Ben Cochran
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Boy, I am just all over the place on this one, seems that I couldn’t even agree with myself [ch9786]. I have to recant my last post, as you are correct David, about complete post processing in RGB, at the very least. I decided to talk with a person whom I consider to be one of the word’s leading experts on color correction. For those of you who may not recognize the name, Andrew Rodney, he is a very well known lecturer, consultant, as well as author, for many of the country’s largest organizations. You may recognize his book “Color Management for Photographers”, he also has a lot more great links and advice on his web site
http://www.digitaldog.net/Anyway, I was talking with Andrew about why converting to sRGB and why make it the final step? The conversion went much deeper than I thought it would but I now understand far more than I thought was involved with web posting. Just a few browser’s, like Safari and FireFox, are ICC aware, meaning they will recognize the ICC profiles of both sRGB and RGB. Most others are non ICC aware, they simply send the RGB numbers to the viewers monitor display with out knowing anything about your color space or ICC profiles. As he explained it to me, most currently owned monitors are roughly based on sRGB, “So the idea is, convert to a color space that suites the lowest common denominator.”
However, this is sure to change as Andrew also told me (He gave me permission to quote what he wrote out for me) “Now what’s interesting is that more and more affordable displays are NOT producing an sRGB behavior but instead wider gamut (closer to but not exactly Adobe RGB (1998)). What’s going to happen now is that when a user with a non ICC aware browser views images using such a display, they will not appear very well. So the idea is, as we move away from sRGB like displays, the idea of posting sRGB on the web will fall apart.”
Converting to sRGB for current optimal viewing is correct for large audiences and when there is doubt on the viewers monitor, it should also be the last step. The reason for this is, just like what we were saying earlier and what David King just explained, larger pallet and gamut. I was talking with Andrew about the much narrower gamut of green and he brought this back to my attention: “If you view say ProPhoto RGB, then a document you converted to sRGB, you’re not going to see much if any difference. Both are based on an emissive display so no difference in dynamic range. And if you’re working with an sRGB display (most are), then you can’t see anything outside that space. So the ProPhoto document might have colors that are not visible on this sRGB output device. IOW, they look pretty much the same. The greens may be much wider in terms of gamut in the ProPhoto image, but you can’t see it! This is one reason we’re seeing display manufacturers making wider gamut displays (if you converted from Adobe RGB to sRGB on such a wide gamut display, the differences would be more apparent).” This is the reason for processing in the largest ICC profile as there is color and gamut that we may not be able to see on our personal monitors but others, with wider gamut monitors can see and pro-commercial printers can print.
I found this interesting David and thought that you might too. I always thought that I could just do a soft proof in sRGB and be able to distinguish between the 2. I am sure that you have much wider gamut monitors in your studio but I found this very interesting. As Andrew was explaining to me, what difference would I expect to find when soft proofing sRGB on a monitor that is not much wider than sRGB? As he put it: “Worst of all, 95% of the people looking at that image on a web page are not using an ICC aware browser, so what they see and what you see is going to be different (there is the soft proof setup called Macintosh RGB and Windows RGB, that shows you what this image will look like on YOUR machine in a non ICC aware browser). It’s only somewhat useful because again, while using this soft proof produces a match in the browser to this soft proof, it’s only correct on your machine. Its not what the image will look like on anyone else’s machine.”
So, back to the way that I always have been doing it, (RAW-TIFF/PSD-RGB and then sometimes to sRGB). Sorry for the little side trip but I needed to wrap my hands around this sRGB thing better.
Completely agree about shooting in RAW David, way to much available information to not take full advantage of it. The extra data can also be thought of as a fail-safe feature as, the extra data can really help save a photograph as well…
I have been thinking about something that Zach wrote about how he does his processing. Every tutorial, suggestion and or advice, that I have seen or heard, about converting to sRGB before posting to the Internet is: “WRONG”. Let me explain how and it also supports that what Zach is doing, for his photograph Internet posts, is the only time I have seen it “CORRECT”.
