Lens Flair

IceBone said:
The only thing you need to do, to get a screen to display colours correctly, is to calibrate it. Even a screen worth thousands of dollars will need calibration, because colour rendering has a lot to do with the room you're in, what the ambient light intensity and colour is, etc. We're getting these on loan from the uni to fix up our screens at home: http://gretagmacbethstore.com/index.cfm/act/Catalog.cfm/catalogid/1861/Subcategory/i1%20Solutions/category/i1/browse/null/MenuGroup/__Menu%20USA%20New/desc/i1%20Display%202.htm

We'll also be calibrating our cameras and creating ICC profiles from them as well, because even those aren't set up correctly for every lighting set-up.
Click to expand...

How exactly will that work though? As far as I know you need to re-calibrate your monitor at least every few weeks or so to get any benefit at all. If you calibrated it just the once surely that gives you a false sense of security :?. As for camera calibration the only thing I can think of the change that's extremely easy yet effective is the white balance but that is done on the fly depending on where you are at the time (obviously manufacturers can't predict specific lighting situations). If you are going into more depth than that I can't really see how much more beneficial it would be.
 
RAW removes any need for color profiles in camera ;)

But even once a year calibrated monitor will be much closer to never calibrated one, don't you think? I don't even really see why the calibration would become invalid in just few weeks. The only process which will affect it, that I can think of, is just plain aging.
 
If you're doing serious photo developping work, you need your camera ICC profiles for different light conditions and ALWAYS shoot in RAW (where white balance doesn't apply, really), they will work a lot better for preserving the right tonality as you change more than just temperature and tone (exposure, contrast, you name it) as each camera shoots in its own colour space (for example, the Nikon D2x shoots remarkably close to a full Adobe RGB (there is a bit of an overlap, but not much), this will make sure the camera captures what you see. Then you need to set your ambient light to 6500K and 60 lux, then you need to calibrate your screen (every few months, admitedly), you need to create an ICC profile for it, so the screen will display what the camera captured, no matter what colour space you shot the picture in. You also need to create an ICC profile of the printer you'll be printing on (this is usually done at the print shop continuously, as it depends on temperature, humidity, paper quality, ink quality, ink capacity and of course the printer itself. If the shop asks you to convert to CMYK for printing, just go elsewhere). Then, when exporting the image to a standard colour space (adobe RGB, sRGB, prophoto, etc...), you can be sure that the photo shop will convert the photo to CMYK using their printer's ICC profile so the printed image will be what you saw, what you captured and what you saw on your screen.

Now if any of those conditions is not set, the image won't turn out 100% and you don't really need a 650 euro screen, just a calibrated normal one. ;) At uni we have several "dark rooms" where we keep specific lighting conditions and also have use of some seriously bad ass hardware (just the screens alone are worth several grand each and the colour reproduction they have is staggering...), so all of this applies, but if you're just a hobby photographer and have no control of your lighting conditions, it's no use getting badass hardware as it's just as bad uncalibrated and if you have no control of the other aspects of photo development.
 
BerserkerCatSplat said:
One picture, then make contest results thread. School will be the end of me yet. :(

EDIT: Fuck! Tomorrow's major project needs a partial rewrite, no thread or sleep tonight.
Click to expand...

Let me know if you need a hand with the contest :)

<-- is doing nothing
 
424271063_wuFbj-XL.jpg
 
http://img383.imageshack.**/img383/9691/moonrx3.jpg
 
Great shot, Iben! Was that done with a full-frame or 35mm body? I'm not sure why I ask, but it just seems that way somehow.
 
Yup- I'm using a full frame 5d. That was also taken with a 50 f1.2 so that's why it has so much pop.

and as it's not midnight for me here's another taken with the 1.2
424271206_KzJMQ-XL.jpg
 
epp_b said:
Went out to get some more star shots tonight. Too bad my first two were crap because they were out of focus :(

The D40's kit lens has no focus markings and no hard infinity stop, so I have to let the AF focus to infinity on a bright spot (like a street light), hope it's right, switch to manual, and hope that the loose, dinky focus element move.

Image
Click to expand...

This is absolutely awesome!
 
https://pic.armedcats.net/w/wh/whappeh/2008/12/04/Maine1s.jpg
 
As usual, brilliant work, francis. My only comment is that I'd have liked to see a more interesting sky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top