Date   

Re: PS5 printer management

Steve Jenkins <stephenj@...>
 

Hi Boris,

Not sure if I can help but in your screen capture I noticed the image is in "Untagged RGB (8bpc)" color space. If the image really has no profile attached (i.e. not color managed) I don't see how trying to color manage the printer is going to give predictable results. Is this your normal workflow? If so, how does that work?

best of luck,
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "theberdov" <theberdov@...>
To: <colortheory@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 09:34
Subject: [colortheory] PS5 printer management


Good morning everyone,

I just started using PS5 and immediately ran into this problem, for which I cannot find a solution yet.

The machine runs Win Vista, the printer is Epson R1800; the setting are identical to what I've used for several years. The screen shot of the print menu is at http://www.bfcollection.net/errordocs/PS5_print_settings_01.jpg

The print comes out much darker than the screen image, as if "apply image" command at 100% was used.

Please help to get smarter.

;-)

Thanks,

Boris Feldblyum
www.bfcollection.net



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



PS5 printer management

berdov f
 

Good morning everyone,

I just started using PS5 and immediately ran into this problem, for which I cannot find a solution yet.

The machine runs Win Vista, the printer is Epson R1800; the setting are identical to what I've used for several years. The screen shot of the print menu is at http://www.bfcollection.net/errordocs/PS5_print_settings_01.jpg

The print comes out much darker than the screen image, as if "apply image" command at 100% was used.

Please help to get smarter.

;-)

Thanks,

Boris Feldblyum
www.bfcollection.net


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Dan Margulis
 

Lou writes,


Thanks everyone for all the great ideas and suggestions to help with eye/brain 'recalibration'. Some excellent ideas worth trying, and I will try them all.
I agree with Lou that the suggestions were very good. Let me reinforce one warning to users of the Picture Postcard Workflow.

The PPW deliberately produces an excessively colored version and then figures out how to tone it down gracefully. If the last thing we saw was the wildly colored version, our tendency will be to make the toned down version too loud.

The solution, of course, is when you believe you are finished, compare it to the original. Often you will find you wish to blend some of the tamer original color into what you thought at the time was pretty good.

Dan Margulis


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Louis Dina
 

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious what others do.
Thanks everyone for all the great ideas and suggestions to help with eye/brain 'recalibration'. Some excellent ideas worth trying, and I will try them all.

Best,

Lou Dina


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Jacob Rus
 

Keep in mind that getting up and walking away to "recalibrate" only
works if the color temperature of the lighting wherever you go to walk
around is similar to that of your screen, and the average brightness
is somewhat comparable to gray on the screen (if you go walk around
outside at noon, or down a hallway lit with dim yellow bulbs, it might
not really help you adapt to neutrals).

But anyway, as you suggest, the only real way to "reset" is to adapt
your eyes back. Standing up every once in a while is probably a good
idea from a muscle/joint fatigue perspective, but you could also just
stare at a middle gray screen for a few minutes to "reset". This is
probably the best kind of adaptation reset, from a visual perception
perspective, because your eyes will adapt to compensate for the
mixture of display + ambient light in the room, which should also be
present while working on an image.

I'll echo other commenters' recommendations to not put big areas of
very light, very dark, or non-neutral colors on your screen near what
you're working on, and to every once in a while work on just the
lightness component of an image with color stripped away, so that any
casts are obvious when you switch back to full color.

Photoshop's full-screen modes with a mid-gray background are great
(press "F" once or twice; set which color shows up in the background
by going to photoshop -> preferences -> interface, picking "select
custom color" from the drop-downs on the left, and choosing something
between L* = 50, a* = 0, b* = 0 and L* = 60, a* = 0, b* = 0)

Cheers,
Jacob


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

J Walton <jw@...>
 

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:07 AM, LouisD <lou@...> wrote:

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious what others do.
I do a lot of internet surfing at work and rarely correct a single
image for more than 3-5 minutes. And I like to see inkjet proofs, but
the first two things get rid of most of my problems.

J Walton


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Lou

You won't like my answer, probably. The answer is: if it's destined for print, proof it. That's the only way I know to get around your problem.

Even working by the numbers and using a calibrated monitor doesn't do it.

My experience is that my ability to "read" a screen is less reliable than I would like. There's the adaptation problem you've identified, and then there's
other things: you're not a robot, maybe you change one day to the next the way you see things because of fatigue, aging, nutrition, stress,
or even drugs such as alcohol and caffeine. That's not to mention that you're environment might change: the window light from the summer vs. other
seasons, equipment changes, etc.

My work schedule is also highly variable: my computer sits idle for long stretches while I'm away, and when I return it is a re-learning process.

I wonder how things go for people who sit in front of their screens every day, Do they find that they can see with "certainty?"

The gizmo pundits often imply that this is possible, but I never get there which leads me to the conclusion that I am insufficient, or they
are exaggerating, or some combination of both is at work.

Good luck,
Ron Kelly

PS Hey, what if somebody is controlling you through the Maxtrix? Don't forget to consider that one. ; - )

On 2011-07-08, at 5:07 AM, LouisD wrote:

I have a question about eye adaptation (not sure if that is the correct term). When editing an image in Photoshop, the longer I spend staring at the monitor, the more my eye adapts to what I am viewing, and the more normal it begins to appear. Sometimes, after 45 minutes working on an image, my wife will walk up and immediately say, "That's too green, contrasty, saturated, flat, or whatever." And, if I walk away from the computer for 5 minutes and come back, it becomes glaringly obvious to me too. The eye's ability to adapt to different lighting conditions is great for daily living, but it makes editing images difficult at times. I work visually and also use numbers (RGB, CMYK and Lab) as guides for white, neutrals, blacks, skin, sky, grass, etc, but still visual adaptation creeps in and messes me up. I know most people struggle with this issue to some extent. One thing I like about LightRoom is the ability to adjust images very quickly, so my visual system doesn't have as much time to "normalize" and play tricks on me. Unfortunately, LightRoom has many limitations, so most of my important images go to Photoshop. I know I can get up and walk away to 'recalibrate', but I prefer to stay put and just work on an image until it's done.

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious wh


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Dick Dougall
 

On 7/8/2011 6:07 AM, LouisD wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious what others do.

Thanks,

Lou Dina
Lou - is your PhotoShop set up so the screen area around the picture being work on is neutral gray? That usually helps me judge color cast. Beyond that, I think you are into the suggestions published by our own Dan Margulis. Maybe someone can pinpoint us to one of several discussions where typical numbers are given for a variety of situations like caucasian flesh tones - grass green - clear blue sky - etc etc. Knowing these typical numbers can give you a clue as to the color balance of your image when you do not have an obvious neutral area to measure.

When there is a neutral area - white, gray or black, I use one of the eye droppers in Curves or Levels to make sure I am neutral. It is rare that an image does not have these tones -- and to that point, you will find a common bit of advice is to carry around a chip of 18% gray or a chart that has white, black and 18% gray which you insert into the first of a series of pictures taken under a given lighting condition - use that to bring that sample image in to color balance and then use that setting in ACR to snap all the others in the series into line.

Hope this helps.

Dick Dougall


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

thoenphoto <jeff@...>
 

Lou,
I have found that the first work I do on any image is color, tone, and contrast enhancements. This takes about 5 minutes. So I don't have any issue with eye adaptation.
If I work on an image for 30-45 minutes for these basic corrections, then I do experience that problem. So if you can get faster it will help.
Another way to combat that issue (that helps me anyways) is to keep you bottom layer (background) untouched and work on a duplicate layer along with adjustment layers. Then you can periodically turn off all the other layers ( option click on the background layer eye ball in photoshop) and just view the uncorrected image. This give you a before and after look at your work and helps re-calibrate your eyes.
Hope this helps.

Jeff Natrop
Thoen & Associates Advertising Photography, Inc.
www.thoenphoto.com

--- In colortheory@..., "LouisD" <lou@...> wrote:

I have a question about eye adaptation (not sure if that is the correct term). When editing an image in Photoshop, the longer I spend staring at the monitor, the more my eye adapts to what I am viewing, and the more normal it begins to appear. Sometimes, after 45 minutes working on an image, my wife will walk up and immediately say, "That's too green, contrasty, saturated, flat, or whatever." And, if I walk away from the computer for 5 minutes and come back, it becomes glaringly obvious to me too. The eye's ability to adapt to different lighting conditions is great for daily living, but it makes editing images difficult at times. I work visually and also use numbers (RGB, CMYK and Lab) as guides for white, neutrals, blacks, skin, sky, grass, etc, but still visual adaptation creeps in and messes me up. I know most people struggle with this issue to some extent. One thing I like about LightRoom is the ability to adjust images very quickly, so my visual system doesn't have as much time to "normalize" and play tricks on me. Unfortunately, LightRoom has many limitations, so most of my important images go to Photoshop. I know I can get up and walk away to 'recalibrate', but I prefer to stay put and just work on an image until it's done.

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious what others do.

Thanks,

Lou Dina


Re: Black Macaque

Paul Lawrence
 

On 07/07/2011 20:13, Ron Kelly wrote:
In my own defence, however, I do feel that blasting away with ambient light only, not much thought of formally posing
or detailed examination of the composition (these included the "formal" portraits at the wedding after all) is
perilously close to letting the camera take the picture, something any monkey could do.
Ron I do agree completely with you there, and sadly for too many couples
I fear the Black Macaque might do a better job...
There's no doubt that ambient light photography can be beautiful, and does definitely seem more spontaneous and
hence, "natural." It's also a lot easier for the photographer, coincidentally.
you miss my point about quality of light, it is usually more difficult
to find available light that will provide good lighting (without heavy
shadows under hats and in eye sockets). It is the difference between
good photography and bad photography, just as after I have the RAW files
in Lightoom/Photoshop I start from what I learnt in the darkroom and
follow similar principals, though with vastly greater speed, accuracy
and ease.
My guess is that this is a trend based on new technology, and eventually the pendulum will swing back. The aesthetic
of noise in skin tone will not last.
IF it isn't a pendulum it is a circle, but always nudged on by
technology, (too) heavy retouching is back in fashion, higher capture
resolutions mean in portraits you can often see every pore and hair on a
face IF it has been well lit and correctly exposed - at that wedding did
you hear the photographer's camera shooting like a machine gun? I have
heard that some modern wedding photographers bracket everything at 6 or
8 frames a second - I seem to remember reading that Ansel Adams may only
take 6 or 8 plates on a hike lasting several days when photographing
Yosemite.
Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh may have burned and dodged every one of their prints, and I don't doubt that they
did, but I would wager that they would agree that effort in creating the "perfect" original is far better than all the post production you can bring to bear.
Again I agree and I strive for that perfect original, but I will use use
all the skills I have learn't from Dan's books and many contributors to
this list and will compromise knowing as I press the shutter what I
expect to do in Photoshop to achieve the result I can 'see' as I compose
a shot.

best regards
Paul

Paul Lawrence T:01903 216621 M:07711 185478


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

David Lawrence
 

--- In colortheory@..., "LouisD" <lou@...> wrote:

I have a question about eye adaptation (not sure if that is the correct term). When editing an image in Photoshop, the longer I spend staring at the monitor, the more my eye adapts to what I am viewing, and the more normal it begins to appear. Sometimes, after 45 minutes working on an image, my wife will walk up and immediately say, "That's too green, contrasty, saturated, flat, or whatever." And, if I walk away from the computer for 5 minutes and come back, it becomes glaringly obvious to me too. The eye's ability to adapt to different lighting conditions is great for daily living, but it makes editing images difficult at times. I work visually and also use numbers (RGB, CMYK and Lab) as guides for white, neutrals, blacks, skin, sky, grass, etc, but still visual adaptation creeps in and messes me up. I know most people struggle with this issue to some extent. One thing I like about LightRoom is the ability to adjust images very quickly, so my visual system doesn't have as much time to "normalize" and play tricks on me. Unfortunately, LightRoom has many limitations, so most of my important images go to Photoshop. I know I can get up and walk away to 'recalibrate', but I prefer to stay put and just work on an image until it's done.

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious what others do.

Thanks,

Lou Dina
Lou,

I use a gradient map adjustment layer. Select the third choice which is called black and white. Just add it to the top of the layer stack and turn it on every now and then to rest your eyes for a bit. When you turn it off you'll definitely notice any color issues.

David Lawrence
PixelPurfect.com


Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Louis Dina
 

I have a question about eye adaptation (not sure if that is the correct term). When editing an image in Photoshop, the longer I spend staring at the monitor, the more my eye adapts to what I am viewing, and the more normal it begins to appear. Sometimes, after 45 minutes working on an image, my wife will walk up and immediately say, "That's too green, contrasty, saturated, flat, or whatever." And, if I walk away from the computer for 5 minutes and come back, it becomes glaringly obvious to me too. The eye's ability to adapt to different lighting conditions is great for daily living, but it makes editing images difficult at times. I work visually and also use numbers (RGB, CMYK and Lab) as guides for white, neutrals, blacks, skin, sky, grass, etc, but still visual adaptation creeps in and messes me up. I know most people struggle with this issue to some extent. One thing I like about LightRoom is the ability to adjust images very quickly, so my visual system doesn't have as much time to "normalize" and play tricks on me. Unfortunately, LightRoom has many limitations, so most of my important images go to Photoshop. I know I can get up and walk away to 'recalibrate', but I prefer to stay put and just work on an image until it's done.

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious what others do.

Thanks,

Lou Dina


Re: Digest Number 3601

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Gunnar

I am referring to the event, as proven by the news item in the video below, that "proves"
you don't need to have any skills more than a monkey to take a picture nowadays, to
go along with correction-by-the-numbers demonstrating that simians and homo sapiens
can all photograph and color-correct along the same branch.

Ron Kelly


Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43647606#43647606

Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html
On 2011-07-07, at 10:56 AM, Gunnar K wrote:



...1a. Re: Black Macaque
Posted by: "Ron Kelly" ron@... ronkellyshadow
Date: Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:06 am ((PDT))

"...Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey
is getting harder and harder to fight...."

....???
gunnar kullenberg
LA, CA






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Black Macaque

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Paul:

You've nailed me to the wall with surprising accuracy; guilty as charged.

Managing people in front of the lens has never been my forté, and I admit, I haven't seen the results
of the photographer in question.

In my own defence, however, I do feel that blasting away with ambient light only, not much thought of formally posing
or detailed examination of the composition (these included the "formal" portraits at the wedding after all) is
perilously close to letting the camera take the picture, something any monkey could do.

There's no doubt that ambient light photography can be beautiful, and does definitely seem more spontaneous and
hence, "natural." It's also a lot easier for the photographer, coincidentally.

However, using no supplementary lighting for any shots cannot equate, quality -wise. The Shadow/Highlight
filter or similar techniques does not measure up to properly done flash-fill, for example. Even on an overcast day,
the eyes will be dull without flash, people under hats will be too dark.

My guess is that this is a trend based on new technology, and eventually the pendulum will swing back. The aesthetic
of noise in skin tone will not last.

Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh may have burned and dodged every one of their prints, and I don't doubt that they
did, but I would wager that they would agree that effort in creating the "perfect" original is far better than all the post production
you can bring to bear.

Respectfully,
Ron Kelly

On 2011-07-07, at 9:35 AM, Paul Lawrence wrote:
Surely it is all about getting
results. Ron before you judge that photographer too harshly look at
his/her results, you might be surprised. Quality of light has always
been of prime importance, now quantity of light is less important than
it ever was. But as a landscape photographer Ron you will know more
about light quality than most wedding photographers need to know, and
dare I suggest probably a little less about managing people in front of
a camera at a wedding?


Re: Digest Number 3601

Gunnar K
 

...1a. Re: Black Macaque
Posted by: "Ron Kelly" ron@... ronkellyshadow
Date: Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:06 am ((PDT))

"...Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey
is getting harder and harder to fight...."

....???
gunnar kullenberg
LA, CA


Re: Black Macaque

Paul Lawrence
 

As a professional photographer who shot his first wedding using ONLY
available/ambient light just last month (I spent many years using a
Bronica 6x6 with flash/fill flash on ALL my wedding photographs) I
suspect that were Karsh and Adams here today and photographing a modern
fast moving wedding they would embrace every aspect of the latest
digital technology - except 'CHIMPING' !

I still do use a tripod occassionally at weddings, in part for crowd
control as well as camera control. Surely it is all about getting
results. Ron before you judge that photographer too harshly look at
his/her results, you might be surprised. Quality of light has always
been of prime importance, now quantity of light is less important than
it ever was. But as a landscape photographer Ron you will know more
about light quality than most wedding photographers need to know, and
dare I suggest probably a little less about managing people in front of
a camera at a wedding?

regards
Paul
Paul Lawrence T:01903 216621 M:07711 185478

On 07/07/2011 04:53, Ron Kelly wrote:
Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey is getting harder and harder to fight.

I was at a wedding recently, and very disturbed to notice that the photographer, who in my opinion was getting a pretty
good fee, was not using a tripod. Shooting in the church, outside, and at the reception with nothing but ambient light,
and undoubtedly using very high ISOs.

I'm just too much of a traditionalist, obviously. Give me Yousef Karsh, or Ansel Adams.

Cheers,
Ron Kelly


Re: Black Macaque

marshyswamp71 <samarsh@...>
 

Ron Kelly wrote:

Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey is getting harder and harder to fight. <
Ron, photographers are not the only ones with problems, to misquote the classic "there are an infinite number of monkeys out here wanting to talk to me about this script for a Shakespeare play that they have written".

Was that an infinite number or primes or primates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


Best,

Stephen Marsh


Re: Black Macaque

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey is getting harder and harder to fight.

I was at a wedding recently, and very disturbed to notice that the photographer, who in my opinion was getting a pretty
good fee, was not using a tripod. Shooting in the church, outside, and at the reception with nothing but ambient light,
and undoubtedly using very high ISOs.

I'm just too much of a traditionalist, obviously. Give me Yousef Karsh, or Ansel Adams.

Cheers,
Ron Kelly


On 2011-07-06, at 6:42 AM, David wrote:

Does anyone else on the list think it's the collective at work bringing another Black Macaque photograph into the mainstream? I've seen the story here and there, but NBC Nightly News closed with it last night.

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43647606#43647606

Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html

The retouching reminded me of Dan's book and I couldn't help but wonder if the Macaque has read Professional Photoshop.

Thanks Dan!

David Lawrence
pixelpurfect.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Black Macaque

David Lawrence
 

Does anyone else on the list think it's the collective at work bringing another Black Macaque photograph into the mainstream? I've seen the story here and there, but NBC Nightly News closed with it last night.

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43647606#43647606

Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html

The retouching reminded me of Dan's book and I couldn't help but wonder if the Macaque has read Professional Photoshop.

Thanks Dan!

David Lawrence
pixelpurfect.com


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

Jim Bean
 

john wrote: <That's not to say he didn't ever make a copy print for a particular
project. Karsh did that with his pictures that were sent out to
newspapers and magazines in the 1950's>

just a clarification regarding master prints/printers... for a publication that was creating halftone screens, you might be able to get by with a nice copy print... karsh/adams/everyone else on the planet during the 50's throught 80's, never made a copy print that was an equivalent to the original 'master print' created from the original negative... all copies have a signature look that says "I am not created from the original negative."

I completely agree with the classic b&w processing, expose for the shadows-dev for the hightlights'... this includes many times photographing dark complexions during events such as presentations/graduations/etc with electronic flash/flash bulbs, you would frequently 'over expose' and 'under develop'...to create a printable negative. perhaps similar to today's, low gamma moves that help to get dan's black dog out of the black chair.


jim bean

9781 - 9800 of 33554