Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D3, 1DsMKIII, D300  (Read 34539 times)
melgross
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #60 on: December 10, 2007, 01:07:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We need to watch the interesting discussions over the subject here, titled "RAW files are not RAW anymore?"

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=6829.0
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is precisely what I'm saying. A RAW file isn't always what people think it is. If fact, Nikon has a compressed RAW file format as well. It uses lossy compression, which eliminates some data from the right side of the curve. Supposedly, it doesn't result in visible loss, but that's Nikon talking. Since the right half of the curve contains half the data, the loss is likely little. But, if you overexposed, wouldn't you want every last bit for your converter, to allow as much recovery as possible?

I really don't think we can say what is happening to the RAW file these days.

That's one of the reasons why it's also difficult to know what Nikon did with the 12,800, and 25,600 files.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #61 on: December 10, 2007, 06:58:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Possibly true at some level, but "bogus" comes in different shades.  There isn't necessarily a visible difference in IQ between ISO 1600 pushed to 25,600 and actually having amplification 16x as strong as ISO 1600, if the RAW data clips below black, or exactly at black.  The only problem is if the data is clipped above black, in which case whatever is clipped is 4 stops bigger in ISO 1600 pushed to 25,600 than what "true" 25,600 might give if it clipped at the same ADU level.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suppose in a sense one could describe all ISO settings in digital cameras as fake, or bogus. The sensitivy of the light gathering capacity of the photoreceptors does not change with changing ISO settings.

At a fundamental level, there is only one ISO sensitivity in a digital camera and only one best and correct exposure for maximum S/N and highest dynamic range.

All ISO settings higher than base ISO (which is ISO 125 for the Canon 5D and ISO 200 for the D3) merely represent the camera's attempts to compensate for underexposure.

When I set my 5D to ISO 3200, I'm really just sending an instruction to the camera's processor that subsequent shots will be underexposed by 5 stops. If I'm shooting RAW I don't have any control over the way the camera's built-in processor will compensate for such underexposure.

Another way of looking at this is that fundamentally the difference between the 5D and the D3 is that the 5D will only accept instructions (from the user) on how to deal with 5 stops of underexposure, where as the D3 will accept instructions on how to deal with as much as 7 stops of underexposure. (It's a more advanced robot   ).

But I've got my own way of compensating for underexposure, so I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to say the following shot was taken at ISO 256,000.

That's a total of 10 stops of underexposure, the first 5 handled by the camera's processing and the additional 5 handled by me and photoshop   .

How is this possible considering the 5D only has about 10 stops of DR or less?

In the following maximum quality jpegs, please bear in mind that I'm working on a laptop that has been calibrated only with Adobe Gamma with partial success. If you are viewing these on a properly calibated monitor and the images look far too light or dark, then that's the explanation.

Also, because my laptop doesn't have the power to stack 9 images in 16 bit color depth, the conversions and processing were all done in 8 bit.

No noise reduction has been applied to these images and no sharpening (the default ACR sharpening was reduced to zero because I figured this shot is all about mood. No sharpening required.)

First a bit of a preamble. The shot is from the inside of a temple about 9.30pm (Wat Maha Wan in Tha Prae Rd, Chiang Mai). The only lighting in the temple precinct, apart from a bit of faint light from the windows of the monks' quarters, was light from the nearby street, which is coming from the right in the image.

What was I doing skulking around temples in the dark? Well, I'd just had a very tasty meal in a restaurant directly opposite the temple. I had my 5D with me, but no flash. (For those who don't know, the 5D has no built-in flash).

Having enjoyed a couple of glasses of wine with my meal, I was feeling relaxed enough to hold that camera steady, so after dinner I wandered over to the temple and took a series of 9 hand-held shots with camera in continuous mode. I suppose the 9 exposures took about 3 seconds, or perhaps a bit more.

I'm rather pleased with the image. It's noisy of course, but Neat Image could probably help there as well as a bit of sharpening afterwards.

The first image below demonstrates my claim of ISO 256,000 which is ISO 4000 underexposed by 5 stops. The ACR window shows only a +4 stop EC, but those who are familiar with ETTR know that we should be counting from -1 EC. (DB owners please take note   ). The RGB values under the histogram are taken from the brightest part of the image showing that nothing here is even near to clipping.

