jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
You've been agonizing for months,finally found the digital M of your dreams, started mile-long threads on RFF and LUF about the first lens, finally posted your first image of your kid/cat/dog, gathered some Oooohs and Aaaahs, so you have arrived as photographer, you think...Err...no.
Your photos suck; your shadows are blocked, they are flat and dull, your colors are all over the place.
:bang: How can that be with such a good camera?
The answer is simple: You forgot that you need to pay attention to your digital darkroom.
First thing to do is CALIBRATE YOUR MONITOR! Of course having a high-end Eizo or NEC would be best, but well, Leicas are not cheap, and of course you bought three lenses instead of the one you planned on, so it might be best not to antagonize SWMBO any further. But get a Colour Spider kit and calibrate the screen you have. At least then you can see what you are doing.
Next look at your workflow. These forums will have taught you that Real Men Use Raw.Unfortunately they fail to explain what these Real Men do with their RAW.
First off, to Real Men, SIZE matters!
The files must be 16 bit TIFFs for postprocessing. No matter it has been compressed to a piddly little 8-bits by your camera, expand the thing. You will be rewarded by a smoother result.
The colour space: Stay with the largest one you can get as long as you can. aRGB, ECI, Prophoto, whatever. Once you shrink down to sRGB, the edges get chopped off and it can never regain its original size. Drop down to 8-bits sRGB in the end when you save for the web or printing. And printing- well that will be another post, preferably by another member who knows about that. Good Light!
Your photos suck; your shadows are blocked, they are flat and dull, your colors are all over the place.
:bang: How can that be with such a good camera? The answer is simple: You forgot that you need to pay attention to your digital darkroom.
First thing to do is CALIBRATE YOUR MONITOR! Of course having a high-end Eizo or NEC would be best, but well, Leicas are not cheap, and of course you bought three lenses instead of the one you planned on, so it might be best not to antagonize SWMBO any further. But get a Colour Spider kit and calibrate the screen you have. At least then you can see what you are doing.
Next look at your workflow. These forums will have taught you that Real Men Use Raw.Unfortunately they fail to explain what these Real Men do with their RAW.
First off, to Real Men, SIZE matters!
The files must be 16 bit TIFFs for postprocessing. No matter it has been compressed to a piddly little 8-bits by your camera, expand the thing. You will be rewarded by a smoother result.
The colour space: Stay with the largest one you can get as long as you can. aRGB, ECI, Prophoto, whatever. Once you shrink down to sRGB, the edges get chopped off and it can never regain its original size. Drop down to 8-bits sRGB in the end when you save for the web or printing. And printing- well that will be another post, preferably by another member who knows about that. Good Light!
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
And then you take those photos you've edited on your wonderfully profiled monitor and try to print them, only to discover that they are flat and dull and your colors are all over the place. You then learn the dirty little secret that you now have to profile your printer and every different paper you use.
So, you chuck it all and head for the pub for a brew, Olympus XA in hand.
So, you chuck it all and head for the pub for a brew, Olympus XA in hand.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Indeed. That is why I invited an expert member in my last line So if you could put off your trip to the pub... Actually I tend to drop off an USB stick with 16 bit aRGB TIFF files at my local professional printing lab...
So if you could put off your trip to the pub... Actually I tend to drop off an USB stick with 16 bit aRGB TIFF files at my local professional printing lab...
Last edited:
RichC
Well-known
The easy solution to printing woes is to stop using the generic "auto" printer driver that's installed by default with your printer software, and artificially enhances your colour and otherwise changes your photo.
Instead, tell the printer driver not to adjust the image but print it as is (e.g. see http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps10_print/ps10_print_4.htm - for typical Epson settings).
That's half the job done - stopping your printer from tweaking your photo. However, if you now print on different types of paper, you'll find the print will look different on each, and nothing like your on-screen image - and it shouldn't: the prints ought to be very similar to each other and to the on-screen image viewed in a colour-aware program (e.g. Photoshop) on a calibrated monitor. And this is what paper profiles do. So, you need to tell the program you're printing from to use the appropriate paper profile (e.g. see http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps11_colour/ps11_1.htm for Photoshop CS4).
Canon, Epson et al. all have very good profiles for their papers - you'll find them on the CD that came with your printer, and are also on their websites. If you're using paper made by someone else (e.g. Ilford), the paper manufacturer usually has free profiles on its website.
You can profile your printer yourself - but you'll need to buy a gizmo: the ColorMunki can profile both your monitor and printer, conveniently. However, printer and paper manufacturers go to great lengths to get their profiles accurate, and although they're "canned" profiles and not personalised for the particular printer sitting on your desk, it's usually not worth the expense and hassle to profile your own printer - unless you're using some weird combination of equipment/ink/paper for which a profile doesn't exist, or you're a pedant.
A final point: the colours on your profiled monitor won't change, but those on your print will, depending on the light falling on it - your print will look different in the morning, afternoon and at night under your desk lamp. You should, ideally, be looking at your prints in a windowless room lit using daylight bulbs - but that's far too much trouble! Just remember that your prints will show their most accurate colour on a sunny day around midday, and that checking your prints in the evening with the room light on is not a good idea...
Lastly, you'll never get a print to look identical to what you see on your monitor - prints will always be duller and flatter, but they should be similar. If not, you've done something wrong!
eleskin
Well-known
I have an Imac 24" I bought last year and an Epson 3800 printer. I Let Photoshop CS 4 control the printer and colors. Prints, color wise are an exact match to my Apple. The only issue is the monitor is a little brighter than the print, so I brighten it by 8% and it works perfectly. Now when I used to have a Windows PC, things were a lot harder!!!
RichC
Well-known
Let's avoid Macs vs. PCs!
I use both professionally (I'm a graphic designer), and have done so for years: these days, both platforms are as good as each other, and setting up a basic colour-managed workflow, as described above, is necessary for both, and equally easy (many of the steps are identical - albeit some options are in different places).
Long gone are the days when Macs had certain advantages over PCs, or vice versa. You can perform the same task with the same ease on either.
Which you like best is another matter, and that's down to personal taste and preferences...
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Your photos suck; your shadows are blocked, they are flat and dull, your colors are all over the place.
Err, you're Picasso?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
aad
Not so new now.
With my Mac, the monitor matches the printer beautifully. 'Course, they're all film scans.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Nope, but in my mind it is reasonable to make some effort to get the most out of an investment of many thousands of Euros in gear. Now if you don't care, that is fine by me and perfectly legitimate, but it begs the question why you chose an M8/9 over a Casio P&S in the first place.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That comment made about viewing prints under different lights is very relevant IMO. I only print black and white on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and in my little office where my printer resides (R2400) a print can look flat and lifeless and will often appear to have a slight colour cast under whatever light hangs from the ceiling, tungsten I think! Walk outside however and it totally changes and becomes true black and white and really seems to come to life!
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
The point I was trying to make was, just because colors may be verging on the un-realistic or un-pleasant, does this make the picture any less creditable. Icons such as Bill Eggleston, Joel Meyerowitz or (though not a photographer) Picasso, spring to mind.
I bought the M8 because I enjoyed the CL. I was drawn to the quality and contrast of the glass, the feel & build quality, the `feel good` factor and the focussing method but yearned for the convenience of digital. It has exceeded all my expectations. Before the M8, I had a Canon G9, which produced exquisite colors (especially blues) and in some ways, betters the M8 in satisfaction terms. At times I do regret selling it.
The picture below (M8) is a particular favourite of mine. Admittedly, the shadows at the bottom are without detail, yet I always strive to get at least 95% of the final picture in `the can`and try to avoid too much manipulation. It was very difficult with such a high contrast scene to get satifactory exposure throughout the image, so gave precedent to the clouds, sky and landscape. Yes, I do have a blue sky/clouds fetish.
What are your thoughts on the Portrait aspect of a Landscape?
Attachments
Last edited:
Krzys
Well-known
And then the batteries run out.....
Ming Rider
Film, the next evolution.
Jeff S
Well-known
I spent $ on the M8.2...plenty good enough for the sizes I print (already had terrific lenses from film days). Then I spent significantly more on the computer, monitor, calibration system, printer(s), papers, custom profile equipment, inks, etc, etc. Much better result than if I bought an M9 and scrimped on the rest.
Plus, it helped to have an expert friend around to ensure that all these tools were set up properly and used effectively. Even the best tools, not used properly, will produce mediocre results, irrespective of my own photographic ability.
After the shutter release, it's all about the final print...just as in my darkroom days.
Jeff
Plus, it helped to have an expert friend around to ensure that all these tools were set up properly and used effectively. Even the best tools, not used properly, will produce mediocre results, irrespective of my own photographic ability.
After the shutter release, it's all about the final print...just as in my darkroom days.
Jeff
RichC
Well-known
You've missed the point entirely.
You can make your sky pink with blue spots - but that doesn't obviate the need to ensure that your screen and printer show accurate colour and brightness. Accurate colour in this context does not mean reproducing the colours from real life that were in front of your lens.
In fact, if you prefer to manipulate colours, it's even more important to calibrate your screen and use printer profiles.
Digital post-production without colour calibration is like developing a silver print in the darkroom whilst wearing sunglasses! Possible, but makes life more awkward. And if you lose your sunglasses and have to buy different ones,* to get a similar-looking print, you're back to square one and trial and error...
[ * Equals a new monitor or printer in the digital darkroom. ]
Last edited: