green filter which can cause people to have a tanner appearance. Filter factor determination is far from an exact science. I have 2 or 3 flash meters & I've found that they can vary from one to another. Are entire frames underexposed or are just parts? Are entire rolls underexposed, or just some frames? I have a small diffuser that doesn't always stay properly aligned. Also it's easy to bump the “F” stop ring. If this post & the above haven't answered your question, then please post all of your variables. My guess for the most likely cause is lack of recycle time as tom_halfhill said. Now I have a question that I haven't been able to find the answer: How do I make an original post on Photo.net? I have been able to in the past, but I've forgotten or something. I would really appreciate an answer, Jonathan

I was not sure, but thinking the same thing.

I do not have a GPS device for my DSLRs, & if I did, I would not want it continuously attached. However I would like to have that info. in my metadata. If I had one attached @ the beginning of a session, disconnected it during the shoot, & reconnected it @ the end, is there a way to transfer the GPS data to the interm exposures? Or a slight change to this situation,. Say it was attached during the entire shoot from entering a GPS signal 'proof' structure to exit, would this data be transferable to the interm shots?

That's not Herbert Keppler (RIP), the Pop or Modern Photo columnist in '83, is it? If it is how we age!

I have all 77mm B+W filters w/ step-up rings from 40.5mm to 77 (of course) & 77 to 52mm step-downs. I use the step-downs over the filter to allow the use of a lens shade. For wide angle lenses I use a larger diameter step-down than the taking lens minimum step-down to avoid vignetting. A step-down by it's self will help if I don't have a shade of the needed diameter. The step-up/downs are all Aluminum. I rub a little facial oil on the threads prior to installing. It truly makes the threading smoother. It's an old film printers trick to minimize scratches on negatives. I also carry filter wrenches. Somehow the “ larger diameter step-down than the taking lens minimum strep-down to avoid vignetting” sentence doesn't make sense, but it's too late for me to decipher. I think you'll figure out what I'm trying to say. The concept is valid, the words just aren't.

Thank you Jeff I've down loaded FastStone Image Viewer 7.3

Is EXIF data available on PN's photos? If so, could a member direct me to the answer? I' not asking for the answer to be written by a responder, just where to find it. [/url] Thanks Jonathan

Thank you Nick I didn't realize that this thread was still going on. I haven't checked it for a couple of weeks. A question, is it enough to shoot a Passport sized gray or white card to do accurate calibration? Are the Passport sized color squares too small to read on a computer screen. And if they are too small, I see a real problem w/ carrying an 8 X 10 target. Thanks again

My sentiments too. I just ordered “The Missing Manual Lightroom” Jonathan

What happened to Ed's post? I need to find how to correctly reply to a post in this forum. Another thing to study/ learn :-\ So "Melissa," has a larger color gamut than aRGB or sRGB. No? Yes, that is correct. “The key to this is that the camera setting you use--sRGB or Adobe RGB--simply has no effect on the raw file at all. The setting is there only for shooting JPEG. Think of it as a number line. Say, just for illustration, that the raw file read into Lightroom contains colors 1-100 in the big color space Melissa. If you convert that to Adobe RGB, you might loose 30 of those 100 colors. if you convert to sRGB, you might lose another 20. (These are just for illustration--I haven't looked up the actual size of these three color spaces.” -I understand that the numbers you listed are an example only. So is it fair to say that Nikons' listing of 2 RAW types is marketing dept hype?-Jon “if you edit in Lightroom and print directly from Lightroom, you never have to convert to JPEG at all, which means that you don't need to convert to the smaller color space. You will lose some colors that the printer can't manage--which will show up as "out of gamut" when you soft proof in Lightroom.” -I've suspected for quite some time, that JPEG is similar to reversal film & RAW is comparable to negative printing only much more versatile than the wet darkroom-Jon “On the other hand, if you want to post online, then you do need to convert to JPEG, and you need to pick one of the smaller color spaces. Since the large majority of computer monitors are at best sRGB-compliant, most of us produce sRGB JPEGs to post online.' -OK, I've wondered about this. I understand now-Jon

OK Ed. I'm making notes from this thread. This has been added-Jon

Nick Thank you, I've printed this out-Jonathan

Thank you, Joe “…..about the colour space if it causes printing issues.” How would this type issue manifest it's self ?

Jonathan, “The responses above include a lot of what you need to know, but given that you are new to this, I will wager that you find this discussion more confusing than helpful. So, let me try to pare things down, at the risk of repeating in a different form a few things already mentioned.” Hi there paddler4 I realized when I read the above posts, that I got ISO & ICC confused. I have tried to res;pond to many of the above posts, but I can only get this one to reply to. Thank you, for your points below, Jonathan “1. If you want to preserve as much color detail and editing flexibility as possible, shoot in raw. That will give you a wider gamut (a wider range of colors) than either Adobe RGB or sRGB.” I shoot nikon RAW aRGB-Jon “2. Good printers (and in terms of gamut, the Pro 100 is a very good printer) can print colors that are outside of the sRBG gamut and some that are outside of Adobe RGB.” Sounds good-Jon “3. If you take JPEGs, then the colors outside of whichever gamut you pick are simply gone. If you shoot raw, it makes absolutely no difference whether you set the camera to Adobe RGB or sRGB.The data outside those gamuts is still present, and Lightroom will ignore the setting you choose.” I'm going to have to Google this. It doesn't make sense. (Although when I was a adolescent & teenager learning photography I was sometimes able to learn something as just a fact w/o understanding the why, but I've usually done better when I understand something on a conceptual level)-Jon 4. Lightroom's internal working color space is "Melissa," a variant of the Prophoto color space, which is larger than the other two. Unfortunately, if you shoot JPEG, this doesn't help you much, other than giving you a little more flexibility in editing. If you shoot raw, it preserves more of the color data. So "Melissa," has a larger color gamut than aRGB or sRGB. No? -Jon “5. If you want your display to look similar to the final print, you have to calibrate the monitor.” OK-Jon 6. The gamut produced by the printer is a function not only of the printer, but also of the paper you use. That's what you need ICC profiles for. All of the major paper vendors I have used provide ICC profiles for the Pro 100. they also provide instructions about the paper setting you should use.” This makes sense-Jon 7. LR allows you to soft proof, that is, to see approximately what a print will look like with that printer and a given paper, if you have loaded the ICC into Windows. I don't think it is terribly accurate, but it can help. - Soft proof I've wonder what that meant. Not terribly accurate. OK -Jon 8. If you are printing in color from Lightroom, you have to tell the software that it should control color, not the printer. This requires two steps with your printer. First, in the lightroom print module, down at the lower right, you will see "color Management." The first entry in that box is "profile". Change this from "managed by printer" top the profile for your paper. (Note: when you load the ICC into windows, it will show up here, but you have to check a tick box to tell LR to consider this an active profile.)-OK-Jon Then, when you to to the page setup (left bottom) or print (right bottom) dialog, go to properties. This is where you set the paper type, the paper size, etc. Go to the second tab and you will find a section labeled "color matching". Set this to "none." This tells the printers firmware that it is not supposed to manage color. -I think I will be able to do this, although so often w/ software it doesn't show up on my screen the same as in an example-Jon It's worth the time getting familiar with all of this. That printer is capable of stunning results. Since it uses dye-based inks, the prints aren't archival, but they are very good. I have printed quite a bit with one of them, and the results are very hard to distinguish from the prints I produce with a $1300 printer. Paddler, I've learned more about Digital processing from this post that I have from all my past futile studying. Thank you so much

Thank you Nick Well there ya go-I am ignorant like I said. Actually that question crossed my mind after I posted.

I've been reading about printing w/ a Canon Pixma Pro100 printer, (which I have) and & Lightroom (which I have). I have a Nikon D7000 several good AiS, Ds &1 E lenses (& I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a D810 or D850. Can't decide if the 850 is worth a $1K more. And also to buy an X-Rite color calibration system) Of course as you know, Nikons shoots in sRGB or aRGB. From what I've read, I chose to shoot in aRGB & use Lightroom because it seems to me to be the closest to printing w/ Type C. (Which I was very good at) Everything I have read about X-Rite & color paper profiles says that they are calibrated in ISO profiles. I have a fairly new Windows 10 unit w/ fast main chip, a powerful video card, & oodles of memory, so the added size of aRGB is not a problem. My understanding is that ISO profiles are not compatible w/ aRGB. Is my shooting w/ aRGB in vain? I have a great deal of ignorance about digital shooting, although I was a skilled Film photographer both B&W & Type C all the way to final print. I know no one can clear up all my ignorance by posting in this thread alone. I have several Scott Kelby books, but when I read them so many of the terms make no sense. I feel like I'm lost in a maze. So I'm asking to point me in a direction. Please help me. Where to start & a path to follow, although I am asking for a direct answer about my concern about AdobeRGB & ISO profiles. Thank you very much, Jonathan

Thanks. For once I made it back to respond.

“I don't get it, when people post a question, then disappear. The OP was last seen on Feb 4.” Well Gary, I understand your opinion. I do that, & I hate it, but @ 77yrs my short term memory sucks & has for years. I know there's a way to find my posts, but I often forget to do that too. My apologies. BTW. which city(s) in the Bay Area do you live / work in? I lived off & on in the Bay Area from 1966 to 2016. The last 11 yrs in Santa Rosa. I loved it from the 1st day in Feb. '66 to the last day. (If you don't want to divulge this information, I certainly understand.)

This proves the moon is blue:-) Beautiful! The exposure /or post appears to be perfect, how did U expose it? My guess is a spot reading in the transition area & then bracket. This last full moon I was shooting the full moon w/ earthbound objects in the foreground & fill flash. I was surprised @ the brightness of the moon. It's difficult to expose for both despite using the spot meter. The moon kept ending up a blinkkie. Also keeping both in focus.

Bug jog? --Caught my curiosity, could you please elaborate?