Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: August 23, 2016, 02:05:03 PM 
Started by uptownguydenver - Last post by uptownguydenver
I opened a support case with Phase One and sent them the logs and a copy of the photo.

Just a little update.
When I am in Capture One and select the 10 files in the focus stack and do "Open With HeliconFocus" the resulting tif crashes Capture One when I go to import it.

If I bring this file into Adobe Camera raw and make a minor change and then save it the resulting file imports fine.

When I export the 10 files as tif from Capture One and process those and export the result as a tif Capture One imports it fine.

I add this information to the support case and waiting to hear back.

 92 
 on: August 23, 2016, 02:01:10 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by DennisWilliams
I was just wondering: does anybody here actually use the same camera that they were using five years ago, not just as a lowly 'back-up' but as the main deal?

I suppose I'm interested in finding out whether people are more concerned with fashion, imaginary/real visible improvement in their photographs or just suffer from a surfeit of funds in the bank. (In the case of the latter, I'm just the guy to help you spend it in a somewhat more humanitarian direction!)

Rob C
I am using the same camera model  I was using 5 years ago. The same one from 20 years ago. For all professional work.  The last duplicate body  (i have several) was purchased about 2008. I still focus and set all exposures manually. As a  compromise  to what is now considered normal time frames for delivery / media usage, and because I believe  for current usage it just makes sense,  I scan  my originals and proceed  from there.

I do not see it as faithful. I consider it pragmatic.
dw

 93 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:51:40 PM 
Started by wmchauncey - Last post by DeanChriss
Unlike image files displayed on a monitor, prints are a physical thing. Each has individual physical properties like surface sheen and texture, and display choices like matting, framing, glazing (or not), face mounting on plexi, and the like. With visual properties independent of everything except a light source and a person's eyes they can be held, passed down through decades or centuries, and viewed as the author intended without regard for calibrations, the monitor resolution of the day, and the viability of a given electronic storage media type and file format. Prints also cannot be produced instantaneously in thousands or millions. Their individual physical uniqueness and greater immutability give prints a value, whether sentimental or monetary, that images on electronic media cannot have. It's a bit similar to the first edition of a rare book complete with dust jacket being worth gobs more than an e-book of the same title, or a note written on a slip of paper by your late mother being sentimentally more valuable than a picture of it on your iPad.

edit: Just to be clear, I think electronic display of images has its place and there are obviously countless applications. I just don't think either type of display supplants the other. I think each will continue to have its place for a very long time.

 94 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:49:47 PM 
Started by wmchauncey - Last post by ralfe89
Current printers are awesome devices and produces high quality results with incredible detail and color gamut. A print has it's own characteristics and flair which is, for me, not reached by any display.
A print is a valuable presentation of an image and differs completely from any display. The message is different you transport with a print - it's well decided which image gets presented on which media etc and not arbitrary.

Besides prints can be an awesome present and I haven't seen anybody who wasn't impressed getting a bigger print :)

From a technical perspective the most displays may be impressive in resolution. But color wise only a few devices (compared to all displays) are capable to show much more than sRGB which isn't much compared many good printers can print. With 4K a bigger color space comes along and this is awesome, because proper color management will come more important and gets better. Besides some exceptions the most programs aren't capable of current color management and the complete Windows Universal Apps stack is broken in this regard. But that's a different topic.

 95 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:38:48 PM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by thierrylegros396
What a fine tribute to your friend.
The surf and shadow just kissing is quite stunning.

+1

Condoleances.

Thierry

 96 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:35:49 PM 
Started by HSakols - Last post by thierrylegros396
I love the last one!

Thierry

 97 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:35:11 PM 
Started by vartkes - Last post by vartkes
Hi,

That the display can reach as low as 0.13 cd/sq.m is a pleasant surprise to me, but IMHO it's too low if you want to mimic paper.

When you measure your output, you are most likely to get something in the range of 7 to 7.5 stops (128:1 to 181:1) of contrast (depending on the paper and ink). So if your (more accurately measured) top luminance is in the region of 80 cd/sq.m, then your bottom luminance would need to be closer to 0.625 to 0.44 cd/sq.m.

Now, as far as the black level measurement is accurate enough, your display contrast exceeds your output medium's contrast, so you will see more detail at all luminance levels on display, compared to printed output.

As a first attempt to achieve more predictable output, I'd get the black level up to something higher, 0.50-ish if you use different output media (otherwise take a measurement of the D-max - D-min).

Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I produced a print last night by brute force that is satisfactory; by pushing the softproofing process beyond what I normally need to and thus increasing the luminescence of the shadows to reveal good detail-in-the-shade. But I still donot get WYSIWYG with the softproof on the screen. I will try your suggestion of last through the calibration app and see the result. Andrew Rodney suggested that I reduce the contrast ration from 600+ it is now. I can do that on steps of 50 from 500 to 50 in the same app.
I did want to ask you one last favour; you obviously know alot more about color management than I do. I rarely meet such a person. Would you please point me to where I may be able to learn color management at a deeper level such that I could have deduced to increase the black point to the level you suggested by myself?
Thanks again
Vartkes

 98 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:34:58 PM 
Started by thierrylegros396 - Last post by thierrylegros396
they are all good Thierry, thanks for sharing.

Thanks.

Thierry

 99 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:34:52 PM 
Started by N Walker - Last post by N Walker
It appears that Lightroom changes the PPI to 240 in the print module, hence Canon Print Studio Pro plugin showing the PPI as 240 - indicating CPSP is only printing using 240 PPI.

CPSP plugin in Photoshop uses the images PPI.

Test - Tiff file at 300 PPI in Photoshop and Lightroom.

 100 
 on: August 23, 2016, 01:32:39 PM 
Started by bcooter - Last post by bcooter
Street Music

Welcome to San Francisco


Welcome to LA


BC

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]