If I got this correct: Zach is first converting to sRGB, for the images that he mostly posts on the web, and then post editing them. That makes more sense than anything that I have heard about converting to sRGB, it just took me a while to see it. Think about it this way: Every tutorial, that I have ever seen, explains that before you post to the web, convert to sRGB for better viewing. Well, if just about every browser is in sRGB then, it would not matter if we posted in RGB or sRGB. as they both are going to shift the same. What will happen is, we will see a color shift from what we post processed in RGB but unless we do a proof ICC Profile view (with the software on our personal monitors) in the sRGB mode, we won’t see it until the image is posted. The reason? In order to post edit for best viewing in sRGB, we should first shift the image to an sRGB ICC profile and then post edit. This is the only way to control the way the converted file is shown and/or viewed. It also gives more control over correcting the image for best possible use of the smaller sRGB color pallet. Still though, sRGB should “only” be used for images that are going to be posted on the internet, while saving the original JPG or RAW files, before the conversion.
In the end, there really is 2 completely different work flows and a simple final conversion to sRGB is far more reckless than converting to sRGB and then recorrecting the final image before posting. One correction in sRGB for web use and a separate RGB correction for all other use, it is the only thing that really makes the most sense. Took me a while to get it but I have never seen it put this way, makes perfect sense to me now and shows that all of those tutorials really are completely wrong about converting to sRGB last.
Thanks Zach, I never really thought about the fact that sRGB should never be the last action 🙂
But you see Tim, I already know that you have an eye for it because if you didn’t, you would not be able to distinguish between a good or bad photograph. It is on the technical end that your focus needs to be and weakness lies, you already know when your eye sees an amazing site.
The technical end is more difficult but it comes with a learning cure, manual forces us to learn and it also explains why the early film photographer’s are so great.
Creating ones own style is the most difficult beasts of them all. Once the foundation of knowledge and technical skills are developed, it is much easier to reverse engineer a great photograph and reshoot a somewhat comparable image. Art direction and composition is much more difficult and idea’s can come from the study of photographs.
The study of light gets even more in-depth but one of my favorite research disciplines of study is, analyzing the older oil paints of master’s. I still set back and study paintings, for hours, from historic artist such; Caravaggio, Bramer, De Hooch, Vermeer and others, including the earlier works of Rembrandt (The 1620’s decade as he seemed to change his style in later years). Vermeer and De Hooch are the best, IMO, for the study of light and lighting effects. Even though these are paintings, it is very apparent that they performed extensive studies of shading as well as lighting effects. This posted painting is one that Pieter De Hooch painted back around 1658. I feel that it is, and use it often, as a perfect illustration for the study of today’s photography disciplines in composition and lighting.
Zach, I don’t want you to think that I am ignoring your question as I am not, you addressed it to David and I know that he is more than capable of answering it. How-ever, if you don’t mind, I think that you are creating a lot of extra work for yourself. Why not edit the NEF’s and save them as Tiff’s first, you can then convert your sRGB’s and not have to reprocess the images again.
That is a great graft David!! Perfect example of the amount of additional data lost in sRGB and also illustrates the amount of actual color hues thrown away, and/or discarded.
Interesting point is to also interpret the gamut of your graphs. It helps illustrate a more equal gamut, in sRGB, with the blues and some of the magenta. The red’s and yellow’s illustrate a narrower gamut but workable. When we get to the greens and cyan’s, the sRGB is drastically drained and illustrates more than a 50% loss of the green gamut.
Translation: Much harder to WB landscape photography as the images will automatically go more to the warmer and/or colder side, in sRGB. With the addition of greens, in the photograph, the conversion and/or sRGB capture will sacrifice what little green gamut is available. What I am getting at there is this. Some talk about the loss of data or color shift after posting images on the web and after the conversion to sRGB; this is very true and the graft more than supports it. Going off of David’s graph: In sRGB, any photograph that has a dominant color frequency, such as red, yellow or orange, with green foliage or grass in it; post edit will send what little green gamut is available into the yellow’s or cyan’s. In simplified terms, desaturating for the red’s and blues will have a major negative impact on the greens.
