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

Thank you very much for all these informative answers. After considering all these factors, I assume it must be a combination of a not fully charged flash as well as problems with the film processing. Or just one of these two.

 

Some additional info: I use a simple yellow filter and a Minolta IVF lightmeter.

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

MAIN PAGE of each Forum at the Top Right there is a Banner Link [+ Post New Thread]

 

Click on this [LINK] to open the MAIN PAGE of this "Beginner Questions Forum" as an example.

 

WW

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

as I recall, some of the focusing screens available for the old F did result in TTL metering errors,

I was not sure, but thinking the same thing.

A picture of it would be nice, and might lead to an answer. :)

 

Here's Spiratone vest from 1983. but nothing like what you describe

[ATTACH=full]1304793[/ATTACH]

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

With such a dense filter, it is extremely important to avoid light leaks between the filter and lens. Screw-in filters are best, but the most expensive option if you need different sizes for several lenses. Step-up adapters will let you use a large screw-in filter on smaller lenses, but generally preclude use of a lens hood. Rectangular filter holders do a poor job of this because easy access to the filters results in poor light sealing. A video-type matte box is better, since the filter holders fit closely. You have devices for sealing the lens to the adapter (affectionately known as "Nun's Nickers"), and the advantage of using one set of filters for all lenses.

 

A 3"x 3" matte box is sufficient for most DSLR/MILC lenses, but 4"x 4" or larger is needed for video lenses with a 95-105mm filter ring. Even a small matte box is much larger than a conventional hood or Cokin-type adapter. They are also fairly shallow, but come with "French Flags" for shielding the filter from stray light - also important for good contrast with long exposures. You'll be using a tripod anyway, so size and weight is of little importance.

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.

With such a dense filter, it is extremely important to avoid light leaks between the filter and lens. Screw-in filters are best, but the most expensive option if you need different sizes for several lenses. Step-up adapters will let you use a large screw-in filter on smaller lenses, but generally preclude use of a lens hood. Rectangular filter holders do a poor job of this because easy access to the filters results in poor light sealing. A video-type matte box is better, since the filter holders fit closely. You have devices for sealing the lens to the adapter (affectionately known as "Nun's Nickers"), and the advantage of using one set of filters for all lenses.

 

A 3"x 3" matte box is sufficient for most DSLR/MILC lenses, but 4"x 4" or larger is needed for video lenses with a 95-105mm filter ring. Even a small matte box is much larger than a conventional hood or Cokin-type adapter. They are also fairly shallow, but come with "French Flags" for shielding the filter from stray light - also important for good contrast with long exposures. You'll be using a tripod anyway, so size and weight is of little importance.

With such a dense filter, it is extremely important to avoid light leaks between the filter and lens. Screw-in filters are best, but the most expensive option if you need different sizes for several lenses. Step-up adapters will let you use a large screw-in filter on smaller lenses, but generally preclude use of a lens hood. Rectangular filter holders do a poor job of this because easy access to the filters results in poor light sealing. A video-type matte box is better, since the filter holders fit closely. You have devices for sealing the lens to the adapter (affectionately known as "Nun's Nickers"), and the advantage of using one set of filters for all lenses.

 

A 3"x 3" matte box is sufficient for most DSLR/MILC lenses, but 4"x 4" or larger is needed for video lenses with a 95-105mm filter ring. Even a small matte box is much larger than a conventional hood or Cokin-type adapter. They are also fairly shallow, but come with "French Flags" for shielding the filter from stray light - also important for good contrast with long exposures. You'll be using a tripod anyway, so size and weight is of little importance.

It depends whether the original photo had it's EXIF data removed before uploading to PN. Most people do not remove the data so that others can examine the exposure details etc. To view the EXIF data there are a number of viewing programs that can easily display this information. I use the excelent free program called FASTSTONE. Once set up this program displays the data when the curser is moved over to the far right of the screen when viewing the image.

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

What a lively discussion:) Colour management always been big can of worms.

To OP, all purpose of the Colour management system is to make print to match the screen, short is WYSIWYG or to make image look the same on different displays.

To make it work, for starters you need good quality monitor , monitor calibration device with software, and colour profiles for your printer/paper combination.

Depend on your needs pick one that fit into your budget , no miracles here, as usual, you got what you pay for.

After that, some tweaking in Lightroom and printer driver will get you in the ballpark.

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

Sometimes the on-line and Youtube sources are a little "hard" to use, in my experience.

 

I just like to get out my reading glasses and use a printed (gasp!) book with a decent index.

 

My use of Photoshop goes back to version 2.5, and everytime I've upgraded, I buy another copy of the Missing Manual Photoshop book. Good learning and even better reference when you've forgot some arcane spell for making the program work

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

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

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 :-\

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

B

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

It is ICC profiles, not ISO.

Try this link Overview of Color Management

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

RAW (NEF) files have a native colour space of their own, which is (hopefully) larger than either sRGB or AdobeRGB. They're converted to sRGB or AdobeRGB only when they're opened for display or processing. The profile chosen in camera is used by default, since it's attached to the RAW file as a tag. However RAW files can be rendered as either profile without loss, unlike JPEGs. So if you shoot in RAW, and there's no reason not too, the issue of which colour space to choose is entirely moot.

 

The advantage of AdobeRGB is probably exaggerated for most everyday scenes anyway. The major difference is that the green primary of ARGB is shifted and slightly more saturated. The red and blue primaries are the same for both spaces. AdobeRGB uses a true gamma of 2.2, whereas sRGB has a, frankly weird, linear region in the toe for purely mathematical reasons that make no practical sense. I'm not entirely convinced that NikonRGB rigidly follows the needless wobbly gamma set out in the sRGB standard.

 

Anyhow. In brief, if you shoot RAW you can always change your mind about the colour space if it causes printing issues.

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

It is ICC profiles, not ISO.

Try this link Overview of Color Management

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

“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.)