The second image shows how the unadjusted image looked after stacking in mean mode. You should notice a bluish blob in the extreme bottom right corner. This is a defect in my sensor. The defect is also exacerbated by the fact that a 28mm lens at f5.6 will inevitably have some vignetting in the extreme corners.

I noticed this defect when I tested my second copy of the 5D. The first copy had unacceptable banding in deep shadows. I returned the camera and found the second one was better regarding the ugly banding, but had this defective corner. I considered returning the second camera, but decided against it on the grounds that possibly all 5D sensors would have one defect or another. This was a budget Full Frame sensor after all.

The third image is shows a levels adjustment and the bluish blob cloned out.

The fourth image is the 100% crop showing a fair amount of noise. What would you say, film at ISO 800? Remember, the D3 does ISO 25,600. My shot has an extra zero. ISO 256,000.

[attachment=4216:attachment]  [attachment=4215:attachment]  [attachment=4214:attachment]  [attachment=4217:attachment]
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2825



« Reply #62 on: December 10, 2007, 07:23:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suppose in a sense one could describe all ISO settings in digital cameras as fake, or bogus. The sensitivy of the light gathering capacity of the photoreceptors does not change with changing ISO settings.

At a fundamental level, there is only one ISO sensitivity in a digital camera and only one best and correct exposure for maximum S/N and highest dynamic range.

All ISO settings higher than base ISO (which is ISO 125 for the Canon 5D and ISO 200 for the D3) merely represent the camera's attempts to compensate for underexposure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

A nice example of stacking, but why not just place the camera on a tripod and take one proper exposure?

Bill
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #63 on: December 10, 2007, 07:32:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

A nice example of stacking, but why not just place the camera on a tripod and take one proper exposure?

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bill,
It doesn't conform with my standard of sartorial elegance to walk around with camera and tripod. As it is, I feel a bit of a burke walking around with a camera slung around my neck and a photographers' vest with a lens in the pocket on one side to balance the flash in a pocket on the other side so I don't look too lobsided.

This line of argument on my part started with a response to John Camp's claim that the D3 was ideally suited to photojournalism. I believe journalist also do not want to carry a tripod everywhere.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #64 on: December 10, 2007, 11:26:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Ray

I have found that even the humble D200 with a small, manual 2,8/24 on the front becomes a proverbial last straw in the breaking of backs game.

This, combined with the utterly useless Nikon advertising band which makes it impossible to wrap the only means of support a little more firmly around the wrist, has led me of late to think about Leica Ms. But as I canīt really justify crippling the bank any further I have had moments when the mind has turned towards Voigtlander rangefinder cameras and some other little lenses which might both ease the weight and give me back a wide angle again. Like Michael, I see the cropped 35mm as a dead end and will buy nothing beyond the D200 body - never have - thatīs designed for the format. Having a film scanner does allow for lateral thinking and as my best pics still seem to come from old Kodachromes, film doesnīt frighten me much. That olde Minolta Flashmeter might get a new lease of life yet!

Have you known anyone who has used one of those Voigtlanders?

As my explorations seem to be in the wide angle domain just now, something like a 21mm would be delightful; an accurate viewfinder on a hand-held camera focussed by zones wouldnīt be a huge priority...

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #65 on: December 10, 2007, 03:13:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Have you known anyone who has used one of those Voigtlanders?

As my explorations seem to be in the wide angle domain just now, something like a 21mm would be delightful; an accurate viewfinder on a hand-held camera focussed by zones wouldnīt be a huge priority...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can't help you re the Voigtlander, Rob, but as a lightweight alternative to the main players, the Olympus 4/3rds system is looking good.

Whenever I see comparisons with 35mm, the noise of the E-3 seems noticeably worse at high ISO, yet when one factors in the 2 stop advantage re DoF compared with FF 35mm and the 2/3rds stop advantage compared with cameras like the D200 or 40D, it's coming pretty close to the performance of the larger format.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #66 on: December 10, 2007, 04:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can't help you re the Voigtlander, Rob, but as a lightweight alternative to the main players, the Olympus 4/3rds system is looking good.