The simplest way that I know how to explain, what I am trying to say, is this. If we think of post edit as a form of art and WB plus color correction as the process of painting art. Let’s say that our challenge is to color a picture that was painted with 100 crayons, the catch is this: We only get to use 60 crayons, kind of like we only get to work in sRGB with; 30 shades of blue, 25 shades of red and 5 shades on green. The shades of each color represent the total gamut data that we have available. Think of an increase in 8 bits to 16 bits as the same as just applying more pressure from the crayon onto the canvas, the colors are richer but the gamut does not change. This is just an attempt to try and simplify something that I have a hard time writing and explaining, the amount of crayons is not suggestive of how many colors are actually in these profiles.
With Raw and in post edit, we can focus on one color, either in RGB or CMYK, and we can sacrifice some of the crayons, for color correction, with out loosing quality in the image. This is due to the fact that we now 100’s of thousands in crayons to work with, in comparison.
I love “Call me” post’s, they always seem expensive LOL..
True. At least you also counseled me on how to prepare my secondary business schema to fund my depreciation. Laughing quietly.
LMAO!! I do love those secondary government folks LOL
You guy’s are really being far to hard on yourselves. Very few photographer’s think they have great shot’s and consider the best ones to be more to the lucky side. I know of some that consider themselves to be great photographer’s with leaps of talent and the truth be known, they aren’t as good as their equipment.
A good eye is a completely different beast than a good capture. A good eye is much like an oil paint artist that has a good stroke, more of a gift and one that can be built upon. Still, a good eye in photography is not good enough, it is all about what happens after the good eye.
Not every photograph has to be worthy of a pulitzer. Don’t let photography become a competition where one feels that their photograph’s are inferior to another’s. Definitely do not compare your photograph’s to that of a pro shooter as it is their lively hood and if it was that easy, there would be no median in which a pro could make a living from it.
The main focus is how to reproduce what you saw, after all; that is what people really enjoying viewing. I love seeing everyone’s photograph’s but the thing that I really enjoy is seeing what they saw and how they saw it. It is the feelings of their environment that covey’s this essence in photography.
If you really want to learn how to best capture what you saw, and how you saw it. Put the books aside for awhile, except for your camera’s guide book, and start shooting in manual only. These DSLR body’s are loaded with so many amazing features and a preprogrammed setting limits you to what similar images would of had in with the same setting’s: You basically shoot a shot the way that some programmer would of shot it with out seeing what you are shooting.
Then study other images and pay very close attention to the lighting, as John mentioned. Keep in mind that the different strength’s of lighting will effect how you decide to set your camera. When shooting landscapes, look to the sky and get a good estimates of how and when shadows or rays of light will hit your composition. Ask yourself, “What is it in the composition that appeals to you?”. Then set the camera to best capture that shot and do not always try to fit everything into all of the photograph’s, a proper crop really brings a photograph to life.
Main thing is, STOP questioning rather you have a good eye or not as your focus is just setting the camera to capture what you saw. Again, and most importantly, do not compete with other images. It is ok to compare and analyze the difference, for future settings adjustment’s, but don’t ever feel photograph inferior as it is the moment that matters the most…
I love “Call me” post’s, they always seem expensive LOL
I have all of the TTL gadgets but to be perfectly honest with you, I rarely use it. I mostly set all of my strobes on manual and control them wirelessly. Can’t say that I really am a big fan of TTL as I prefer to have total control but the TTL functionality is pretty much a standard built in option with all of the better new hotshoe strobes..
Neal, I had no idea that you were shooting in sRGB, I think it may explain an earlier issue. I agree 100% with David King; at the very least you should be shooting in RGB, for several reasons. sRGB has a smaller pallet but makes the best use of a narrower gamut. RGB has a much larger pallet and is best for broad gamut’s. Also, sRGB limits you to this smaller color pallet, even if converted to 16bit as it permanently limits the image to the use of a smaller gamut and color pallet. Very noticeable in future use of both high end inkjet printer’s, commercial photo printers (Like those at local “One’Hour Photo” intities) and commercial CMYK printer’s.
You are going to love this one. 😉 One of the gamut limitations, when comparing sRGB to RGB, is the fact that RGB goes much further into the darker shades of Green, like grass and foliage. I think this is why you had a problem post editing for the broader (color rich deeper shades of green) gamut.
I don’t know what type of package PB has on their back end but I feel pretty positive that they have some sort of software that automatically adjusts the images for better web viewing, (I don’t know for a fact though). Also, if your files are over their maximum file size, their software automatically downsizes the file and really reduces the total gamut a lot. You also have to keep in mind that we now have better monitors that will show a broader gamut than older models. The only reason to convert to sRGB 2.1 is so that it is easier for more monitors to see the best use of a narrow gamut in sRGB and broader compatibility with browser’s .
This is the most important use of shooting in sRGB and should be the only application: the photographer knows that the composition has a very narrow gamut, or purposely wants a narrow gamut. In order to get the best use of that narrow gamut, adjust to sRGB but again, it sacrifices the use of 16 bit as simply; a narrow sRGB gamut will not go into those much larger color spectrum’s.
Another great shot Will. Neal, basically re-supports the suggested that I made about the book that you should write. Illustrations of the actual insect with a limited selection of fly’s that match that insect and stage.
I really love and admire your insect photography, Will. There is nothing close to it, in the fly fishing circles!
That is a col shot Eric, love the DOF!!
That is great that you talked with your AD and also with the Editor, John. Truthfully, shooting, as an assignment photographer is a completely different beast than shooting for pretty photographs to post on the net, I am not talking about composition or the ability to just get the shot here. I shoot as a full time assignment photographer and the most valuable lesson that I learned is; shoot for the AD’s and GA’s (there is a second approach but I will cover that later). Granted, shooting this way does not always produce amazing color rich photographs, that can draw praising comments from other’s, but as your AD said; “there are particular issues that have to be taken into account for final publication”. There are, now, commercial printers that will print RGB but the bulk of publication is in CMYK. Converting to CMYK is much more than just selecting it in PS and choosing CMYK profile, as they have to go off of the numeric values. There is no true “black, in CMYK as it is more of a blend and the gray scales “have” to have the proper numerical values as they do not print the same as seen on a monitor.
The second approach is in an earned one: A lot of the photographers, working on large budget assignment’s, will either have their own GA’s on staff or are very astute with their own PS expert skills, with a pronounced understanding of the CMYK conversion parameter’s. This is earned by the tear sheets, in the photographer’s book, and supported by the AD’s as original works and post edits of the photographer. This is the whole reason that I have studied and learned PS to the level that I am now at, I don’t care about negative comments about using PS, as I would much rather just get the work and get paid.
As you know, getting the shot is the most important matter in assignment work and consistency in getting the shot is what increases the value of the photographer. Moving up the ladder, to large circulation assignment’s, PS skills and/or having your own signature style produced by the photographers staff GA, reduces that lag time in post edit for the publisher and also increases the value of the free lance photographer. This is the whole reason that I had committed the time and energy to learning PS to, close of an equal that of, expert level. It is all part of my business plan as I am nowhere near the level that I want to be at yet. The next part of my business plan is a very large self-funded assignment that I will shoot in Europe next year. Back to my point though: On larger assignments, the dark room skills are equal to that of the digital dark room skills, it is part of the progression and rather we like it or not, it is the future and present.
It is hard to critique your, intended for publication and conversion to CMYK, photographs, as they will always be compared to a post-edited SRGB or RGB post. We can comment on your composition and Kelvin’s but the absolute advice came from your AD, basically and I paraphrase; get the shot and get it with the best contrast and saturation possible, with crisp sharpness, let us worry about the corrections in post edit as it has to be done certain to a certain way.
