Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
 11 
 on: Today at 10:07:37 AM 
Started by KevinGSaunders - Last post by KevinGSaunders
Bump

 12 
 on: Today at 10:06:56 AM 
Started by KevinGSaunders - Last post by KevinGSaunders
Bump

 13 
 on: Today at 10:06:19 AM 
Started by KevinGSaunders - Last post by KevinGSaunders
Bump

 14 
 on: Today at 10:05:47 AM 
Started by KevinGSaunders - Last post by KevinGSaunders
Bump. The camera body has two people interested, but nobody has sent $$.

 15 
 on: Today at 10:05:06 AM 
Started by KevinGSaunders - Last post by KevinGSaunders
Bump

 16 
 on: Today at 10:04:41 AM 
Started by KevinGSaunders - Last post by KevinGSaunders
Bump

 17 
 on: Today at 10:04:34 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by Royce Howland
A couple of years ago, Canon had a promotion for their printers, where they offered a free 8x10 if you send them a file. They said you can send them sRGB or aRGB. Knowing, at the time, that "sRGB is good for web, aRGB better for inkjets," I sent them aRGB. See what I got back:

The fact that somebody downstream from me might make a mistake with my files because they don't know what they're doing, is not an argument for me to throw away my own goals for rich, accurate colour. It's an argument for me to find better service providers to work with.

Others have suggested what Gary Fong should have said was something like "if you don't know what you're doing, use sRGB". But one reply above got it more correct -- "if you don't know what you're doing and nobody else who works with your images knows what they're doing either, you should all use sRGB". My variation on this might be something like "if you don't know what you're doing, use Adobe RGB and find service providers who do know what they're doing". This is what I teach my students, and it works great. Plus at any time they have questions, I can do like Gary Fong suggests and show the evidence why it works, based on real-world examples.

I've known enough about the purpose of capturing good colour at source, vs. dealing with lower fidelity output devices downstream, that from the very beginning of my digital photography I've never seen the rationale for capturing sRGB. That would be like a recording studio saying "we know at some point that low bit-rate budget CD's of this music will be produced, and probably some people will record live performances on something and make really low quality mix tapes available. So let's just trash our high fidelity studio masters and go straight to cassette tape for all our production work." Or the video equivalent.

It's a disservice to provide confusing, misleading and incorrect information to viewers under the otherwise perfectly fine goal of helping them understand how and when to worry about certain technical matters like colour spaces.

Unfortunately, these discussion threads have become very muddled and argumentative, and the likelihood of anything positive happening now seems extremely low. The uninformed viewers are the ones who will lose out because they'll form a poor understanding of getting good colour, and how to make good future decisions about good colour when it matters more to them than it perhaps does now...

 18 
 on: Today at 10:04:21 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by digitaldog
While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says.
There is, no question. That's not the topic or issue. He completely got the facts of color spaces wrong and hugely diluted that message in the process.
If two wrongs don't make a right, does half a dozen wrongs and one right make a good video? Is that fair to the audience? If other peers point out the wrongs and the presenter absolutely refuses to fix the mistakes and worse, argues and belittles those who are hoping to clarify the presenters understanding, is that OK because the diluted message has a bit of merit? I don't think so Alan.

 19 
 on: Today at 10:02:48 AM 
Started by digitaldog - Last post by Eyeball
While I do agree with others that there are a number of misstatements in the video I also find that there is a kernel of truth to what Mr. Fong says.  For users whose sole goal is to post pictures on the Internet the Ron Popeil approach should be adopted, "set your camera to sRGB and forget it."  These users shoot JPGs and probably have no clue at all that their camera has a RAW setting.  LuLa participants represent probably less than 0.0001% of the photographic public and I would disagree that we are not elitists.  Many go beyond just the mainstream programs and use a variety of plugins and experiment with other software to get optimal results from the images we capture.  We can all chuckle at the errors in the presentation but at the end of the day, the Internet will reign supreme in terms of allowing anyone the freedom to make a fool of him/herself.

Alan, I just recommend that you don't fall for Gary's strawman.  Few, if any, critics of that video are arguing against a recommendation of sRGB for beginners or people who aren't interested in color management.  If Gary had just stopped with that there would be no controversy here at all.  The problem is that he goes on for another 5 minutes with unnecessary, misleading, and incorrect explanations that are only going to confuse people.  It's not even necessary if, as he says, he is going for a "keep it simple" explanation.

Also be sensitive to his false dichotomy where he presents the situation as "his simplified explanation" vs. "a mind-numbing complex one".  This again, is not the issue.  The issue is that he is giving a "simple but incorrect" explanation when there are any number of ways to explain just as simply but also correctly.

All of these little tricks (strawmen, false dichotomies, mis-representation of what others have wrote, etc.) are the classic signs of a troll.

 20 
 on: Today at 09:56:47 AM 
Started by Rhossydd - Last post by FranciscoDisilvestro
You point out really important issues, since most discussions in this and other forum seem to address the own personal views of the photographer but do not address when somebody else needs to search in your archive. The topic about death/incapacity is a whole complex issue and I'll just give my opinion later.

There is a standard from the International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC), which is widely used in the news and media industry, used also by LR, PS and most photo editing tools (here the latest IPTC revision from July 2014). Basically all searches in news agencies and news/media organizations are based on the information in the IPTC. Based on my own experience of working in the newspaper industry for a long time (IT, including the editorial / photo archive) it was a continuous strugle to have the photographers include the information in the proper fields. In that scenario, photographers have several assignments daily and after a few weeks they would not even remember the who, when and where of the photos if they did not documented properly on time, unless they were of somebody famous or a big event.
 
Another consideration is that the usual practice is that the person who search for a photo is not the photographer but an editor or journalist, so without a standard it would be almost impossible to find anything.

Regarding the topic of death / incapacity, I guess nobody want to think about it, but we should. The first thing I would think about is what would I like to happen with my photos? Do I want to leave them as a legacy to my family or others? or do I just want to have them destroyed and good bye? If the answer is to leave them as your legacy, well, make sure somebody is familiar with your archive, how to access it and how it is organised. Document it if possible, at least the basic things.

A special note for those who have digital assets in the cloud: It is very difficult, if not impossible, to get access to the account of a deceased person in most cloud services. It is more difficult than getting access to the bank accounts, so make sure you have a way to handle this, either by sharing your assets, having a joint account or having the account in the name of an organisation (trust, company, etc.) and not a personal one.

Regards,

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad