In a message dated 3/19/2005 7:12:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Use Adobe Gamma to get your screen close, then with it still open,
open a picture in photoshop and fine tune the screen until the image
in photoshop looks correct.
This may or may not agree with Adobe Gamma'
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hmmm, hold on, checking... nope. Although my mind is pretty color
calibrated,
it doesn't know specific RGB numbers. So guess that little trick
won't work
for me. ;-)
Oh, well. Thanks for expounding.
Use Adobe Gamma to get your screen clos
In a message dated 3/18/2005 11:38:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Therefore I can
perhaps say I do have a color calibrated mind instead of the computer. :-)
Cheers,
Bedo.
=
Hmmm, hold on, checking... nope. Although my mind is pretty color calibrated,
it doesn't
Marnie,
For me, Adobe Gamma works just fine.
FWIW it works fine for me too. In fact I will even do without any
calibration at all, but this if after some years of serious work in the
PS so I'm used to check numerical values of the colours using the
eyedropper tool.
Bedo.
=
Huh? (Ears p
In a message dated 3/17/2005 3:47:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William Robb wrote:
>>> I bought a spyder, and discovered it does just as good a job as Adobe
>>> Gamma for screen calibration.
> For me, Adobe Gamma works just fine.
FWIW it works fine for me too. In fact
William Robb wrote:
I bought a spyder, and discovered it does just as good a job as Adobe
Gamma for screen calibration.
For me, Adobe Gamma works just fine.
FWIW it works fine for me too. In fact I will even do without any
calibration at all, but this if after some years of serious work in the
P
Quite often they ship computers with the CD images on the harddrive instead of
providing the CD's themselves. If yours came that way it would be a good idea to
burn the images to CD incase of a problem in the future.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
In a message dated 3/13/2005 2:39:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most likely, but it should not have deleted the oridginal. Do you have the
disc
that came with your video card? I think AG actually adjusts the video card
settings, but who knows how. The advantage of my wa
Same suggestions I've received
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When I was looking for a hardware colorimeter, I talked with the
> graphics engineering folks at Apple and they suggested the
> Gretag-Macbeth Eye One Display unit over the Colorvisi
On 13 Mar 2005 at 15:48, Graywolf wrote:
> Most likely, but it should not have deleted the oridginal. Do you have the
> disc
> that came with your video card? I think AG actually adjusts the video card
> settings, but who knows how. The advantage of my way is that you know what was
> done.
Most
On 13 Mar 2005 at 16:13, William Robb wrote:
> I am sure you have a good colour sense, but I have spent 30 years of
> my life working in various levels of the lab industry, doing
> everything from the quick and dirty photofininishing that I do now to
> custom colour work for advertising.
> At
Most likely, but it should not have deleted the oridginal. Do you have the disc
that came with your video card? I think AG actually adjusts the video card
settings, but who knows how. The advantage of my way is that you know what was done.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==>
On 13 Mar 2005 at 12:47, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> When I was looking for a hardware colorimeter, I talked with the
> graphics engineering folks at Apple and they suggested the
> Gretag-Macbeth Eye One Display unit over the Colorvision Spyder. They
> felt the results from the latter were too va
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: PESO - NorCal First Pic
I bought a spyder, and discovered it does just as good a job as
Adobe
Gamma for screen calibration.
I have to ask did you plug it in and install the software? :-)
I did and the before and after
On 13 Mar 2005 at 8:27, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: PESO - NorCal First Pic
>
>
>
> > Okay, I'll try it with the Canon RAW convertor, but since my
> > monitor is not
> &g
Okay, I'll try it with the Canon RAW convertor, but since my monitor
is not
calibrated with a spyder, I doubt it will tell you much.
I bought a spyder, and discovered it does just as good a job as Adobe
Gamma for screen calibration.
Damning with faint praise indeed.
When I was looking for a hardw
In a message dated 3/13/2005 7:28:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HAR! But, Bill, it does a much better job deleting your bank account.
Adobe Gamma is about like plain ground glass. The more one fiddles with it
the
better your eye adjusts to the screen. Of course that is
In a message dated 3/13/2005 8:00:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I bought a spyder, and discovered it does just as good a job as Adobe
> Gamma for screen calibration.
>
> William Robb
If that is true, I certainly can save myself a lot of money.
Marnie :-)
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:27:35 -0600, William Robb wrote:
> I bought a spyder, and discovered it does just as good a job as
> Adobe Gamma for screen calibration.
That sounds like damning with faint praise.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Now that's damning with faint praise.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PESO - NorCal First Pic
Okay, I'll try it with the Canon RAW convertor, but since my monitor
is not
calibrated with a spyder, I doubt it will tell you m
HAR! But, Bill, it does a much better job deleting your bank account.
Adobe Gamma is about like plain ground glass. The more one fiddles with it the
better your eye adjusts to the screen. Of course that is just the opposite of
what one wants. If one stops at the first match, they are pretty close
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PESO - NorCal First Pic
Okay, I'll try it with the Canon RAW convertor, but since my
monitor is not
calibrated with a spyder, I doubt it will tell you much.
I bought a spyder, and discovered it does just as good a j
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Senior moment -- naturally I can't convert a Pentax RAW with a Canon RAW
convertor, don't know what I was thinking. Or not thinking. All I have is Elements
3 that could convert it, so that wouldn't tell you much since you have that
too.
I know what I was thinking
In a message dated 3/12/2005 12:18:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If anyone wants to play around with the image, I've put it at
>
> http://jfwaf.com/PDML/CALLIOPE.ZIP
Senior moment -- naturally I can't convert a Pentax RAW with a Canon RAW
convertor, don't
In a message dated 3/12/2005 12:18:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Wouldn't different calibration on different monitors affect the results .
. .
They'd better not - that's the whole point of calibration.
===
Ooops, standard conversion, with no playing around, okay,
In a message dated 3/12/2005 12:18:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Wouldn't different calibration on different monitors affect the results .
. .
They'd better not - that's the whole point of calibration.
===
Okay, I'll try it with the Canon RAW convertor, but since
On 12 Mar 2005 at 9:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Interested, but not sure what you hope to prove. Think I missed something.
> Wouldn't different calibration on different monitors affect the results and as
> well as preferences? Not getting it...
Monitor cal shouldn't cause any difference in a d
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 09:33:25AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 3/11/2005 10:52:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm talking about the colour you get from a default conversion,
> before playing around with any levels, etc.
>
> Don't forget I don't
In a message dated 3/11/2005 10:52:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm talking about the colour you get from a default conversion,
before playing around with any levels, etc.
Don't forget I don't have CS, only Elements 3.0, so I don't get
to play with the calibration tab in
Sounds like fun. Will do.
Paul
On Mar 12, 2005, at 1:51 AM, John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 06:07:41AM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I was a little confused by John's assertion below. In the PSCS Raw
Converter one need only go to "calibrate," and the red hue and
saturation can be control
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 06:07:41AM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I was a little confused by John's assertion below. In the PSCS Raw
> Converter one need only go to "calibrate," and the red hue and
> saturation can be controlled independently of the other colors before
> conversion. I can't thin
straight daylight is one of the easiest to get right settings, so that works
out. tricky lighting like you describe has no single correct setting.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 6:57 AM
Subject: R
ge files with the two programs and using
AWB with possible exposure compensation and no other adjustment.
making adjustments improves some things and makes others worse.
Herb
- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 11
other
adjustment. making adjustments improves some things and makes others worse.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: PESO - NorCal First Pic
I was a little confused by John'
I was a little confused by John's assertion below. In the PSCS Raw
Converter one need only go to "calibrate," and the red hue and
saturation can be controlled independently of the other colors before
conversion. I can't think of a single attribute that can't be dialed in
during conversion in PS
On 10 Mar 2005 at 21:47, Herb Chong wrote:
> i've shot Gretag Macbeth Color Checker and used IMATEST to measure color
> accuracy with default conversion settings. all of the shots i did were
> outdoors in sunlight with AWB. in all cases, the AWB conversion from
> Photoshop CS were significantly
atory
conversions. delta E values from CS were almost half of what Photo
Laboratory produced.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: PESO - NorCal First Pic
I've found that the
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:21:53PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> The skin's too red, the highlights are fried, the white shirt has a blue
> cast to it, the sky in the upper right is burnt out ... I'm sure a lot is
> in the miserable exposure I made, but I'd like to be able to get better
> results
Nice Portrait, you must have a really good camera...
(Ducking and running for cover).
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
This is the first photo I made using the istD. It was Bruce's camera,
and, at the time, I'd not received much instruction on its use. I attached
a handy lens (A 50mm/2.0), pointed the came
Finally found the url for the pic. I like it. The highlights are natural for
the situation. Full sun on white on a shot taken in the shade. However, you
could pull them down quite a bit in both the converter and with the
shadows/highlights tool. Pumping up the shadows would also reduce the
satu
Hi Shel,
Are you using the PSCS converter? If the exposure isn't totally out of the
ballpark, you can bring down the highlights by pulling back the exposure. Hold
down the option key while you do so. The out of range highlights will show up
as bright spots against black. Once you've pulled down
On 9 Mar 2005 at 16:21, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> The skin's too red, the highlights are fried, the white shirt has a blue
> cast to it, the sky in the upper right is burnt out ... I'm sure a lot is
> in the miserable exposure I made, but I'd like to be able to get better
> results using the PS RAW
In a message dated 3/9/2005 4:53:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buy, read and understand Bruce Fraser's "Real World Camera Raw". That
alone should do about two-thirds of what I see most PS courses
blundering about on.
Godfrey
--
Thanks.
Marnie :-)
On 9 Mar 2005 at 16:50, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> "Getting it right" ... This is a judgment call. Yes, you need to get
> the exposure right ... which for a digital camera means getting the
> dynamic range expressed within the sensor's linear gamma capture range.
> The in-camera RGB channel/JPEG
On Mar 9, 2005, at 4:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/9/2005 4:24:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The skin's too red, the highlights are fried, the white shirt has a
blue
cast to it, the sky in the upper right is burnt out ... I'm sure a lot
is
in the mi
I LIKE being able to change the WTB and exposure soo much, it
makes
RAW totally worth while.
Get it right at the taking stage ;-)
"Getting it right" ... This is a judgment call. Yes, you need to get
the exposure right ... which for a digital camera means getting the
dynamic range express
In a message dated 3/9/2005 4:24:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The skin's too red, the highlights are fried, the white shirt has a blue
cast to it, the sky in the upper right is burnt out ... I'm sure a lot is
in the miserable exposure I made, but I'd like to be able to ge
On 9/3/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>Pfuuutt
>
>Hope you can hear that all the way over the pond.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
The skin's too red, the highlights are fried, the white shirt has a blue
cast to it, the sky in the upper right is burnt out ... I'm sure a lot is
in the miserable exposure I made, but I'd like to be able to get better
results using the PS RAW converter. I've got a lot to learn, Rob.
Shel
> [Or
In a message dated 3/9/2005 4:20:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I LIKE being able to change the WTB and exposure soo much, it makes
>RAW totally worth while.
Get it right at the taking stage ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
==
Pfuuutt
Hope you can
On 9/3/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>I LIKE being able to change the WTB and exposure soo much, it makes
>RAW totally worth while.
Get it right at the taking stage ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cot
In a message dated 3/9/2005 4:04:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That RAW's a pain. Jpegs and Curves, that's all you need man. Faster too.
Cheers,
Cotty
=
Disagree. However, you can't "fix" everything with RAW conversion. You can
change the WTB, alter the expo
I use the Capture One LE version from Phase One www.phaseone.com.
It has lots more settings than the Pentax Lab. It also has a 15 day
trial you can download and try.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, March 9, 2005, 3:41:56 PM, you wrote:
SB> A portrait it ain't. It's so kind of you to use t
On 9 Mar 2005 at 15:56, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I don't think Bruce said quite that . The pic hoovers - the
> conversion from RAW is unsatisfactory and I don't quite know what I did
> wrong or what I can do to make it better. Just gotta continue fiddling
> with it I guess. Perhaps it's beyond s
On 9/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>It's really the RAW conversion that's got me stymied. I played with all
>the settings but couldn't get the look and feel I wanted, although I was so
>anxious to see the pics I began working before adjusting the room
>brightness. Anyway, no
On 9/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
>This is the first photo I made using the istD. It was Bruce's camera,
>and, at the time, I'd not received much instruction on its use. I attached
>a handy lens (A 50mm/2.0), pointed the camera at John, and, bada-bing,
>snapped the shutter.
I don't think Bruce said quite that . The pic hoovers - the
conversion from RAW is unsatisfactory and I don't quite know what I did
wrong or what I can do to make it better. Just gotta continue fiddling
with it I guess. Perhaps it's beyond saving. Maybe I should have bought
an M4
Shel
> [O
A portrait it ain't. It's so kind of you to use the word though, even in a
somewhat negative sense If you recall, I put the lens on the camera,
put the camera to my eye, and snapped. I'm not even sure I focused,
certainly had no idea what meter mode I was in. This may not even qualify
as a snap
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:29:17 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the first photo I made using the istD. It was Bruce's camera,
> and, at the time, I'd not received much instruction on its use. I attached
> a handy lens (A 50mm/2.0), pointed the camera at John, and, bada-bin
Hello Shel,
Glad the disks made it there in one piece. For a bada-bing type shot,
it's not bad. Not a great portrait, but as a snap to get used to the
camera operation, not bad. Seems like there is some work that can be
done on the raw image for exposure.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, M
This is the first photo I made using the istD. It was Bruce's camera,
and, at the time, I'd not received much instruction on its use. I attached
a handy lens (A 50mm/2.0), pointed the camera at John, and, bada-bing,
snapped the shutter. It was shot in RAW format, and, therefore, it's the
first
61 matches
Mail list logo