Whenever I see comparisons with 35mm, the noise of the E-3 seems noticeably worse at high ISO, yet when one factors in the 2 stop advantage re DoF compared with FF 35mm and the 2/3rds stop advantage compared with cameras like the D200 or 40D, it's coming pretty close to the performance of the larger format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Ray

No, not another digital mini. If I get around to any more digital cameras then it will be Nikon FF if only because I have some Nikkor glass that I like. However, nothing digitally FF will offer the weight savings that I want for my wanderings about the highways and bye-ways, well, backstreets and alleys of this little pueblo near which I live.

I did fancy the original Olympus E-1, particularly after I saw their Waclaw Wantuch piccies on the īpro userīgallery; happily, I realised in time the folly of thinking the camera would make the difference. A Ferrari, oui! An Olympus? Non!

Ciao - Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2007, 02:12:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A nice example of stacking, but why not just place the camera on a tripod and take one proper exposure?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bill,
You might be interested in the fact I did return the following night to the same temple, but this time with Manfrotto 714SHB in one hand. I thought the scene might be worth shooting at ISO 100 on a tripod.

Unfortunately, I got there a little late and found the temple gates were shut. Nevertheless, I continued with my nocturnal wanderings but found it somewhat awkward to take a shot when both hands are required, one to adjust the zoom.

This resulted in my having to stick the tripod between my legs, which could in fact give a very odd impression to anyone glancing in my direction from a distance, especially when photographing subjects like the one illustrated below, a transvestite marching down the street.

[attachment=4222:attachment]

Since I'm on an uncalibrated laptop I'm never sure how images I present will appear to someone viewing them on a properly calibrated monitor. Perhaps I could get some feed-back here.

Does the following image, which has been lightened, look more natural, taking into consideration it is night-time?

[attachment=4223:attachment]

By the way, this shot was taken at only 1/25th sec at ISO 3200, f4, 82mm, 24-105 IS zoom.

No flash, apart from the tripod between my legs.  
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2007, 08:00:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Ray,

You ARE having fun in Thailand aren't you.....  Almost a perfect job except for the leg muscles!

OK back to photography, two observations: I prefer the darker image - more of a night time atmosphere, though there is no mistaking it is night in both of them. I find the image quality remarkable for the ISO.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2007, 09:44:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bill,
You might be interested in the fact I did return the following night to the same temple, but this time with Manfrotto 714SHB in one hand. I thought the scene might be worth shooting at ISO 100 on a tripod.

Unfortunately, I got there a little late and found the temple gates were shut. Nevertheless, I continued with my nocturnal wanderings but found it somewhat awkward to take a shot when both hands are required, one to adjust the zoom.

This resulted in my having to stick the tripod between my legs, which could in fact give a very odd impression to anyone glancing in my direction from a distance, especially when photographing subjects like the one illustrated below, a transvestite marching down the street.

[attachment=4222:attachment]

Since I'm on an uncalibrated laptop I'm never sure how images I present will appear to someone viewing them on a properly calibrated monitor. Perhaps I could get some feed-back here.

Does the following image, which has been lightened, look more natural, taking into consideration it is night-time?

[attachment=4223:attachment]

By the way, this shot was taken at only 1/25th sec at ISO 3200, f4, 82mm, 24-105 IS zoom.

No flash, apart from the tripod between my legs. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agree with Mark: the skin tones are much better in the top rendition of the pic; the lower one - on my machine - looks as if you are losing the leg tones, burning out, somewhat.

I have this vision of you resting your equipment on the tripod between your legs; no wonder the transvestites give you a funny over-the-shoulder kind of look - a challenge too far, one must assume they must assume.

But more power to your, well, elbow. Are you built in the manner of Rambo, or do you just psyche yourself up to believe that you are?

Cheers - Rob C
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2825



« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2007, 10:45:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bill,
You might be interested in the fact I did return the following night to the same temple, but this time with Manfrotto 714SHB in one hand. I thought the scene might be worth shooting at ISO 100 on a tripod.

