|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Photography - 5/26/2008 6:30:03 PM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 2940
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: online
|
3 to 6 might not be too bad... the light will get softer later and that is kinder to faces. A family at the ren fair asked my husband to shoot their family with their camera. They were all in costume and looked great. They wanted to stand in the sun but I told them, better to stand in the shade and use a flash. Otherwise everyone will be squinting. They hadn't thought of that.
I do wish I had taken more shots of this. I might have gotten better expressions but it is still a fun photo. I'll post a few more on Crosswalkers later tonight.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/car2ner/2525213523/
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/1/2008 6:27:46 PM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 2940
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: online
|
Hey seven seas... many of us have flickr sites. Look for crosswalkers on flickr (not associated with crosswalk.com).
It is fun to compare notes.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/3/2008 8:22:35 PM
|
|
|
ezri
Posts: 2906
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Point B, NC
Status: offline
|
Okay, QUESTION...
I have just gotten going with my Adobe Lightroom. I did some images and they looked good in my Adobe Photoshop elements 5.0 but then uploaded them to flickr and EW GROSS! the color profile changed or something.
I thought:
1-Time to recalibrate the monitor...
2-NO- it would look the same on flickr as in photoshop if that was the case...
3-COLORSPACE?
I noticed that it was saving the image as something called ProPhoto RGB instead of the sRGB(followed by ###) or the Adobe RGB
So I worked up a photo where I was practicing my fill flash for my shoot with Miss deRosset and saved it the default then the other two.
The results are seen here-
ProPhoto RGB
adobe rgb 1998
sRGB IEC61966-2.1
The sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is the one that best matches the image I have in my photoshop elements 5.0 window.
Which is the most pleasing to you?
And yes, I am going to recalibrate my monitor before I go to bed tonight! better safe than sorry but i still need to figure out what part of the whole adobe lightroom/adobe photoshop elements 5.0 is messing with my colorspace. Any Ideas?
~e
_____________________________
*only* 8,985,600,000,000,000 Nanoseconds til I get to touch him again---
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/3/2008 9:18:55 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1092
Status: offline
|
find the lightroom group on flickr and ask there. those groups are amazingly helpful.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/4/2008 6:10:06 AM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 2940
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: online
|
wow, even though somewhat subtle, if you look you really can see the differance. I like the warmth of the sRGB photo. I find a little warmth is good for happy portraits.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/4/2008 11:19:12 AM
|
|
|
ezri
Posts: 2906
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Point B, NC
Status: offline
|
Okay- After reading that thread at DPReview I understand that Flickr very likely does not support the ProPhotoRGB because the image did look Flat and Grey. Within Photoshop elements 5.0 all three pretty much look the same. Within Lightroom all three images pretty much looked the same. Within Flickr- there is an obvious difference.
THANKS
quote:
Subject Re: sRBG vs Pro RBG
If the prophoto image looks different in the sense of flatter contrast and lower saturation you are not viewing the file in a colourmanaged application.
What you are seeing is a prophoto colour space file viewed as if it was your monitor colour space (most likely). Thats not the correct representation.
Viewed in photoshop (which is colour managed) they should look very very similar unless the prophoto file contains colours that are outside of sRGB but that your monitor can still display.
Andrew
_____________________________
*only* 8,985,600,000,000,000 Nanoseconds til I get to touch him again---
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/4/2008 11:58:28 AM
|
|
|
bluegravel
Posts: 81
Joined: 5/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ezri
Okay- After reading that thread at DPReview I understand that Flickr very likely does not support the ProPhotoRGB because the image did look Flat and Grey. Within Photoshop elements 5.0 all three pretty much look the same. Within Lightroom all three images pretty much looked the same. Within Flickr- there is an obvious difference.
THANKS
quote:
Subject Re: sRBG vs Pro RBG
If the prophoto image looks different in the sense of flatter contrast and lower saturation you are not viewing the file in a colourmanaged application.
What you are seeing is a prophoto colour space file viewed as if it was your monitor colour space (most likely). Thats not the correct representation.
Viewed in photoshop (which is colour managed) they should look very very similar unless the prophoto file contains colours that are outside of sRGB but that your monitor can still display.
Andrew
Flickr itself also has a program for editing - that might possibly help get a photo to look good there - I have not tried their program but from reading flickr threads I understand it is pretty decent. If you do go ahead and try their editing program just remember to save the changes under a different file name so that you still have your original. Some people forget to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/4/2008 12:03:26 PM
|
|
|
ezri
Posts: 2906
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Point B, NC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sevenseas
quote:
ORIGINAL: ezri
Okay- After reading that thread at DPReview I understand that Flickr very likely does not support the ProPhotoRGB because the image did look Flat and Grey. Within Photoshop elements 5.0 all three pretty much look the same. Within Lightroom all three images pretty much looked the same. Within Flickr- there is an obvious difference.
THANKS
quote:
Subject Re: sRBG vs Pro RBG
If the prophoto image looks different in the sense of flatter contrast and lower saturation you are not viewing the file in a colourmanaged application.
What you are seeing is a prophoto colour space file viewed as if it was your monitor colour space (most likely). Thats not the correct representation.
Viewed in photoshop (which is colour managed) they should look very very similar unless the prophoto file contains colours that are outside of sRGB but that your monitor can still display.
Andrew
Flickr itself also has a program for editing - that might possibly help get a photo to look good there - I have not tried their program but from reading flickr threads I understand it is pretty decent. If you do go ahead and try their editing program just remember to save the changes under a different file name so that you still have your original. Some people forget to do that.
My Printer (WHCC) prefers sRGB or AdobeRGB 1998, The will print whatever is embedded but they mention these two specifically and I had been using the Adobe rgb 1998 in my PS elements 5.0 so when I added the Lightroom to the mix and things changed I kinda, um, Freaked. Yeah, freaked is a good word for it.
It is mostly sorted now.
if sorted means that I know about it and am able to change it before saving.
~e
_____________________________
*only* 8,985,600,000,000,000 Nanoseconds til I get to touch him again---
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/4/2008 12:50:12 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2118
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
I'm a real fan of 'Crossed-Eye' 3D photogaphy. The master at this genre is Brian Valentine, a retired English gentleman that goes by the name of 'LordV'. Digg.Com calls him the world's greatest macro photographer and I am inclined to agree. Charles Krebs for micro photography and in-studio macro. Byt, Brian Valentine for live macrophotography.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/sets/1571779/
For the sheer fun of it, I have played around with Crossed-Eye 3D using a 3D modeling software.
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/TMeeks/CosmicBlobs/CrossedEye.gif
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/TMeeks/CosmicBlobs/CBModelPro-3DGroup.jpg
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/TMeeks/CosmicBlobs/CBModelPro-3DSample.jpg
quote:
ORIGINAL: Technophile
i looked at charles kreb's site, and saw he has a few 3d photos up. if you want to have some more fun...you can try making these. all you do is take two shots of the same object with the same aperture offset horizontally by about a few inches. then put the two shots side-by-side in the final image using an image editor. when you cross your eyes to merge the two images, the object will pop out. if you mix up the right and left...you'll see an object that "pops in". here's an example that i shot a while ago:
3D candles
< Message edited by TMeeks -- 6/4/2008 1:00:37 PM >
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 10:19:20 AM
|
|
|
uncabeeil
Posts: 5787
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Joisey. Got a problem wit dat?
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluestone
Anyone here ever photograph lightning? I want to , but so far my attempts have met with near death experiences 
I have the camera set on a tripod, with a remote clicker so I can stand inside the door for safety. So far, I can't click fast enough to catch the lighting, and in full dark with long exposures, I just have not been able to do it.
any suggestions?
While I haven't done it myself, at night I would think all you'd have to do is lock your shutter open (shutter speed "B") and wait. I read an article by one of National Geographic's photographers and that's how he did it at night. Of course, this assumes you're shooting with an SLR since I don't know of a point and shoot that has a shutter lock.
_____________________________
In loving memory of all who gave that we might be free
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 10:25:42 AM
|
|
|
ezri
Posts: 2906
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Point B, NC
Status: offline
|
The crosseyed 3-d thing intrigues me... just like the 3-d posters...
why??? cause I have never been able to see what you all say you see.
*...Sits down and wails loudly... *
I wanna see it too!
~e
_____________________________
*only* 8,985,600,000,000,000 Nanoseconds til I get to touch him again---
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 11:24:43 AM
|
|
|
bluegravel
Posts: 81
Joined: 5/30/2008
Status: offline
|
I see the 3d stuff - but it hurts my eyes 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 12:29:55 PM
|
|
|
uncabeeil
Posts: 5787
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Joisey. Got a problem wit dat?
Status: offline
|
It didn't work for me either. Just makes me woozy.
_____________________________
In loving memory of all who gave that we might be free
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 6:36:17 PM
|
|
|
ezri
Posts: 2906
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Point B, NC
Status: offline
|
One of the first shots I have played with from my first "job" doing senior portraits---
Miss deRosset
She had the proofs from life touch (they wanted over 200.00!!!) so she had examples of the poses she wanted to do. She was surprised at how fast it was done but then we did not do the three changes of clothing and three different locations. She said she absolutely loved the out of door shots so I found a lovely pond, did some test shots a few days before then went out and did it... All the hard work had been done so far as finding the location and knowing the lighting.
OH but it was hot! we used the reflector as a fan!
Anyway~ you cannot take a bad photo of this young lady.
~e
_____________________________
*only* 8,985,600,000,000,000 Nanoseconds til I get to touch him again---
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 6:45:17 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1092
Status: offline
|
ezri, it turned out FANTASTIC!
you used a reflector and flash? big reflector?
tip- when using flash a photo often needs warming or blue reduction. the blue is pleasant to the eye and you may not notice it always but it grays the skin a bit.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 8:10:19 PM
|
|
|
ezri
Posts: 2906
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Point B, NC
Status: offline
|
I got so wrapped up in the lighting stuff I forgot to say THANKS for the complement!
so
~e
_____________________________
*only* 8,985,600,000,000,000 Nanoseconds til I get to touch him again---
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/5/2008 8:49:56 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1092
Status: offline
|
you're welcome  perhaps your reflector was reflecting too much and your white balance toned it down. experiment with the palm of your hand sometime, it's supposed to be a good grey card substitute.
having models to work with is a GREAT boost to your skill building.
so far auto white balance is serving me well so i'm not playing with that right now. i have other things to learn. always something.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Photography - 6/6/2008 8:28:28 AM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 2940
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: online
|
I like the lighting on her. It looks natural. I might have cropped the photo to the bottom of her shirt for a better composition balance, but that is just me. My eye traveled down and stopped at the jeans instead of traveling back up. It's the illustrator in me that does stuff like that.
Too bad about the butterfly. I got a nice shot of a child holding a bubble once. It was a delightful accident and all attempts to reproduce that didn't work.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