I stay on a focus of PS software, as it is the most commonly used software in publication and publication houses. You turned this into a very educational and interesting thread John, a very enlightening thread that highlights the difference between shooting for great looking and completed RGB photographs ~vs~ shooting for CMYK and publisher’s. I also, go back to the topic of understanding color frequencies, as your assignment is one of the best illustration on how important it is to understand this in comparison to the true weakness of sensor’s and why pro lenses are even more important. Anything less than a pro lens and I bet you would have even more problems with the colors. Nonetheless, you did a great job and those are great photographs, I can visualize what the final’s, in CMYK publication, will look like and it only reinforces the extremely high skill level that you have as a photographer!!
That is an awesome drift boat, Scott!! I love the wooden drift boats and the side-by-side comparison is great, you can really see a big difference in dimensions, in your photograph. I am guessing that the gentlemen, in the aft compartment of your boat, is just hanging out in the cocktail lounge?
Hey John, as always; great shots. Few know as much as you do about shooting with DSLR and photography in general so, these are just my opinions and not meant as advise:
It looks more like a Kelvin thing, going on in your images. Granted red and derivatives of red, especially the brighter side, are very difficult to shoot against dark greens. As you know, it pretty much stretches the maximum capabilities of the design in both the sensors and limitations of lenses. As Eric mentioned, sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone but I kind of noticed something in your images. I don’t know if this is from post edit or from the original shots. Granted, everyone says that WB, when shooting RAW, is not all that important but with your highly technical shooting parameters, I think that on camera WB is more important.
Example: Your first image seems to be a bit cold but look at the hair color on the dog, I am guessing that it is close to correct but still just a bit cold. In the second photograph, I am also taking for granted that it is the same dog, the hair seems to be a lot warmer. Only you know which one is more correct but I am guessing somewhere between the 2 photographs would be more correct. In the first photograph, the hunters hat seems to have more crisp data but again, a bit on the cold side. In the second, the hat seems to not be as crisp but I think this is due to bleed from the much stronger color frequency, with the added strength of a much warmer Kelvin.
I am just guessing here but it seems that a Kelvin between the 2 images would help you retain more of the crispness, of the highly reflective oranges, with more retained data in this colors as well. Only you know this answer as I can only guess, did the greens have that much yellow and warmth in them, in all of the other photographs? It also may just be my monitor but some of the shots do seem a bit dark, as well.
For publication purposes, the only advice that I have would be; ask one of your art directors how they prefer these type of photographs. The may prefer them a bit colder, so that they can get as much crisp orange color, as they can just paint in a ¼ CTO layer around the oranges.
As you stated, it could also just be the fact that a lot of data is lost when downsized for posting on the web. Nonetheless, great photographs and as always, I am a fan of your work :).
The 18-200VR is a great lens!! I hear the “to soft talk” about this lens and I keep wondering, to soft for what? It is a sharp lens but if the images are compared to pro lenses, it will be a bit softer. All zoom lenses have their soft spots and that is to be expected. The 70-200 is an excellent lens but one can not compare the 70-200 to the 18-200, they are engineered completely differently.
I also have the 18-200 and think it is a great lens. For everyday casual shots, I will not hesitate to use it and in a crunch, I would not hesitate to use it on assignment. The 18-55 is also a great lens and is very sharp, can’t compare it to the 17-55 though as they, too, are engineered differently. The 17-55 is sharper but the 18-55 is still a very good lens, for the price; it is an excellent lens!
I, also, strongly recommend the 18-200 as a great choice. Granted it does creep a bit but for the good quality of the images, it is a mere short coming. Don’t know if Nikon has fixed that issue or not yet.
My answer would be a more simplistic one. The one thing that I hear most often. “How do you know which pattern for the insects and how did you learn to identify the insects?” That is how I would approach it. Insect identification and the general fly’s used to match them.
I really like that you are thinking out of the box! I like the image but it kind of confuses me. The gradients give the sky a very rich tone. I like the desaturated look but on my monitor, there seems to be some blue hue to the face and upper body. The vignette is a good idea but it did cut off the feet. I am not all that familiar with Aperture and would consider David King to be the go to guy on that program. What I would do, just me mind you, is this: I would desaturate some of the richness in the sky and take the blue hue off of the face and upper body. Then use a low opacity brush to remove some of the vignette around the feet.
I would say that Aperture can do this but I have no idea of how that program works. I like the shot and angle of the shot, as well as the direction that you took it in post edit!!
This is the limit to my PS3 conversion abilities. I hate all of the B&W conversion tutorials, that I have seen, as they all still seem to miss that feeling of film. I agree about setting the camera for shooting B&W, as it is different and needs to be planned out, but I will not use the B&W camera settings. I can only speak for my experience with the Nikon DSLR body’s on this, the darks just seem to still be to rich and pristine, kind of a sterile feel.
I know that I went way overboard on this image but I am actually trying to come up with a B&W work flow that I can use on a self funded project that I have been working on, in the FSO countries. I also want to age the photograph’s. Still, I just don’t feel that digital has that wonderful feel of the old polaroid or film camera’s, especially the older bad ones, love the look and feel of those :).
WOW!!!!!!!!! That is by far my favorite photograph ever posted on this board!!! I love everything about that photograph, well done!!!!
Is it more of a grainy desaturated type of look that you are going for? Also, do you calibrate your monitor?
I don’t mean to be illusive with the questions, I just want to know the look that you are going for and if we are looking at the same amount of color’s, on our monitors? I promise that my next reply will be opinions and perhaps suggestions for you :).
That is such a great photograph, David!!!! It is kind of funny as a lot of today’s photographer’s focus on the best lenses and best body’s, including myself far to often. Sharp and very crisp photographs seem to be the majority goal with accurate color correction. Yet, some of the best photographs, ever published, are soft to blurry with bad tones all over the image. Such an adamant resistance against vignette, barreling and so forth, yet we marvel at the old masters that are full of these things, now labeled as bad distortions.
I don’t know, but isn’t it a bit funny that we now rely on software to give the photographs old style look? There are forums and Internet sites full of people asking how to get a certain look, with PS and other software, yet the image is out of camera and shot with what would be considered a terrible camera. Seems that art comes from really bad film cameras and a work in progress is a more common designation in digital. One of the worst camera’s ever manufactured was a very cheap Russian entry-level camera. It was manufactured with such low grade parts that the camera could not come close to anything resembling accuracy. The color, hue and saturation were so terrible that trash bins all over Russia were full of these terrible camera’s.
So funny, as once they found their way beyond the Iron Curtain, galleries all over the world were begging for more of this style of photography. Later it was discovered that it truly was not a style as much as it was just a photograph taken with a terrible camera. Even today, many galleries and museums have exhibits and displays of photographs taken from this camera. The LOMO or, Leningradskoje Optiko Mechanitscheskoje Objedinenie, could have been purchased, brand new, for a couple of US dollars and now there are organizations that are built around this camera. It is hard to find true fully functioning original 1982 LOMO’s today and they are FAR more expensive, than they used to be. Funny though, as they can still be found in some of the small villages, of the ex-soviet countries, and in Russia. The cost there? Just ask about the camera and they will give the cheap trash to you and thank you for getting it out of their house. LOL
Funny how it seems the more we move towards equipment perfection, the further we get from perceived art, with the exception of software as the digital darkroom. Yes, I will still go digital and go with the best equipment but it is more due to the increased cost and declining budgets on assignments. Still I say though, history and true photography art was captured in film, many times with bad body’s or lenses. Today’s art is captured in the digital darkroom and I am smart enough to know that I had better be on the front of this train before I just end up as a grumpy old man with a roll of film and a descent lens with a good body, camera body anyway LOL.
This makes me appreciate your last photograph that much more, it has a great Warhol look about it. 🙂