Unfortunately, I got there a little late and found the temple gates were shut. Nevertheless, I continued with my nocturnal wanderings but found it somewhat awkward to take a shot when both hands are required, one to adjust the zoom.

This resulted in my having to stick the tripod between my legs, which could in fact give a very odd impression to anyone glancing in my direction from a distance, especially when photographing subjects like the one illustrated below, a transvestite marching down the street.

Since I'm on an uncalibrated laptop I'm never sure how images I present will appear to someone viewing them on a properly calibrated monitor. Perhaps I could get some feed-back here.

Does the following image, which has been lightened, look more natural, taking into consideration it is night-time?

By the way, this shot was taken at only 1/25th sec at ISO 3200, f4, 82mm, 24-105 IS zoom.

No flash, apart from the tripod between my legs. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

On my calibrated monitor, I prefer the darker image, since it preserves some of the ambiance of a night shot. BTW, impressive results given the shooting conditions.

On first glance, I had assumed that those were hookers, but then I saw your note that they were transvestites. Maybe still hookers, but not the type a normal guy would be interested in. Anyway, I certainly appreciate your humor   .

Bill
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 10:46:11 AM by bjanes » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #71 on: December 12, 2007, 12:24:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks guys. It looks as though I should be tilting my laptop screen a little more forward. What's surprising is the el cheapo Epson C90 seems to agree with your assessment that the darker image is better. I'm used to prints turning out a shade lighter than what I see on the screen. However, this is a printer with just one generic profile that came with the driver and I'm not even using Epson papers (although I'm using Epson inks). The printer is handling the color management and produces quite reasonable results if the image is converted to sRGB first. Even though the printer has an ARGB setting, I find the colors a liitle too pale if I print a file with embedded ARGB profile.

As you can see, I'm in a rather primitive situation here regarding the digital darkroom, but it's working.  
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #72 on: December 12, 2007, 12:52:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks guys. It looks as though I should be tilting my laptop screen a little more forward. What's surprising is the el cheapo Epson C90 seems to agree with your assessment that the darker image is better. I'm used to prints turning out a shade lighter than what I see on the screen. However, this is a printer with just one generic profile that came with the driver and I'm not even using Epson papers (although I'm using Epson inks). The printer is handling the color management and produces quite reasonable results if the image is converted to sRGB first. Even though the printer has an ARGB setting, I find the colors a liitle too pale if I print a file with embedded ARGB profile.

As you can see, I'm in a rather primitive situation here regarding the digital darkroom, but it's working. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray,

One thing you can do to help the laptop situation is to download a copy of Bill Atkinson's printer test target, or any other printer test target you are very familiar with - in terms of its tonality, colors, etc. Then adjust the angle of laptop screen to the point where that image looks "most right" to you. Also fix the angle of your head looking at the screen. This will give you the most "correct" appearance of your photographs that you'll get from the laptop under your working conditions.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
melgross
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #73 on: December 12, 2007, 01:24:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

One thing you can do to help the laptop situation is to download a copy of Bill Atkinson's printer test target, or any other printer test target you are very familiar with - in terms of its tonality, colors, etc. Then adjust the angle of laptop screen to the point where that image looks "most right" to you. Also fix the angle of your head looking at the screen. This will give you the most "correct" appearance of your photographs that you'll get from the laptop under your working conditions.

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't completely agree with that.

While the test target is a good idea. The one of tilting the screen to match is not.

The screen should always be used at its optimum position, or the colors, contrast, and brightness will all be incorrect.  The problem here is that as you get further off center, it becomes even more difficult to maintain the same view. Center position gives the broadest range of head movement possible without having the appearance change. Once you move off center, it becomes more difficult to return to the same spot. so each time you do that, you will be looking at a different combination of color, contrast, and brightness. Very erratic.

Photoshop can be used to correct any screen anomalies, if required because you can't adjust the screen yourself.

I'm not really familiar with how Windows deals with screen calibration, but Apple has manual calibration built-in.

Failing to be able to adjust the screen through Windows, go to PS/Edit/Colorsettings. At the bottom, check Desaturate Monitor Colors By:. Change the percentage until the colors are toned down to where the print is.

