Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
 on: May 29, 2016, 11:00:05 PM 
Started by dwswager - Last post by BernardLanguillier
Then maybe it is the photographer who can make a difference, since it couldn't be just the camera ... ;)

Ah yes, maybe. ;)

Now some cameras are better than others at not introducing hurddles btwn a photographic intent and its realization. Funny to say this considering the bulk of the beast, but the D5 does a great job at removing itself from the story.


 on: May 29, 2016, 10:38:11 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by GWGill
I haven't had much success with the -p parameter.
From the images made available to me, it seems that the problem is that the wrong recognition reference file is being used. A Classic ColorChecker is not the same dimensions as half of a ColorChecker Passport! (the relative patch size is different).

If I take the original Passport shot, crop it, rotate it and reduce the dimensions to 1024, scanin -p works perfectly. The shot is probably useless because it is so unevenly exposed, but the patches are captured fine.

 on: May 29, 2016, 09:46:08 PM 
Started by James Haswell - Last post by GWGill
My problem: Take an old piece of paper / art / map. The paper typically has a yellow / orange tinge to it. Scan this into a Adobe RGB color space. Save as a TIF. Open in Photoshop - print to printer. The print has a magenta / pink tinge instead. The print looks the same if I use the correcr paper ICC or if I let the printer do the color management in Adobe RGB space.
I think you need to re-adjust your expectations with regard to what "out of the box" color can do for you.

Pre-canned profiles will typically be accurate to somewhere in the range of 2-10 delta E. Custom made profiles somewhere in the range 1-5 delta E. Typical workflows are all relative colorimetric based intents, where it is assumed that white is the white of the media (and it's wired up to make it that way), so the color inaccuracy manifests itself in areas other than white, and the above color accuracy is quite workable.

When using a proofing type workflow where you are trying to emulate one media color with another (Absolute Colorimetric intent), things get a whole lot more critical. I've seen many cases where 1 delta E is not enough - the media color error needs to be < 0.5 delta E to be a visual match. So "by the numbers" custom profiles may not quite enough, since the accuracy and repeatability of graphic arts instruments like the i1pro may not quite be good enough.

And then there are the other complications, such as the destination media simply being out of gamut of the source, FWA/OBE's in the paper resulting in color shifts because the instrument isn't "illuminating" the paper the same way you are viewing it. And then there is the scanner, which typically is not colorimetric (i.e. it doesn't see color the same way humans do), so profiling it with a test chart will not be accurate to better than 3-10 delta E, unless the test chart has exactly the same media and colorants as what you are scanning, and the CIE reference values are made with the same illuminant as you will evaluate the result in. One of the errors you may well see with a profiling chart being different media to what you are scanning, is a white point error - by default (i.e. Relative Colorimetric) a perfectly profiled scan should result in the media color being removed. Typically people work around any such error by manually adjusting the white point of a scan to make the media perfect white.

[ And I won't complicate this explanation any more by going into observer variability. ]

Now all this doesn't mean that you can't solve your problem, or that it's not just one of these things that is causing the majority of the color shift (hopefully some of the preceding suggestions from people will help), but saying that "you spent a lot of money" so that it should "just work" isn't realistic, when you are using a less common workflow. A serious, high accuracy color instrument could set you back in the vicinity of $20,000 and up, so what constitutes "a lot of money" is relative.


 on: May 29, 2016, 09:44:53 PM 
Started by JoeKitchen - Last post by JoeKitchen
I know that you can shoot from live view with the IQ3 100. 

However, if someone eventually developed an electric leaf shutter for a technical camera that worked in the same fashion as a leaf shutter in DSLRs (that being it always remains open until you press the release, then closes, fires, and opens again), would you be able to shoot from live in this set up as well? 

 on: May 29, 2016, 09:43:14 PM 
Started by rollsman44 - Last post by rollsman44
I am selling my Leica lens as I can't get used to Manual focus. The Image quality is awesome . I used it on my Sony A7ii only a few times and I need to sell it. It comes with the Proper Shade, Caps and Box. I purchased it from Ken Hansen in NYC. I paid $1600 and asking 1500.  I accept Paypal. I have an Excellent Reputation on Ebay.  Thank you

 on: May 29, 2016, 09:42:17 PM 
Started by eronald - Last post by Theodoros
DSLRs are here to stay, IMO.

