Ben Cochran
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I finally found my way to perusing the cover shot Will. WOW! that truly is a great shot! Well done and well deserved :).
Did the perceptual help any John? Hope that got it closer for you.
I also second what Douglas suggested. The normal workflow that I and the AD’s, that I have worked with, normally follow is this. (This may be different than what your needs, I don’t know, but thought that I would write it out for you anyway.) I will go over the Contact sheet with the AD’s or GA’s, on location in my monitor or at the studio on their wide gamut monitor’s. Dependent upon the assignment, I or the AD/GA will either post edit or just forward the selected photographs to the publisher. As Douglas mentioned, @72 ppi. The publisher will then make the final selection and approve it or ask for changes. Once approved, the full size, at 300 ppi CMYK, is forwarded to the publisher. Once it goes to print, they will have a very short run, as a CMW sample, and forward the completed sample to the publishers rep. for a final approval before the complete run.
I am not saying that this is industry standard but I feel that it is very important for me to stay in the entire loop. I also prefer to do my own post, or I will study previous published works of their GA’s, as it is my reputation on the line.
As far as printing your own proofs, I prefer to do that as well. It will not be spot on as the commercial printers are CMYK but it does get close enough. I hope this does not come out the way that I do not mean it but the best way to do this is: Use a printer that has the utility of ICC profiles. They have really come way down in price and if you want to print your own proofs, as I like to do, it would be a better tool for you. I have found that a wide format proof is much easier for me to study and dissect but printing your own proof’s are not a necessity (unless you have concerns about your clients monitors and proper calibration of same).
That is really cool Aaron and some great shots there as well. I don’t do this often but, I will be more than happy to drive over and hold your gear while you go out and play with those cute little Kitty’s. đ I would love to have some new free extra gear LOL…
Nice shots John, as always. đ WOW! 6 months… You need to hitch a ride on one of those migrating Canadian Geese, that illegally come down our way and take the jobs of all of our domestic Geese LOL.
Hate to think that we don’t get to see any of your great photo’s for 6 months so, get a big coat and send us some of your winter shots :).
John, sorry that I missed this post, meant to reply a while back but have been pretty busy lately.
The radial blur does work well but it can also be very easy to detect, most often. I still like that effect though. Douglas, you did a great job on that last photograph! As far as getting the shot in camera, you do not have to zoom the entire focal length of the lens. A gentle continuous zoom is sometimes best and enough. I say gentle so that you do not get motion blur from shaking the camera. You can create many effects by the amount of zoom and amount of shutter lag that you can get away with.
Another approach is an old school one. You can put Vaseline or Chap Stick around the outer perimeter of the lens and then smear it in a pattern, make sure to keep the focal point area clear so that you can get good focus there. Granted, it does create a mess and has to be cleaned but the effect is really cool.
Try a gentle zoom at 1/50th and not worry about covering the entire zoom range. If that isnât good enough, try a slower shutter speed and do the same. It is not easy but once you get the shot, it is normally a really cool one [ch9786].
Oh, I better understand now John W. You should select the Adobe 1998 profile, in the print menu and also select perceptual. The relative colormetric will clip some of the color while the perceptual will chose the best matching colors. Also, it prints best when the print is at 100% of the actual image size. Hope this helps and as you stated, the lighting source can make a huge difference. Also, are you printing in the âbest printâ mode, with the chosen paper type?
There are several issues here: Even though you your workstation is calibrated, you still do not have a complete CMS (Color Management System) or CMW (Color Management Workflow). This is a list of some of the issues and hopefully a few suggestions that may help you.
First know this: Your scanner, monitor and printer will have completely different color management profiles. You most definitely want to keep you monitor on the corrected ICC profile, which you calibrated for. Your printer should have the proper profile in the drivers and should print close. One problem, may be, your printer may not support paper ICC profiles. The pro line of printers allows you to download the ICC profiles for paper and this is what corrects the gamut for that paper. Gloss papers, from different manufacturers, will have different ICC profiles and these profiles are what correct for the specifications of that paper.
You can also calibrate for printers, dependent upon the printer, and establish an ICC profile for that printer. Then, some software will allow you to view a proof, on the monitor, in that ICC profile, with out having to print. The problem here is, you have to have ICC profiles for each type of paper; i.e., matte, luster, satin and gloss for that paper brand. Or, you can calibrate the printer to each of those papers and establish your own ICC profiles for each.
The other thing that you can do, is this: Try to remember the adjustments that you had to make, after printing, to your image and then make those hue, saturation and/or exposure settings prior to printing. When using a pro printer, you can let PS color manage and then select the ICC profile for that paper. Select Perceptual and click on print. This should prompt the particular printers menu and make sure to check âno color managementâ> If the printer and PS are both color managing, the prints will look like crap.
For non-pro printers, I would select the printer to color manage and make sure that the editing software does not color manage. Then select the paper type that is provided by the manufacturer. Some will have a preview function prior to print and again, it is important that your monitor is still set to your properly calibrated monitor ICC profile.
Hope this helps someâŠ
Great shot Kendal and a hardy congratulations to you. You need to pack your bags and come with me to the Gobi, they still use Eagles there :).
I hope that you guys donât mind if I jump in here, The D60 was a very good choice! I think that you will also be very happy with the 18-200mm-VR as well.
As far as Nikon or Canon goes: It is much like saying grandmas cookies are great because she uses a particular brand of stove. I am a full time pro and Canon is not the industry standard for professional photographers. It is one of the choices and one cannot even say that it is the majority, anymore. Again though, it is much like thinking that because Ford won a NASCAR race, all Fordâs are now better. The photo cells, in the sensors, are designed differently, between the 2 brands, but even that argument is much like dry fly~vs~nymph.
The main thing is to become intimate with your equipment. A lot of the bells and whistles are things that I would prefer to not see on the pro lines. Many pro shooters will argue that Nikon has the better glass but with the new digital age, many have also had to switch between brands in order to get the latest best bodies. Again though, this is more on the level of professional necessity and justifiability.
For average use, 6-10 MP is more than fine; just remember that the glass is the most important part. On the Internet, a 4MP body will look just as good as larger MPâs with pro lenses, keep in mind that just a few years ago, some of those great magazine prints were from a 4MP body. The only reason for larger is for print and more detail in large prints, 12 MP FX works out great, 28 MP FX is better but we start to loose some ISO leverage and for large print campaigns, lease or purchase a Hasselblad digital. Â
The main thing that I am getting at is, the MP is most important for print and the argument between which is better, Canon or Nikon, is wasted time as they both deliver equally as well.
Some very nice shots Rob and welcome to the forum.
To better describe, what I was talking about, the topic of second generation digital and to the best of my understanding. Now that more software is being added for post processing, in the camera, many things have to be reconsidered in order to best take advantage of that feature. To mention a couple, Canon and Nikon, have their own proprietary post edit software. These work best because they know their true proprietary algorithms the best, most others are close guesses. The reason why the CPU proprietary lenses are now more important is this, the manufacturer knows the limits and strengths of their lenses and sensors, this allows for a better post edit in camera. Meaning, the equipment is recognized and the correcting algorithms are sort of data mined for those deficiencies. I donât want to completely over simplify this but my understanding is that it is closer to a much better automated P&S camera, only digital SLR and built upon complex algorithms that include proper corrections for proprietary interchangeable lenses.
Great feature but I hope that this will also be the second generation of separation from pro and consumer gear. For myself, I would much rather have better sensors and functionality in the pro line and have the price built into that as opposed to paying for the automated post edit that I would never use. On the consumer end, the purchaser would not, now, have to also purchase post edit software as it would be built in and does deliver better, over-all, image quality. Great advancement and I canât wait to see what is next!
Eric, were fine pal. đ It is difficult to interpret demeanor, in posts, and I knew that you were not attacking anyone. I just wanted to make sure that I did not place a friend into a position as the subject of an unwanted topic of discussion. I agree with you 100% that, not just sometimes, in many cases less is better. It is easy to over complicate things and that is the best thing about these threads, gives the readers options and helps us to rethink some of our approach.
I feel that there is a lot of great information, in this thread, and I think the one best thing would be; at the very least, save the original unprocessed RAW or JPEG. No matter what the future in technology, we can always go back to the original and reprocess the originals. I love to learn and a lot of learning can be achieved from alternatives and challenges, it forces one to do more research and I learned a lot from this topic.
Kevin, one other thing about RAW, as it is a very interesting creature, it also has imbedded JPEG, the coded JPEG is always there inside of the RAW. I feel that Pro Photo and 14-16 bits is in the future and that this is that future change, only it is happening now. I feel that this is what Ken Rockwell was referring to as part of that second generation of digital.
I am going to try and simplify, from Erics lead, what I have been trying to say: (I want to put a caveat on this) Zack in 100% correct in the fact that JPEG is fine for publication as well and that it will print, in a lot of cases, as good. David Ziser, one of the best wedding photographers in the world, only shoots in JPEG and he has been published in more international magazine publications than I can count. (This is the caveat). However, I feel that most might have a miss interruption on who and why to shoot in RAW or JPEG. RAW is not really for professional photographers as much as it is a âsafe harborâ for photographers. Everything that one can read about RAW, can best be defined as best for its âsafe harborâ compatibility.
RAW is considered the best because of the tonal rescue abilities and for beginners, it is an even better file size to shoot in, because of this ability. JPEG is equally as good for shooting in, when compared to finals, if the photographer has a full grasp on setting the camera, a properly metered composition and good balance of light-dark frequency. Most of the professional photographers will shoot in RAW, from lessons learned, JPEG requires accuracy and RAW adds more tools. When ones butt is on the line, in the aspect of assignments, it is easy to remember what over confidence can do to us. I guess the best way to sum up, what I am trying to say, is this: It is not this simple but compared to film and the final overall image quality. RAW would represent film from SLR and JPEG would represent Polaroid, sRGB would represent low end P&S polaroid. Which one can we work on in the darkroom and without the ability of current scanning technology?
The best advise, in my opinion, from this topic is what Zack mentioned, again: Save the untouched originals. Ansel Adams, in his later years, was in the stage of reprocessing many of his original negatives, with newer and better chemicals and processes. Kind of what we are able to do, and will continue to be able to do, with present and future digital technologies. This can best be done if we save the larger untouched image files though.
That is so cool Will! The image stacking technique is awesome, I had never seen that process before.
I may need to add a bellows, as a deterrent, to my “so, you want free portraits, set up.
WOW!! There are some great shots in this thread. One thing is for sure: This board has the best photograph’s, on any of the fly fishing board!!
Any opinions on this as it applies to the RAW v. JPEG debate?
ZachWOW! this is going to be an extremely long topic. I would love to post of few things on this subject, as the industry has recently changed to a whole new level.
To address it properly, many things have to be discussed as we now have proprietary algorithms, soft ware, believe it or not but proprietary lenses are now even more of an issue as well as body. To make matters even more in-depth; we now have to cover the difference of 12-14 bits and then the 16 bit issue. The DNG profile, that I had mentioned earlier and the industry problems with excepting it. Well, it is actually buried in this new 14bit processor on a 16bit tube. The industry does not want to except the DNG status as it may interfere in the new generation of proprietary software.
The comparison has to now include a newer profile: Pro Photo RGB. In essence, it is that 14bt processor but the different manufactures do not want to use that name as it was developed by this really small unknown company named Kodak.
Pro Photo RGB goes way beyond the gamut of RGB. Couple this with the proprietary post processing algorithms, the end result is in essence an; automated  post edit JPEG, very close to the total gamut of RAW.
I have been up working all night so, I am trying to keep this brief but will add more later. But for now, recognize the 12 bit as 4,096 tones and 14 bit as 16,384 tones. Then consider that manufactures like to keep their algorithms close to home but added them into the body’s. Now you have a mini onboard camera computer that incorporated the proprietary lens and body, then post edits for lens and sensor distortion related to those lenses and body’s, plus automated photo enhancements. Does all of this through a 16bit tube… Does make one wonder why they would want to shoot in RAW.. How-ever, the user sacrifices to an algorithm… Great for some and a pain in the— for those that want image control.
There is more but I need to get at least a couple of hours of sleep đ
I know that this sounds like an odd question but I ask it for one specific reason. What brand of cards are you using? I was talking with large group of pro’s that had experienced the exact same thing, with some cards from one manufacturer. Talk about a highly pissed off group of people, but I had the smiles as I don’t experiment with what I rely on and I don’t change until I read lots of historical feed back :).
Lee, GREAT SHOTS!!!!!!!!!! I was a bit scared when I read that this was your first PP in the RAW but was so relieved when I saw your photographs! ;D
This is a good question that you have. If I get this right, you are using the Canon proprietary software? That may be you better choice and I will explain why. Canon does not release the algorithms, that they use in their RAW. What this means is, other companies have to test it, research it and get a best guess at the algorithms so that they can build a Canon RAW ICC profile for that particular model. The software companies do a fine job at guessing at it but that is not your question.
What is your “complete intent and needs” for additional software? I can say this though, you do not need CS3 as it goes far beyond the average photographers needs. Aperture is great, as is LR but LR is built and designed for 2 specific audiences: Pro/Amateur Photographers (if they need to PP) sorry I just like writing that today LOL; AD’s and AB’s for the powerful cataloging ability.
David knows more about Aperture, than I do but I would highly recommend that you first study the Canon software bundle first and then determine if there really is any benefit. Judging from the post edits, that you posted, I would say that you are VERY fine with what you have. GREAT job on your conversions and please do not abandon it as you really are good at it, very impressive and even more for a first time. The skin tones are spot on!!!
Erik, the whole reason for this topic was that someone asked for advice. If we all followed the âmoral of the storyâ then why would anyone bother asking questions or seek knowledge? You didnât say this but I want to make this perfectly clear. Andrew is not just some âinternet photo expertâ, he is the leading expert in the field of color management and his client lists also include Adobe. On top of all that, he is also one heck of a nice guy and certainly did not have to spend a lot of time speaking with me about the issues of sRGB. I was talking with him on the phone and I also talked with him about the conversation that we were having here and how I was becoming confused about the sRGB ~vs~ RGB deal. He didnât have to but he wrote all of this out for me and gave me permission to quote him, didnât have to do that, most hardcopy “book” author’s probably wouldn’t. Color management is his business as a consultant, author and lecturer. Many of the top Pro’s and publisher’s, around the globe, hold him in an unquestioned status as one of the top experts, if not the best. Some very valuable accurate information that he let me share, free.
Zach, for your workflow and the way that you explained it all out, especially the space issue, I see and understand how your process is the best fit for you. Shifting from RGB to sRGB doesn’t really increase the saturation though, it really just makes better use of the smaller gamut that should only look better on an sRGB monitor or non aware browser. I am concerned that your photographs look better in sRGB than they do in RGB, on your computers monitor. The RGB should look better as your logic board and monitor does go beyond the gamut of sRGB. As David suggested, check to see what your workspace setting is and/or what your monitor ICC profile is set on. I had a similar problem when I first got this macbook pro. Could not get color match to save my life and calibrated more times than I can remember. sRGB looked better and when I printed on my pro printers, with the proper ICC profiles, the colors were still way off. Granted I could of shifted to sRGB and probably get a better color match but my printers are able to go beyond even the jpg RGB gamutâs. I took the computer to an authorized Apple shop and they replaced the monitor, didnât make a difference but I didnât think that it would. Took it back and they replaced it again, no change.
In trouble shooting the computer, I had them link my macbook to one of their monitorâs, colors matched my monitor perfectly, meaning they were off. We then hooked it up to some wider gamut monitors, same thing. I took a file off of my computer and loaded it into one of theirs, HUGE difference. Seems that my brand new macbook pro had a defective logic board built in it. Once it was replaced, I can see very little color difference between the sRGB and RGB but the RGB has more depth and richness in it, more depth to the RGB when compared to sRGB. My prints are now spot on, in color, when I print from the TIFFâs or PSDâs. The best part is now that I have proper color management and calibration, I can print the larger gamuts that really put the on screen image to shame. Due to the fact that I did not convert to a smaller ICC profile, the printer is able to print the pallet and gamuts that I can not see on my monitor.
David, I worked on one of those broad gamut monitors at one of the publishers in Europe, WOW!! What an amazing difference and improvement in the total tone and color, perfect match to the commercial printers too, love that thing and made post edit a simplified joy!!!
Just about any printer will print an sRGB picture and even my pro printers will print in sRGB, as they are set to print in any ICC profile that I have loaded in my folder. However, these printers can print larger pallets and gamuts than a flattened RGB jpeg image. Problem is that some photo labs may not read TIFFâs or PSDâs; of these some will ask for a PDF file. This allows for a print with a much larger pallet and far larger gamut, richness that we simply cannot see on our monitors and will loose when printing an sRGB file. But, if the person is happy with the sRGB prints and prefers to do this, it is their choice; I just would not recommend it.
Zachâs workflow makes sense to me but I, respectfully, would always recommend a RGB workflow, at the very least. Even for Internet use as, sRGB will be fading out with the newer monitors that have wider gamuts than the older sRGB ones. Even the macbookâs have wider gamuts than sRGB. This is the reason to not shoot in or save originals in sRGB, that small pallet and narrow gamut is stuck in the images forever. As we replace monitors with the newer and more affordable wider gamut monitors, your images are stuck in an increasingly dated and lesser quality ICC profile.
Currently there is work on the acceptance of a universal digital negative DNG. Hopefully it will catch on, not sure about that yet as different manufacturers are having a problem with it. If and/or when it does go through, RGB may even become outdated as technology keeps moving forward and the supply meets or exceeds demand for less expensive broad gamut monitors. The greatest thing that Zach does is that his personal workflow includes saving the original RAW files, he can always go back and reprocess for best view with newer technologies, he will always be safe. The same cannot be said for an image shot in sRGB, with future monitor improvements; it would be like putting a lawn chair in place of the drivers seat in a Ferrari. đ
Some great shots in there Neal. I, too, love the first shot, it is fantastic. I can’t say that it is a great capture as it is more of a great photograph that preserves a real moment. Feels as though she is getting ready to walk by me and it is easy to feel the emotions that your subject may have been felling. Personally, I feel that everything in that shot is just right and you did a great job of seeing it, setting up for it and then releasing the shutter for preserving a moment. You should print that one and hang it on your photography wall. I do love candid street photography, just like this one đ
