Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I have been reading one of the camera-upgrade threads on RFF (the salient point being that we are "there" in terms of IQ and the market for the kinds of cameras RFF loves (or maybe that I love) is crashing in year-over-year sales terms. I agree with the comments that note this is a correction and that the constant upgrade cycle we have been on for the last ten years is spinning down. I am interested in the other aspect of this: how many of you feel that you have mastered the image-making chain to whatever your final product is?
I will freely admit that after a stab at calibrating my monitor a couple of years ago, I just gave up.
My small rant: The monitor needed to be calibrated, the printer needed to be calibrated, the print media and inks were subject to change without notice (some improvements, some not), and every new iteration of Photoshop or Lightroom came with different defaults or processes for color conversion from RAW. Add to this computers that failed or needed to be upgraded, cameras that got added to the stable at a much higher rate than in the film years, each with its own JPG algorithm, drivers for scanners and printers that outstripped operating systems. . . honestly, it became a job just treading water.
I am currently on hiatus from upgrades. Haven't bought a camera or lens in over a year (although I am tempted by some 2012 model camera that are now available on the used market... yes, I have a problem)
D)
So here's my question: how many of you actually maintain some level of mastery over your imaging making process? The poll follows . . .
I will freely admit that after a stab at calibrating my monitor a couple of years ago, I just gave up.
My small rant: The monitor needed to be calibrated, the printer needed to be calibrated, the print media and inks were subject to change without notice (some improvements, some not), and every new iteration of Photoshop or Lightroom came with different defaults or processes for color conversion from RAW. Add to this computers that failed or needed to be upgraded, cameras that got added to the stable at a much higher rate than in the film years, each with its own JPG algorithm, drivers for scanners and printers that outstripped operating systems. . . honestly, it became a job just treading water.
I am currently on hiatus from upgrades. Haven't bought a camera or lens in over a year (although I am tempted by some 2012 model camera that are now available on the used market... yes, I have a problem)
D)So here's my question: how many of you actually maintain some level of mastery over your imaging making process? The poll follows . . .
Robin P
Well-known
Yes, the whole process can be very frustrating but the photos I produce now are far far better than anything I could have done in the days of film - not sure that my composition skills have improved but everything else has.
Sympathies to those who dislike using computers but remember that conversely there were those of us who had a dread of playing with liquids and chemicals
Sympathies to those who dislike using computers but remember that conversely there were those of us who had a dread of playing with liquids and chemicals
Hiyawaan
Particular Individual
Personally I stopped using my home printer, I shoot in raw and process in PP/SFX, I have my monitor calibrated to my labs printers color space/ink/paper profile that i like. So when I hand them files to print, 9 times out of 10 we print with no changes after seeing a test print.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I understand the frustrations fully and have shared many of them over the last fifteen years or so that I've had involvement with digital photography. My solution, after years of mistakes, wasted money and more frustration is to do all I can in terms of colour profiles and calibration and then set up a good working relationship with a local lab for my colour and monochrome prints. That makes it sound simple when there was still plenty of trial and error but it now works very well and I find the cost actually works out fractionally cheaper than if I printed myself and kept on top of using fresh inks, regularly cleaning and calibrating the printer etc etc. Though this is all for my work and so I can charge to cover my costs and more, if it was just for my personal photography I wonder if I could honestly afford the time and money of making quality digital prints.
Ronald M
Veteran
Same here except I use a lab that uses real photo paper. I soft proof to their furnished profile and I use the same Eiso monitor they use. The prints are called economy because they do not touch them.
If they are wrong, it is my fault, but it never happened.
Their prints are cheaper than anything I could do at home and I need not maintain a printer.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Another vote for using the color profile your favourite lab can supply you with to calibrate your monitor to.
Since printers and I have a tendency to disagree to the point where I kick them around the back yard (true story), I've gone this way and haven't looked back.
Since printers and I have a tendency to disagree to the point where I kick them around the back yard (true story), I've gone this way and haven't looked back.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I don't need new digital cameras to take same pictures.
I do take pictures properly in terms of WB and exposure. Minimum processing is required.
Printing isn't problem for me, because I don't have printer at home, but using lab.
I do take pictures properly in terms of WB and exposure. Minimum processing is required.
Printing isn't problem for me, because I don't have printer at home, but using lab.
kxl
Social Documentary
This is what I do as well.
YYV_146
Well-known
I've profiled my papers with the photo department's nice printer - wonder if that counts
My monitors are calibrated to different color spaces. I check online presentation tonality and print colors on two monitors. Figured that the cheap way to do it is to get a secondary monitor that exactly covers Srgb.
My monitors are calibrated to different color spaces. I check online presentation tonality and print colors on two monitors. Figured that the cheap way to do it is to get a secondary monitor that exactly covers Srgb.
rscheffler
Well-known
Like others here, I don't print. None of my paying clients ask for prints. They all want the digital files, which is great, IMO. No messing around with printers, inks and profiles.... When I want prints, I'll head to a local lab and let them deal with all that.
As for monitor profiling - you should give it another try. Like everything else, hardware and software have changed over the years. It seems better now at dealing with a variety of display types. The system I used in the mid 2000s did fine with CRTs and certain LCD displays but was horrible for others, such as my more recent laptops. Earlier this year I bit the bullet and bought new calibration hardware (it happened to be on sale for ~$150), and so far, so good. The accompanying software could still be better designed for intuitive use, but it's OK.
I worked in prepress for over a decade and have been shooting digital exclusively since ~2003. I feel very comfortable with it. Ironic, perhaps, that I worked in a field specializing in adapting digital files to a printed product, yet I rarely print anything of my own work... Of course, each medium has its own set of strengths and weaknesses and there are certain aspects of film I miss, but aren't critical for the type of work I do.
I recall in the film days, if shooting commercially with E-6 films, it was common to buy it in huge batches and test it for colour.... and this assumed the lab was maintaining its chemistry properly. Every once in a while a new film, developer, or paper would arrive and more testing would ensue. Every once in a while something would be discontinued and more testing would revolve around the replacement solution. The cycle wasn't as aggressive as it is now, but it still existed. Having grown up in photography in the late 80s through 90s, I recall the camera club comments by those who had been in it decades longer about all the wonderful paper types that no longer existed...
My impression, casually observing the film market, is that the choice/selection problem is much worse now, though at least there seem to be niches filled by smaller enterprises. The discontinuation of a given product likely now has a much greater impact on one's alternative options.
Yes, the upgrade and obsolescence cycle of digital is fast, though seems to be slowing slightly, as you mentioned. i don't thinks it's necessary to upgrade as frequently, but one also can't expect to avoid it indefinitely. I've been running PS CS2 for ages now, because it does what I need and most of my workflow involves Lightroom instead. But on a Mac, PS CS2 will only run on OS 10.6.8. or older, IIRC, which means none of the new hardware. Therefore my editing machine is a relatively old ~2009 iMac... I've upgraded it to dual SSDs myself, which kept it peppy, but eventually, it will either die or I'll want something newer. Then CS2 will no longer work and I'll have to consider the dreaded Adobe CC monthly license... At least that will eliminate an aspect of falling behind on upgrades, but at a cost... Yet, doing noting also ends up costing. As the years accumulate with a locked-in workflow, the eventual, inevitable, upgrade becomes more complex and, of course, costly. But, as with anything, you have to pay to play...
With digital I have greater control over the final interpretation and presentation of my images. I have much more flexibility with turnaround and delivery. My clients are all interested in receiving digital files. No one wants prints. We're now seeing 4K and higher resolution monitors on the market. In a few years, these will become more commonplace, and resolution will likely continue to increase. Finally, one of the weak links of digital image presentation (monitor/projector resolution) will be fixed. The electronic display at ppi resolution rivaling or surpassing ink on paper, is something at least I am looking forward to...
As for monitor profiling - you should give it another try. Like everything else, hardware and software have changed over the years. It seems better now at dealing with a variety of display types. The system I used in the mid 2000s did fine with CRTs and certain LCD displays but was horrible for others, such as my more recent laptops. Earlier this year I bit the bullet and bought new calibration hardware (it happened to be on sale for ~$150), and so far, so good. The accompanying software could still be better designed for intuitive use, but it's OK.
I worked in prepress for over a decade and have been shooting digital exclusively since ~2003. I feel very comfortable with it. Ironic, perhaps, that I worked in a field specializing in adapting digital files to a printed product, yet I rarely print anything of my own work... Of course, each medium has its own set of strengths and weaknesses and there are certain aspects of film I miss, but aren't critical for the type of work I do.
I recall in the film days, if shooting commercially with E-6 films, it was common to buy it in huge batches and test it for colour.... and this assumed the lab was maintaining its chemistry properly. Every once in a while a new film, developer, or paper would arrive and more testing would ensue. Every once in a while something would be discontinued and more testing would revolve around the replacement solution. The cycle wasn't as aggressive as it is now, but it still existed. Having grown up in photography in the late 80s through 90s, I recall the camera club comments by those who had been in it decades longer about all the wonderful paper types that no longer existed...
My impression, casually observing the film market, is that the choice/selection problem is much worse now, though at least there seem to be niches filled by smaller enterprises. The discontinuation of a given product likely now has a much greater impact on one's alternative options.
Yes, the upgrade and obsolescence cycle of digital is fast, though seems to be slowing slightly, as you mentioned. i don't thinks it's necessary to upgrade as frequently, but one also can't expect to avoid it indefinitely. I've been running PS CS2 for ages now, because it does what I need and most of my workflow involves Lightroom instead. But on a Mac, PS CS2 will only run on OS 10.6.8. or older, IIRC, which means none of the new hardware. Therefore my editing machine is a relatively old ~2009 iMac... I've upgraded it to dual SSDs myself, which kept it peppy, but eventually, it will either die or I'll want something newer. Then CS2 will no longer work and I'll have to consider the dreaded Adobe CC monthly license... At least that will eliminate an aspect of falling behind on upgrades, but at a cost... Yet, doing noting also ends up costing. As the years accumulate with a locked-in workflow, the eventual, inevitable, upgrade becomes more complex and, of course, costly. But, as with anything, you have to pay to play...
With digital I have greater control over the final interpretation and presentation of my images. I have much more flexibility with turnaround and delivery. My clients are all interested in receiving digital files. No one wants prints. We're now seeing 4K and higher resolution monitors on the market. In a few years, these will become more commonplace, and resolution will likely continue to increase. Finally, one of the weak links of digital image presentation (monitor/projector resolution) will be fixed. The electronic display at ppi resolution rivaling or surpassing ink on paper, is something at least I am looking forward to...
f16sunshine
Moderator
The only printing I do myself anymore is wet B+W.
B+W digital or really big enlargements I send to Panda in Seattle.
I print very little color and seldom above 17x20. These I order directly from Apple via Aperture.
They arrive in the mail a few days later printed on Fuji paper. So far so good and they always match my monitor.
I just printed a bunch of color images for my mom taken on an inside passage trip this past summer with the Ricoh GR (Western BC Canada).
Mostly 8x10's. The prints look fantastic and she is completely happy with them.
Whoever Apple is using for the Seattle area is doing a great job (maybe it's Fuji?).
B+W digital or really big enlargements I send to Panda in Seattle.
I print very little color and seldom above 17x20. These I order directly from Apple via Aperture.
They arrive in the mail a few days later printed on Fuji paper. So far so good and they always match my monitor.
I just printed a bunch of color images for my mom taken on an inside passage trip this past summer with the Ricoh GR (Western BC Canada).
Mostly 8x10's. The prints look fantastic and she is completely happy with them.
Whoever Apple is using for the Seattle area is doing a great job (maybe it's Fuji?).
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I developed my image processing workflow in 2002-2003 using Photoshop as a base, moved to Lightroom as the base in 2006-2007, and have refined it in small ways since. I bought my screen calibrator in 2004, still use it. Bought my printer in 2005, still use it. The results meet my and my clients satisfaction test.
So if that's what "mastering a digital workflow" means, yeah, sure. Did it a decade ago.
What changes through system upgrades and such is less than the roll to roll variation of home processing B&W film.
G
So if that's what "mastering a digital workflow" means, yeah, sure. Did it a decade ago.
What changes through system upgrades and such is less than the roll to roll variation of home processing B&W film.
G
V-12
Well-known
If you have an opinion about how your photographs should look you are going to need to do some work. To get the most out of an image has never been easy, but you need to know what you can do to get the most out of an image.
So rather than starting out with a big worries about the process start out by forming an opinion of what you like or don't like, the process will then come to you as you engage in discovering the things that make a difference. For many photography is as good as it gets with the out of camera JPEG that has been formulated by a technician at Canon or Nikon, processed to default values by a technician at Adobe, and printed by the junior technician at a print house or lab. So the image is only marginally yours unless you do some post processing.
V
willie_901
Veteran
It seems to me color profiling is just one component of digital workflow.
Since I have no interest in owning a printer, I use two labs. MPIX (no affiliation) will custom adjust high-quality JPEGs if you wish. I have never been disappointed with a MPIX print.
While it could be a matter of coincidence, the local pro lab I use happens top make excellent, calibrated prints from my Apple Thunderbolt display. I calibrate the display with one light temperature in the room using just the built-in Apple tools. The gamma, color fidelity and tonality on the lab's prints and the display's rendering match so closely it's hard to believe. The lab insists they do not alter my files in anyway. I guess I believe them.
Digital asset management, backup strategies and lots of practice with the rendering software and plug-ins is way more difficult and challenging for me.
Since I have no interest in owning a printer, I use two labs. MPIX (no affiliation) will custom adjust high-quality JPEGs if you wish. I have never been disappointed with a MPIX print.
While it could be a matter of coincidence, the local pro lab I use happens top make excellent, calibrated prints from my Apple Thunderbolt display. I calibrate the display with one light temperature in the room using just the built-in Apple tools. The gamma, color fidelity and tonality on the lab's prints and the display's rendering match so closely it's hard to believe. The lab insists they do not alter my files in anyway. I guess I believe them.
Digital asset management, backup strategies and lots of practice with the rendering software and plug-ins is way more difficult and challenging for me.
Pioneer
Veteran
I don't even have a reliable analogue workflow yet.
As for digital? Once in awhile I get something I like off the printer. Most of the time I'm disappointed.
Actually, I was doing all right until I got side tracked with Lightroom. I am going to uninstall LR and go back to Photoshop.
Photoshop is just a way to adjust contrast. Large areas or small.
I haven't figured out what Lightroom is yet.
As for digital? Once in awhile I get something I like off the printer. Most of the time I'm disappointed.
Actually, I was doing all right until I got side tracked with Lightroom. I am going to uninstall LR and go back to Photoshop.
Photoshop is just a way to adjust contrast. Large areas or small.
I haven't figured out what Lightroom is yet.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
gavinlg
Veteran
I've found (after owning heaps of color profiling gear and expensive printers) that color profiling and the like is pretty much marketing stuff unless you are an absolute top tier commercial photographer.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I disagree with you, although I know many people over-do it.
I calibrate and profile my display, and I use a color-managed workflow to print. In printing, I use paper profiles supplied by the paper manufacturers to work with my printer and ink set. Occasionally, when working on something that will have multiple light sources or otherwise difficult lighting to balance, I create a customized camera calibration profile to get the work into the right ballpark.
Calibrating and profiling the display makes what I see consistent and reliable to edit. Printing with a color managed workflow enables a consistency in printing that is otherwise difficult to achieve, which saves money. Calibrating a camera for specific lighting circumstances makes it easier to correct/adjust difficult lighting circumstances. Of the three color profiling operations, the only one that is really important in all cases is to calibrate and profile the display, because that's the one that allows your eye to see the adjustments you make accurately. The others are a matter of consistency or efficiency.
Calibrating and profiling the display is a nearly entirely automatic job. All it takes is a sensor and the correct software to drive it, and ten minutes every three months. That's it. If you use Lightroom and create Print module templates for your customary papers and print outputs, it becomes a "no added time" operation to print with a color managed workflow. Custom calibration for a camera profile takes a little work, but is so rarely needed it's just not an issue.
G
x-ray
Veteran
Profiling is required for consistent quality. Without profiling you're just guessing and wasting time and materials. I even profile my cameras under different lighting conditions. It makes quite a difference in color accuracy.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
With my last CPU I had a little dipstick installed that adjusted the color balance of the monitor and seemed to work ok. When I printed on my Epson R2400 I just knew I had to dial down the magenta a tad and I was good to go. I'll admit though, there were far fewer inputs in the analogue days, and I had found my comfort zone. I actually think we are going to have to get to the next level technologically before I jump in with both feet. What I mean by that is that while digital has allowed us to have a multitude of options and a level of control that was unknown in the days of silver gelatin. But the flip side of that level of control can be decisional paralysis and too many options.
I am using Lightroom and making out alright. But I am afraid I am relying on Adobe's engineers to determine my operating parameters if you know what I mean.