Click Here!
Page 22 of 273 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22 23 24 32 72 122 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 2727
Like Tree443Likes

Thread: ***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

  1. #211
    VF
    VF is offline
    Sittin' on the couch VF's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,405
    Liked
    150 times
    Karma
    1017600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    12 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets View Post
    EDIT: So I played around a bit with ACDSee. I exported the same DNG (the one I linked to above) in all three color spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB, and ProPhoto RGB) and found the Adobe RGB to be the brightest and closest to the pic displayed in Lightroom. The sRGB was darkest, with the ProPhoto almost identical to the AdobeRGB.

    With a completely different DNG, I exported to .jpg in all three color spaces and found that sRGB was the brightest and matched the display in Lightroom exactly.

    WTF!?!?

    sRGB/Adobe/ProPhoto
    OK, it is a gamma issue (with the cat pic). Here is what is up. Standard Windows gamma is 2.5, sRGB gamma is 2.2 (and for reference, standard Mac gamma is called 1.8 but it is actually 1.72, but that doesn't matter right now). I think what is happening is because we are both working on calibrated monitors (with gamma set at 2.2), Photoshop and Lightroom see that the monitor is calibrated down from 2.5 and boost the gamma slightly to compensate when viewing on the calibrated monitor. Windows (and most other applications) don't compare the gamma that is dictated in the profile with that of the monitor, so you are viewing a 2.2 gamma image in what Windows thinks is a 2.5 gamma space, and therefor looks dark. You notice this most in the cat picture because it is already dark to begin with.

    With the candies, because they are pretty bright and colorful, you won't notice the gamma issue as much. So when you exported sRGB (which is the only color space that Windows picture viewer displays correctly in), the candies will look correct in sRGB, the colors will be right on, they might be just a touch darker, but right on color ratio wise.

    When you export the candies as ProPhoto or Adobe RGB, they are going to look pale and washed out (this is happening with the cat as well, but since there isn't much color in that shot, it just looks lighter). The reason for this is that each of these color spaces can only define a color between 0 and 255. So in all spaces 255, 0, 0 is going to be red, but there is no common agreement on what color red is, or how red is red. So while a given shade of red might be defined as 255, 0, 0 in sRGB, Adobe RGB has a still deeper, more vibrant red because it has a bigger gamut, so it might define what sRGB considers the most possible red as 220, 0, 0 (as opposed to sRGB's definition of that shade as 255, 0, 0) because it needs more room to define that deeper more vibrant red. Now in your file you converted to Adobe RGB, you are calling out that color as 220, 0, 0, which is fine if the application displaying the image knows that Adobe RGB 220, 0, 0 is the same red as sRGB 255, 0, 0. Now if we simply drop the Adobe RGB tag and replace it with the sRGB tag but keep the numbers the same, we are now asking for an sRGB color which is 220, 0, 0 - a red which is a lot less saturated than the 255, 0, 0 red that we really wanted. This is what happens when you view a non sRGB image in a non color aware application, it just throws out the color space tag and assigns it to sRGB.

    That was a lot of gabbing, but none of it solves the issue that we are seeing in the cat pic (and really all pics, but it will be more noticeable in the darker pics). I don't have an answer yet, but at least we know what is going on. I want to look at that cat pic on an uncalibrated PC monitor and a Mac monitor tonight to see what it does.

    ---Edit---
    Hmmm, so on an uncalibrated monitor, the sRGB cat looks pretty good, and the dark tones in the ProPhoto image look posterized (which is slightly expected on this crappy monitor). Now I need to wait for the wife's Mac to come home. I'm glad you posed this, gamma is something I haven't given much thought to. Now we just need to figure out how to solve it
    Last edited by VF; October 24th, 2007 at 09:17 PM.

  2. #212
    VF
    VF is offline
    Sittin' on the couch VF's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,405
    Liked
    150 times
    Karma
    1017600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    12 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturn View Post
    2&3 are great action shots Glenn.
    Those are great shots!

  3. #213
    FBJ
    FBJ is offline
    LGK's Red Baron FBJ's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,008
    Liked
    27736 times
    Karma
    105058176
    Images
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    178 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturn View Post
    2&3 are great action shots Glenn.

    Did you burst for them or was it 1 for 1?
    I concentrated on shutter control and was shooting in single frame mode today.

    Thanks for the compliments.

    More here.
    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.


  4. #214
    Sarcastic Ass nocturn's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    8,147
    Liked
    2677 times
    Karma
    1105000
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    332 Post(s)

    Default

    Great timing then.

  5. #215
    Unfiltered
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets View Post
    I concentrated on shutter control and was shooting in single frame mode today.

    Thanks for the compliments.

    More here.
    Which lens were you using, Glenn?

    Corey

  6. #216
    Unfiltered
    Guest

    Default

    Okay. After seeing dpreview.com's Canon 40D review, I've decided to wait until the D300 is released and I can get my hands on both before making my decision.

    Coming from a Canon, and 3 lenses, I need a substantial reason to spend $500 more on a camera body and the unknown dollar amount for new lenses.

  7. #217
    FBJ
    FBJ is offline
    LGK's Red Baron FBJ's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,008
    Liked
    27736 times
    Karma
    105058176
    Images
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    178 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturn View Post
    Great timing then.
    Well, it took a little bit for me to learn enough about the flow of a soccer game and where the up-and-down action would be before my timing got good enough to capture some good stuff. 23 "okay" photos and maybe four really good ones from 450 frames shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unfiltered View Post
    Which lens were you using, Glenn?

    Corey
    That was with the 70-200 f/2.8.
    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.


  8. #218
    VF
    VF is offline
    Sittin' on the couch VF's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,405
    Liked
    150 times
    Karma
    1017600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    12 Post(s)

    Default

    OK Glenn, as far as I can seem to tell, it is a limitation of the sRGB gamut and we are only seeing the difference between the two because the high quality calibrated monitor is good enough to reproduce tones which are outside of sRGB. Basically, if you had a crappier monitor, you wouldn't see the difference between the Lightroom version and the sRBG version, but because you have a monitor with a nice wide gamut, the difference between the two is very apparent.

    Reading up on it, it seems that the closer your monitor is to the sRGB color space, the better sRGB works, the more colors and tones your monitor can display, the worse it looks. So it is really a limitation of sRGB. In Photoshop you can soft proof the output by going to View -> Proof setup -> Monitor Color (Then Ctrl + Y to toggle back and forth) which would let you fine tune your output for sRGB, but I'm not sure yet what the best way to do this is in Lightroom. I have read that some people are having better luck with Lightroom 1.0 as opposed to 1.1, so perhaps they have changed the way they were dealing with gamma correction on export?

  9. #219
    FBJ
    FBJ is offline
    LGK's Red Baron FBJ's Avatar




    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    20,008
    Liked
    27736 times
    Karma
    105058176
    Images
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    178 Post(s)

    Default

    Okay. So I've got to go out and get a crappier monitor.

    :P

    Does any of this affect the way things print when I send the images out to be professionally printed? It seems that my prints came back very dark last time I did that, but then again, that was before I started exporting in sRGB (the .jpg's the prints were made from were exported in Adobe RGB).
    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap. Life is priceless.


  10. #220
    VF
    VF is offline
    Sittin' on the couch VF's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,405
    Liked
    150 times
    Karma
    1017600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    12 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets View Post
    Does any of this affect the way things print when I send the images out to be professionally printed? It seems that my prints came back very dark last time I did that...
    This I think is the biggest shortcoming of Lightroom, no soft proofing. Normaly, professional printer will supply you with a printer profile (I use White House Custom Color and you actually have to proof 5 shots with them using their profile before you can open an account). So in Photoshop you can load that profile into the View -> Proof Setup, and that way you can see what it will look like when printed, and usually those pro printers are serious, so that profile is dead balls on when viewing on a calibrated monitor, it is very satisfying, what you see is what you get. And because you are looking at what it will look like from the printer, you can make any adjustments you need to make that version look good. If Lightroom had soft proofing, it would be even better because you wouldn't need a print copy and an original copy, you could make you changes in the development module and just save it as a virtual copy. So this is one of the very very few cases where I say "Boo Lightroom" - and if Lightroom did have soft proofing, it would solve the issue that we are seeing because you could soft proof in sRGB so you could make any adjustments you need. I have seen a lot of requests to get this in Lightroom (and as soon as I'm done with this, I'm heading over to Adobe to ask for it again )

    Once you make those adjustments, most printers want the file tagged sRGB, but more and more are down with the Adobe RGB.
    Last edited by VF; October 25th, 2007 at 09:30 PM.

Page 22 of 273 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22 23 24 32 72 122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28