This takes care of a fair amount of color mismatches with prints. Also, check to see what your gamma is set to. You may have to change that as well. Also in that same panel, you can go to Settings, and click on Monitor Color. You have selections there. One of them will likely bring you closer to what your prints look like.

Some combination of these PS settings will usually work for a quick and dirty fix. But, the only real solution is to have a monitor designed for graphics use. That's an 8 bit LCD, preferably with LED backlighting. Most portables , and cheaper LCD monitors use the cheaper 6 bit screens which have only 256K real colors.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 01:25:34 PM by melgross » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #74 on: December 12, 2007, 01:54:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

One thing you can do to help the laptop situation is to download a copy of Bill Atkinson's printer test target, or any other printer test target you are very familiar with - in terms of its tonality, colors, etc. Then adjust the angle of laptop screen to the point where that image looks "most right" to you. Also fix the angle of your head looking at the screen. This will give you the most "correct" appearance of your photographs that you'll get from the laptop under your working conditions.

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, Mark. You mentioned before that Bill Atkinson had a target specifically designed for adjusting laptop screen angle, but I couldn't find it on his site. However, I did download some other targets designed for testing printer fidelity, and then I was hit with that bug in the CS3 software and wasted time, ink and paper trying to print the targets resized to fill A4 paper, only to find they printed at something like 6x4" in one corner of the sheet. Of course, I hadn't read the thread on LL dealing with this issue and also wasted more time trying to find and install an updated driver. I just assumed it would be a bug in Epson's software.

What I attempted to do was calibrate my laptop to my printer's output (using Adobe Gamma), but not being quite sure how accurate the results from my printer are. I'm not really familiar with any of these targets in the sense that I've never worked with them, although I've seen them before.

I couldn't quite believe that my laptop screen should be tilted forward to such a degree that it seems considerably less than 90 degrees to my line of sight. But this appears to be the case and is now confirmed by 3 assessments of the darker of my two images being right.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #75 on: December 12, 2007, 04:21:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can't completely agree with that.

While the test target is a good idea. The one of tilting the screen to match is not.

The screen should always be used at its optimum position, or the colors, contrast, and brightness will all be incorrect.  The problem here is that as you get further off center, it becomes even more difficult to maintain the same view. Center position gives the broadest range of head movement possible without having the appearance change. Once you move off center, it becomes more difficult to return to the same spot. so each time you do that, you will be looking at a different combination of color, contrast, and brightness. Very erratic.

Photoshop can be used to correct any screen anomalies, if required because you can't adjust the screen yourself.

I'm not really familiar with how Windows deals with screen calibration, but Apple has manual calibration built-in.

Failing to be able to adjust the screen through Windows, go to PS/Edit/Colorsettings. At the bottom, check Desaturate Monitor Colors By:. Change the percentage until the colors are toned down to where the print is.

This takes care of a fair amount of color mismatches with prints. Also, check to see what your gamma is set to. You may have to change that as well. Also in that same panel, you can go to Settings, and click on Monitor Color. You have selections there. One of them will likely bring you closer to what your prints look like.

Some combination of these PS settings will usually work for a quick and dirty fix. But, the only real solution is to have a monitor designed for graphics use. That's an 8 bit LCD, preferably with LED backlighting. Most portables , and cheaper LCD monitors use the cheaper 6 bit screens which have only 256K real colors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Calibrating and profiling a laptop screen with whatever tools are available, while always very imperfect, is fine. BUT you still need to determine which screen angle and angle of view gives you the most reliable appearance, because it is literally a moving target every time you open the unit. That is where my suggestion comes in. It was recommended at the Cramer/Atkinson workshop here in Toronto and I found it helpful.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 12, 2007, 04:23:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks, Mark. You mentioned before that Bill Atkinson had a target specifically designed for adjusting laptop screen angle, but I couldn't find it on his site. However, I did download some other targets designed for testing printer fidelity, and then I was hit with that bug in the CS3 software and wasted time, ink and paper trying to print the targets resized to fill A4 paper, only to find they printed at something like 6x4" in one corner of the sheet. Of course, I hadn't read the thread on LL dealing with this issue and also wasted more time trying to find and install an updated driver. I just assumed it would be a bug in Epson's software.

What I attempted to do was calibrate my laptop to my printer's output (using Adobe Gamma), but not being quite sure how accurate the results from my printer are. I'm not really familiar with any of these targets in the sense that I've never worked with them, although I've seen them before.

I couldn't quite believe that my laptop screen should be tilted forward to such a degree that it seems considerably less than 90 degrees to my line of sight. But this appears to be the case and is now confirmed by 3 assessments of the darker of my two images being right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, yes, I should have mentioned - it is a printer target, but that's OK. Any such target that is familiar enough to give a reliable appearance is fine. As for your printing problem, perhaps you have not yet downloaded from the Adobe website the Patcher Application which converts your copy of Photoshop CS3 version 10.1 to Version 10.0.1. This solves those problems very well.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2007, 02:01:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...perhaps you have not yet downloaded from the Adobe website the Patcher Application which converts your copy of Photoshop CS3 version 10.1 to Version 10.0.1. This solves those problems very well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
I certainly have. My computer automatically notified me the download was ready. It just so happened that the upgrade became available about the time I started reading that thread which highlighted the very problem I'd been experiencing.

I was thus deprived of joining in the chorus of complaints   .

The fact is, ever since the Photoshop printing interface began misbehaving with my Epson 7600, I switched to using Qimage and have never looked back, until this latest acquisition of the bottom-of-the-range Epson printer which I didn't anticipate ever buying to use with an uncalibrated laptop.

Thanks for your friendly advice, as usual   .
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #78 on: December 13, 2007, 07:59:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark,
I certainly have. My computer automatically notified me the download was ready. It just so happened that the upgrade became available about the time I started reading that thread which highlighted the very problem I'd been experiencing.

I was thus deprived of joining in the chorus of complaints   .

The fact is, ever since the Photoshop printing interface began misbehaving with my Epson 7600, I switched to using Qimage and have never looked back, until this latest acquisition of the bottom-of-the-range Epson printer which I didn't anticipate ever buying to use with an uncalibrated laptop.

Thanks for your friendly advice, as usual   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, that's more than a bit disconcerting - are you saying that even with 10.0.1 you are experiencing print centering problems? Probably trivial to ask whether you've made sure "centered" is selected both in the Photoshop print interface and in the Epson driver "Paper" tab. Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to know what Epson printer and what version number of the Epson driver you are using and what operating system on the PC, because the intention of 10.0.1 was to clear-up these problems. Now A4 is a standard metric size paper, but not in North America where we continue to use Letter size. Though A4 has a standard preset in the Epson driver, your comment leads one to wonder whether 10.0.1 recognizes it properly, though if it didn't one would have expected many non North American users to be complaining by now.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #79 on: December 13, 2007, 09:11:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray, that's more than a bit disconcerting - are you saying that even with 10.0.1 you are experiencing print centering problems? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=160336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
Sorry for the confusion. No, I fixed the centering problem with version 10.0.1 about the same time that I became aware that this very problem was being discussed on LL with comments that there was a CS3 upgrade that might fix the problem. Just a co-incidence really.

Since the problem occurred mostly whilst I was attempting to resize downloaded test targets, I gave up in frustration and stopped printing for a while. When the problem was later fixed with the CS3 upgrade, I never returned to the test target issue.

In the meantime, I had adjusted the gamma of individual channels, using Adobe Gamma and a print as a guide. In other words, I adjusted those red, green and blue squares in Adobe Gamma so that the color and tonality of an image on my screen matched as closely as possible a print I had previously made of that same image, with sRGB profile.

An alternative approach would have been to adjust the colors, brightness, contrast and saturation of the printer controls, but that would have involved far too many test prints.

The method I've used seems simpler and has worked just fine except with regard to this uncertainty about tilting the screen. The position of my screen as I write this, is at an angle of about 90 degrees to my line of sight, which seems quite natural and preferrable to the position I need for an image on the screen to match the contrast of the print.

I just wanted confirmation that this tilted-forward position which more closely matches the contrast of a print, is similar to how the image would look on a properly calibrated monitor. But I suppose that any of these downloadable test targets showing a range of human complexions would give me the same confirmation.

No problem really   .
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad