Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 on: November 22, 2014, 12:22:58 PM 
Started by JRSmit - Last post by Robert Ardill

What X-rite did was provide a method of visually 'tweaking' a profile based on viewing output under the conditions where the final print will be viewed and comparing it with their targets of gray patches with numbers one inserts into the software for dog knows what compensation. Then you visually compare the two. I think, like the idea of a good profile editor (where you work visually, not numerically where sometimes we do get into trouble with visual mismatches), makes sense. This is kind of what's happening here.You have to view the X-rite supplied target and what you print from the profiles side by side, on-site where you wish to view the prints for that compensation just to enter a value into their software.

Do you think that the XRite visual approach is better than the dual-scan approach?  I would have thought that with dual-scan the profiling software can see exactly what the fluorescent effect is on all of the colors in the target.  Since the software knows the UV content in the instrument's light, and as we specify the target illuminant (or measure it), the software should then be able to extrapolate to the target illuminant fairly accurately.  For standard illuminants the UV content should be known, but I do have a question about how i1Profiler estimates the UV content of the illuminant from a measurement (since the i1Pro2 cannot 'see' the UV) ... any idea where we could get an answer?

In the end, it's a mess which causes more work but would all be avoided if you just cease using papers with high OBA's and control how the print is being viewed, something that isn't always possible.

Yes, totally.  The question is, how do we know how much OBA is in the paper?  Canson specifies that papers like the Platine have no OBAs, but for other papers like the Baryta there is no mention of OBAs so I assume that the paper will have some (but probably not much as the whiteness will mostly come from the coating).

I just built a customer a profile from HanaPhoto Luster 260, the paper white had a bStar of -9.13!

Nice blue paper Smiley.  But a b* of -10 may just show that the paper is blue; it may contain little or no OBAs.  Probably a better estimate would be to look at the tell-tale hump at the blue end of the spectrum (from reflected white).  Argyll's spotread is good for that.


 on: November 22, 2014, 12:22:30 PM 
Started by adam z - Last post by dwswager
Just one opinion here but the aversion to just a bit of center post to square the image in the frame of  that monster tripod you bought can't be much. Even your 1Dx (love that camera, just don't want to lug it or I'd buy it) with your most massive lens is less than 10lbs from what you say

There is "kill" and "overkill"

BTW; how do you like the locking apex?

I'll speak to the Kill vs OverKill.  I went OverKill on the 34L for 2 reasons.  First, I shoot very long exposures and RRS put me in touch with one of the guys that actually does this and we discussed it thoroughly.  Also, the price was not much more than the 24L.  And finally compared to size (without offset legs) and weight of the Gitzo I was looking at, it still is smaller and lighter.   The image below is the Gitzo 5 series (everything from 3 up has a 90mm apex I believe) and the RRS 3 series.  Not quite comparable, but close.

The entire review is here (with multiple photos):

Not sure what you are asking about with respect to the apex.  There are 3 set screws that hold the apex into assembly.  The apex is one single piece of machined metal.

 on: November 22, 2014, 12:17:20 PM 
Started by dseelig - Last post by Colorwave
What was changed that degraded the black and white performance of the 3200?

 on: November 22, 2014, 12:16:38 PM 
Started by buckshot - Last post by KLaban
Erik still has not reached 8000 posts while you are well over that mark. Just sayin' But its close enough. Not much difference between you two in regards to posting frequency.

Hey, don't knock it, it's the photographic equivalent of the Eric and Ernie Show.

 on: November 22, 2014, 12:14:38 PM 
Started by dwswager - Last post by dwswager
This image falls into the 'predictable' action category.  Once you understand the game, and your equipment, it should become relatively routine to execute this image.  I don't know or shoot cricket, but I do baseball and softball and the classic image of the ball compressed on the bat with the bat flexed at the handle (I shoot non professional sports so they are all aluminum or composite bats) is what you're usually after.  With a single frame, I can get the ball within inches of the bat on either side of the 'hit' and regularly get the ball on the bat by watching the batters hands.  A faster frame rate, unless it is just blazing doesn't help in this situation because the ball travels too quickly to assume you will get the magic moment in a random frame.  It does make it less stressful as you will likely get a usable image.  And I'm usually shooting at 1/500th-1/800th because the D300 I was shooting had bad high ISO performance.  Took me awhile to let the ISO rise now that I shoot the D7100 with better ISO performance.  I have also not had the opportunity to exercise the D810 in 5fps (FX)/6fps (DX) in sports yet.  Might actually be willing to shoot at ISO 800-1600.  Whoo Hoo!

But with Dslr shutter lag that is greater than those of film cameras without AF or AE, getting the perfect moment of impact is really the fortuitous/serendipitous shot above.

...much less likely is this....if you know cricket, you know that the ball is bounced before the batter...and I squeezed the shutter AT THE BOUNCE...

 on: November 22, 2014, 12:09:31 PM 
Started by Mike Sellers - Last post by Landscapes
Mark, did you actually click on the second link you posted? It takes you to a LL page. Apparently it is a dead link.

Funny how that worked... but since the webpage is show in the link, its easy to see what he intended... here it is:

 on: November 22, 2014, 12:04:48 PM 
Started by dseelig - Last post by chez
HP Z 3100 versus HP Z 3200 I have a chance to get a used z 3200 for a grand I have been told mine is better in black and white and the new one is better in color. Both printers have ink that is considered old by HP 2012 inks are the hp z3200 thoughts . Mine has been used lightly but so has the 3200 . Mine has not had or needed a belt replacement

B&W on the Z3100 is fabulous. The richness of the prints are only matched to my 3880 converted Piezography printer. If you are going to be doing a lot of B&W printing, I'd keep the 3100 around.

 on: November 22, 2014, 11:58:31 AM 
Started by ErikKaffehr - Last post by dwswager
Snow Ghosts!  Making me long to go back to Whitefish, Montana and ski Big Mountain!

With respect to the image, that is another example why I vote more DR and lower shadow noise.  As an ameatuer, I don't get to make images as frequently as I would like.  And so, I make more mistakes, especially when I encounter situations I don't shoot often.  If a camera has 2 stops more DR and can save me from myself, I consider myself grateful!

Here is an example of needing more DR. The camera was already set for snow shots at I'm guessing +1.5ev. I had < a second to see, frame, capture, as the couple of birds came to be fed. There was no time for multi-frame capture of the same scene.

To be able to capture the low sun on the water, unblown, while capturing the snow near white, I would probably need several more stops beyond what cameras currently provide.

 on: November 22, 2014, 11:56:52 AM 
Started by jerome_m - Last post by ErikKaffehr
Hi Jerome,

You can compare cameras using same generation Kodak sensors, like the Leica M9, the Leica S and the P45+.

Scores are 69, 76 and 77 larger wins. So the size differences are accounted for. Doubling sensor size gives about 10 points I guess.

Best regards

That is true, mostly.

Up to a point, yes. But I said in my first message that the DXO tests "will show indirect differences (e.g. lower noise coming using larger sensels).".  Actually, they have to. There is no other way, unless one breaks the laws of physics.

But the tests do not show other effects. Therefore your last sentence should actually read: "The upshot of this is that the tests are designed to minimise the effects of the size of the sensor to the lowest point made possible by the laws of physics."

Anyway, I do not think that discussion is leading us anywhere. I was simply pointing out that DXO, whatever they are testing, do not tell the full story. Can we just simply agree that 2 camera-lens combination with the same DXO score may give very different results in practice?

 on: November 22, 2014, 11:55:36 AM 
Started by BobDavid - Last post by BobDavid
Great lights! Interested?

Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]