Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 06:10:23 PM 
Started by LarryL - Last post by LarryL
Thanks, Tony, greatly appreciated.

 on: Today at 06:03:46 PM 
Started by Erland - Last post by MHMG
What evidence supports the "not recommended" answer?  Epson Claria and Canon Chromalife 100+ dye sets are not like inkjet dyes sold several years ago. The older sets faded very quickly on any media except swellable polymer papers, and those papers are to my knowledge no longer on the market because they had other serious issues.  if earlier generation dye-based longevity performance is the basis for the "not recommended" comments by the third party media manufacturers then I suspect they are just covering their a$*@#.  Fair enough, but Canon actually encourages the use of those third party fine art print media in its dye-based Pro-100 printer which uses the Chromalife 100+ dye set, so there seems to be a discrepancy of opinion.

I haven't done any extensive testing of dye based systems on non OEM and non RC media either, so I can't say with certainty how full color sets would do on the Baryta papers, but I have tested Claria "black only (PK ink)" full tone scale samples printed on Canson Baryta Photographique head-to-head with the same full tone scale PK-only images printed on Epson OEM Premium Glossy and the outcome was close enough that I'd have no problem recommending either paper as a suitable choice. I'm not saying that dyes will match pigments in longevity on Baryta papers or any other papers for that matter. I'm just saying that I see no evidence to suggest the newer synthetic dyes hold up much better on "recommended" OEM RC media compared to third party Baryta "fine art" and other non RC media. If anything the use of a protective spray is the bigger issue concerning longevity ratings when using dye based inkjet systems, but that said, initial image quality compatibility with those longevity-enhancing sprays can also be problematic. As for initial image quality, one just has to try a paper to figure that out, and custom profiling may be necessary, but I have seen beautiful dye-based prints made on non RC fine art media.


 on: Today at 06:02:28 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by Tim Lookingbill
They produce "looks" much like oversaturated printer profiles we see from paper makers, ie made to impress the casual user, they are noway accurate but very subjective indeed. I don’t buy into that you need to be a color expert at Phase One to get good color from the camera, especially in landscape photography.

What would define a color expert? Are there tests? I found these statements from your linked "" on CCT issues with solid state lighting quite telling about whether we all know enough about light's affect on color... ...

As the spectra of LED sources are dissimilar to traditional incandescent and discharge lamps, some of the existing standards and measurement methods are insufficient or deficient when applied to LEDs. For example, a new metric for color rendering of light sources is being developed to address the problems of the color rendering index (CRI) for LED light sources. Such studies require well-designed vision experiments. Because solid-state lighting sources have much greater flexibility of spectral design than traditional lamps, manufacturers have more freedom in the selection of correlated color temperature (CCT) and color quality of solid-state lighting products for various lighting applications. However, the interrelated effects of chromaticity, color rendering, and other aspects of spectra on lighting are still not well understood. Thus, the introduction of solid-state lighting necessitates re-visiting many of these questions regarding the effects of spectra on lighting.

Not well understood?! Huh?!

From all that's been discussed online using spectral plots, graphs and 3D modeling analysis to prove one product is better at color reproduction over another since I got into digital imaging back in '98, I was convinced color scientists especially with the government had it worked out and understood just fine. What other possible "Standard" could they come up with over how we're defining the effects of spectra on lighting?

 on: Today at 05:59:50 PM 
Started by LarryL - Last post by Tony Jay
Any back-up software that will do a bit-for-bit back-up will do.
I use SnycBackPro but really there are a whole lot of options.

Tony Jay

 on: Today at 05:56:32 PM 
Started by dreed - Last post by Telecaster
Perhaps there will be a generational change and enthusiast photographers will become as commonplace as poets.

I can see this as a possibility. Imagery could become so omnipresent & ubiquitous that people could lose much of their interest in creating yet more of it. Reaching technical plateaus—due to lack of consumer interest rather than innovative/iterative capability—might sluice away much of the specs-obsessed enthusiast crowd too. I doubt any of this will happen in the near term, but who knows? Whatever happens will have little effect on me personally. I can take pics with my 4x5" using glass plates or paper negs with brushed-on emulsion if necessary.  Cheesy


 on: Today at 05:42:16 PM 
Started by Stefan.Steib - Last post by Isaac
…when you photograph like Ansel Adams today, you are a copycat.

How does one "photograph like Ansel Adams"?

Digital Landscape Photography: In the Footsteps of Ansel Adams and the Great Masters

Advanced Digital Black & White Photography

…was using knowingly and openly (i.e., not hiding it) a known technique, acknowledging its source. In the art world, it is know as homage.

Is that the same as "copying", only spelled differently?

I suspect you understand the difference in meaning very well.

…when we think about the photograph at all, it is largely in terms like 'That's a bit like that other photograph…'.

How do you know this to be true?

More to the point: Andrew, why do you think that is true? It isn't what I seem to do when I think about a photograph, unless it really is very like another photograph.

 on: Today at 05:28:38 PM 
Started by Centauri - Last post by Telecaster
I love shallow DOF as much as anyone, and honestly I don't find getting it to be an issue with m43 cameras. What you can't do is use exactly the same approach & techniques as with your Canon. Different format, different rules.

In film days this was easier to grasp since cameras of different formats, at least those I owned or had access to, operated & handled differently. Not possible to confuse a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex with a Canon or Nikon. The differences in behavior of a given focal length in front of different sizes of film…those differences were just part of the deal. These days, though, cameras are more similar across formats in UI & handling. At the same time the 35mm format has become so fetishized that lens behavior in front of any non-36x24mm sensor is often seen as abberant. "Once I get my full frame camera my lenses will work at their true focal lengths," and other such gibberish.

Anyway, when it comes to shallow DOF with m43 I tend to use narrower fields-of-view than with larger formats. Instead of, say, portraits with an 85/90mm lens at f/2–2.8 (my long-time 35mm format preference) I'll use Olympus' 75/1.8 wide open. Shorter focal length but narrower FOV. And sometimes I'll frame tighter as well if that helps blur out an otherwise distracting background. The main thing, though, is that I'm more careful with m43 in choosing pleasing backgrounds and pleasing subject/background spatial relationships since I can't always rely on my lenses to blur away all obtrusive background detail.

One thing you can take advantage of is the shorter minimum focusing distance of many m43 lenses compared to their 35mm format counterparts. Oly's 40–150/2.8, for example, can focus down to 70cm (officially…the actual minimum is ~55cm). I find this encourages me to get closer to things, to choose smaller subjects and/or isolate smaller areas of larger subjects. This is good…it gets me out of my ruts, helps me see things in new ways.


 on: Today at 05:21:54 PM 
Started by LarryL - Last post by LarryL
Tony, I figured it would be something like that. If I understand you correctly I have to make an exact copy of the HD in my desktop on the portable HD, correct? What backup software do you use to achieve this?

 on: Today at 04:53:24 PM 
Started by Erland - Last post by Erland
I printed the Baryta with both Canson own baryta and their platine. Also tried my Photo lustre profile I've made myself.
Everywhere on the internet Baryta papers and Dye inks are not a recommended combination.

 on: Today at 04:40:49 PM 
Started by OnlyNorth - Last post by OnlyNorth
Around the church was the hunting ground of the mighties of the past times.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »