Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: Today at 02:49:30 pm 
Started by keithcooper - Last post by Shiftworker
If you already have the 24mm TS-E II you can add the EF 1.4 mkIII and get a 35mm shift lens with nearly 17mm of shift.

 on: Today at 02:48:58 pm 
Started by Jeremy Roussak - Last post by RSL
Powerful, Jeremy. Gives me the creeps.

 on: Today at 02:47:05 pm 
Started by Jeremy Roussak - Last post by Jeremy Roussak


 on: Today at 02:40:20 pm 
Started by jeremyrh - Last post by jeremyrh
IanSeward had the answer. Enabling the plug-in will allow you to see the application list and pick the ones you would like to show up in the edit with dialog.π

Yes but this is what my Preferences looks like ... :-(

 on: Today at 02:39:56 pm 
Started by Brookie - Last post by Doug Gray
I am using a Pixma Pro-10 and Canonís profile for their Premium Matte paper. When I try soft proofing the on onscreen image looks terrible (with or without adjustments). Yet a straight print (no adjustments made in soft proof) yields a much better result than the onscreen image. Not acceptable as a final print, but much better.  This makes it very hard to predict the resulting print.
I checked the Canon Pro10 Prem. Matte paper profile. It's fine with an L* min of 16. It's normal for a matte paper to have much lighter blacks than luster or glossy paper. Profiles simply show the difference. However, there are several factors at work that can make soft proofing look poorer than the normal screen image. This is especially the case with matte papers. It's normal for a matte print to look worse than the screen image but better than the soft proof screen image. 

I have tried using a profile for a different matte paper and the onscreen image looks much better (nowhere near as gray and muddy as Canonís profile looks).
What profile did you specifically use? You have to compare apples to apples. Some "matte" papers aren't really matte and are closer to semigloss and these will look better soft proofing and print better as well. These so-called matte papers have a sheen that can be seen if you hold them at an angle and have a light on the opposite side. True matte papers have no sheen and look the same at any angle.

 When I softproof using Canon Luster paper and their appropriate profile the results are fine. I have printed test images for a number of HahnemŁhle and Red River papers and when I look at those onscreen in soft proof the image also looks fine. It is only the Canon Premium Matte that I have noticed this problem with.

So my question is this - does anyone know if the paper profile for Canon Premium Matte is just a crummy profile?  Have other people run across this same problem?  And if so what have you done to work around it?

Luster paper blacks reflect about 4 times less light than matte papers so that's why the soft proofs look much better.

As a starting point, when soft proofing matte paper you should use a Photoshop surround that's light gray, not dark gray or black. This is a closer match to how you view a print which isn't against a black or very dark background.

You need to set up a side by side comparison with a proper light booth. You will find that soft proofing works quite well against a print viewed properly. See Digitaldog's videos on this subject. They are quite good - some of the best on the web.

 on: Today at 02:39:01 pm 
Started by armand - Last post by BJL
IBIS would be nice if it doesn't make the camera unwieldily.  I'm actually not sure how much it would mean to me.  I've fared well without it for 40 years.
In this format, I doubt that extra bulk is a worry; some IBIS cameras are even arguably too small for good ergonomics.

Also, I remember getting by without IS; it involved hauling around a tripod or monopod on outings that no longer need that, and when the tripod was not usable, it sometimes meant ISO 3200 or 6400 where I can now use 200.

 on: Today at 02:31:13 pm 
Started by Jeff_L - Last post by Jeff_L
Bump!  Taking offers.

 on: Today at 02:13:59 pm 
Started by earlybird - Last post by MauriceRR
Yes, it's working very well for 10%, rather well for 20% I would say, but for 50% it's not working and artifacts can be horrible.
I take theese algo like that : I don't to process all picture with theese algo, only a few when the source/capture is crapp/poor , and I'm happy when it works better than a regular algorithm.

 on: Today at 02:00:27 pm 
Started by Eric Myrvaagnes - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Very creative snow art, and good videography, too.
But you need virgin snow plains and just the right depth of snow.
I agree.

And from viewing some of the other videos of Simon Beck I would say he does travel a LOT looking for pristine snow fields which he can artfully trample.

 on: Today at 01:49:14 pm 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Oops! I tripped!

Great shot, Chris.

(Yes, I know; it was simply getting dinner.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10