Of course they are... but this is totally irrelevant, with tech advancement being almost dead... People don't care anymore to "upgrade" their older DSLRs... Why one should change his D4 (not D4S) for a D5 or other? It (and the DF) still has the best Image quality out of all FF cameras ever made... doesn't it?

 on: May 29, 2016, 09:28:04 PM 
Started by Zorki5 - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
Who says that photography has lost its magic? ;)

 on: May 29, 2016, 09:13:07 PM 
Started by eronald - Last post by John Koerner
Yeah, all true. BUT now go to the bottom of the table of zoom lenses and see who's the "champion" there.

Among 10 worst zooms: 3 Nikkors, 2 Canons, 2 Sonys, 2 Tamrons, and 1 Sigma. They fail miserably at what's important for the mass market.

You forgot to mention Nikon owns 4 out of the top 10 Zooms, a split with Canon.

Top Primes: Nikon 4, Canon 2, Sony 0
Top Zooms: Nikon 4, Canon 4, Sony 0
Top DSLRs: Nikon 3, Canon 0, Sony 1

TOTAL TOP PRODUCTS: Nikon 11, Canon 6, Sony 1

They still pretty much own high-end DSLR and primes segments (quality-wise), but what is the volume of those? And BTW whatever is the volume, these are exactly the segments that probably shrink faster than anything else (with the exception of low-end compacts, or course).

I am not interested in whether they sell more cameras than Canon, only that their cameras are better than Canon's when I buy.
(Same as if I could afford a Porsche, I wouldn't care that Toyota sells more Corollas ...)

Their mirrorless offering is the absolute worst among big players. Yes, Canon's line of EOS-M cameras is as boring as it gets, but at least they have a future-proof mount already, and some lenses with surprisingly good performance/cost ratio for it.

As I said, I think their new DL line of Point-n-Shoots is a good direction for them ...

Since early DSRL days, Nikon failed in pretty much every really new venue they tried. Their DL line of fixed-lens compacts is quite promising, but so was Coolpix-A that they eventually had to kill.

The "retro" segment? When I first saw Nikon Df, I couldn't stop laughing -- it instantly reminded me of heavy tanks of the 1930th, with half a dozen battlements... (see attached images) That's not "retro", that's "antique!" They couldn't even capitalize on their great past properly.

So, the way things are going, Nikon looks like almost set to become a niche player, unfortunately. Do hope that history will prove me wrong, though.

Which, again, is why I think they should stop with the gadgetry and stick to what they do best: make the best DSLRs, and accompanying lenses, on the planet.

Not every company has to be Microsoft, Sony, etc.

It really is okay to be a super-good, mid-sized company that makes impeccable products.

Porsche will never be Toyota, in size, but yet driving a Toyota will never feel the same as driving a Porsche :)


 on: May 29, 2016, 09:11:36 PM 
Started by jodo - Last post by GWGill
The flash images are dark and over saturated i.e. Not managed. How to fix?
Don't use flash if you care about color.

 on: May 29, 2016, 09:02:49 PM 
Started by stever - Last post by luxborealis
Northeast of Naples - Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary: easily spend a whole day along the substantial board walk; we were there from opening to closing.

Just south of Naples: Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Tower Road, Naples: trails through scrubby brush with deer and at least one massive Diamondback Rattlesnake.

East of Naples along Tamiami Trail:
Ten Thousand Islands NWR: great and easy walk in from the car park with an excellent observation platform. When we were there (March) it was like walking through an open aviary of wetland birds.

Fakahatchee Strand on the north side of Tamiami Trail: great boardwalk into the swamp.

Big Cypress Loop Road, off Tamiami Trail, particularly Gator Hook Strand and Sweetwater Strand

Don't miss Clyde Butcher's Gallery, along Tamiami Trail: great shooting right out front, and very impressive works inside.

There is also the drive north off Tamiami Trail to the training airport; some good ponds there with water birds.

We were there for 7 days, never made it to Everglades NP, yet never ran out of places, nature and wildlife to see and photograph. In fact, the day we tried to go to ENP, the parking was full, so we chose not to wait and discovered a bunch of unlisted ponds and wetlands west along Tamiami Trail.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10