Quake3World

7zark7 wrote:I LOVE octopus. Delicious .5

calamari is second in line to sushi, which is second in line to midget porn.

Teppanyaki FTW!

MaCaBr3 wrote:Do you guys know how much it would cost to recalibrate a canon lens out of waranty?

I think my 17-40 is getting soft or something else. I always have the impression shooting with a 70-200 or a 50mm is sharper than with the 17-40.

It's not exactly a sharp lens to begin with compared to a tele like that and especially to a prime, especially wide open.

If your camera is in warranty, send the it in and include the lens for testing. Maybe they'll calibrate both and do it under the camera warranty.

my 70 - 200 was shitloads sharper than the 17-40

Not sure what i was trying to do with these, really need to be seen full size.

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/1857038107_339f30ffed_o.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2250/1857828330_8bd85de605_o.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2306/1857795710_10bc69b9bf_o.jpg[/lvlshot]

MaCaBr3 wrote:Do you guys know how much it would cost to recalibrate a canon lens out of waranty?

I think my 17-40 is getting soft or something else. I always have the impression shooting with a 70-200 or a 50mm is sharper than with the 17-40.

I find my 17-40 to be sharp from f/5.6 and sharpest at f/8, but even then I can't really compare it to my 70-200 f/2.8 or 50 f/1.4 stopped down. The 17-40 wide open is not sharp at all though, but I like it a LOT close to f/8.

Doombrain, you don't need to upload a 10 meg file to make it seen proper.

not when it's a jpg. i think it comes out at 5mb-ish

re pics, the last one has something. be better as a B&W imo

removed a small amount of noise
blue channel B&W
dodge tool around the face

I tried a B&W conversion on it but the ISO was at 1600. IMHO I thought it looked better in color and I did much post processing. The original was that bad.

I have a stand alone Noise reduction proggy now, I may just have to go back and rework the original RAW file.

In the original he had a blaring white fresh smoke dangling out of his mouth.

Nice effort sir.

Doombrain wrote:

ForM wrote:

that's awesome

and for what it's worth, i think the B&W version of the billiards pic looks shite

This nonsense object lured me to take her picture.

Brilliant. I see the sand flea and it is scolding me.

Actually a group of sea gull children were picking up nimble sand fleas near there.
I was shocked by the fact that even those kids could feed themselves w/o money but most of us couldn't...

heres an awesome pic of a loved one!

ForM wrote:I tried a B&W conversion on it but the ISO was at 1600. IMHO I thought it looked better in color and I did much post processing. The original was that bad.

I have a stand alone Noise reduction proggy now, I may just have to go back and rework the original RAW file.

In the original he had a blaring white fresh smoke dangling out of his mouth.

Nice effort sir.

I like the noise in B&W

Subway in Rome


Vatican museum

I haven't really post-processed these two photos cause I'm lazy/busy atm, but I think I could make them much more dramatic with some higher contrast and vignetting in the corners....

I need knowledge.

If I wanted to print out a picture, what format would I save it to?

Jpeg shows pixelation when pixel peeping even with no compression, even tho I know some data is lost., where as TIFF and PNG show the proper image. Or would I have to save as CR2, the raw image format?

Or is there more info that you would need for more proper information?

Pro tip me please.

Pro tip? JPEG... I've had my photos on billboards before that were 9/12 quality JPEG. As long as you don't keep editing/re-saving over it and need a lossless format like tiff or psd, jpeg is fine. If you see artifacts on a full quality JPEG, then either your software sucks or you're looking too close.

jesus fucking h christ. jpeg? you have to be kidding.

aRGB RAW to tiff ALL THE FUCKING WAY. even on 12/12 you still get that horrid jgeg colour rendition when shot from a camera.

Like I said, I've had jpegs (sourced from a98 raw) on billboards, full color media guides, magazines, and newspapers. If anythings cause shit looking prints or horrid color, it's high ISO, piss-poor processing or someone who doesn't know how to print. If you have to blow the fucking thing up and start staring at pixels to see distortions you can't view at the size you're going to print, you're wasting your time... especially when most of the people posting stuff here aren't exactly going to be selling to galleries anytime soon. Online bookmakers like Blurb won't take TIFF and if you trying sending A98 files through Aperture you'll get back washed color. Not they are exactly professional, but I wouldn't want to spend 30K to have a book made with a custom maker.

Here's an illustration with a big png:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/191 ... fd06_o.png

One of the 100% crops is a tiff, the other from a 10/12 JPEG and the third is a difference overlay of one crop over the other. Tell me which is which. Since png is virtually lossless, it's as fair a comparison as you're going to be able to make over the internet.

When I scan film, I scan at 4000 dpi, 14 bit color and save as tiff. When I edit digital or film, I always use a raw source, adjustment layers (I rarely touch the original layer) and keep it in PS format. In other words, I don't use JPEG, but I also don't think it's going to fuck you over if you use it right.

OK, you're talking about film? sorry, i thought from a digi.

when you shoot in jpg on a digi cam the jpg algorithm is used, 60% of the image is binned along with all the edge detail. not only that, the algorithm that used over saturates the red channel.

My camera's at home, i'll show you what i mean when i get the chance.

also, if anyone's interested...

OK, so what I'm doing now is producing a profile for Hahnemuhle FineArt German Etching 310grm for a Epson Pro3800.

The software i use is GretagMacbeth ProfileMaker 5 Pro. this software does a lot more than printer profile. It can profile cameras, projectors, screens, presses, scanners and much more to a dE of <0.5.
The hardware spectrometer I'm using is also GretagMacbeth i1Pro. I use the UV Cut version because this Hahnemuhle paper is loaded with optical brighteners which can get a incorrect reading, so i use the UV filter to stop that. This eye measures colour 600 times a second. I have it set to read each patch twice, so 1200 times, before moving on. if i was to do what i would normally do, which is to produce a custom reference data chart of 3000-5000 patches and read it 3-4 times it would take about 9-12 hours but the result is normally worth the wait.

Below is the first window you use and the measure window because i've already started the process. for this ICC I'm using the TC9.18 reference data chart (because i don't have time for a large chart) which i printed with no colour management yesterday and left it overnight to cure and gas out (dry). When i printed it i refereed to Hahnemuhles website for their suggested print setting, which is normally Velvet FineArt. If i really wanted to be anal about it i could run what's called a 'linorizaion' on the media using PM5. this will run a few prints to determine the Total Ink Limit (TIL) of the media then i'd need to run a few tests on the printer to find out the correct feed adjustment, head dry time etc but i've found Hahnemuhles suggested setting works very well, so I'm happy to use it.



To read in the patches I'm using a IO table which is nothing more than a robot arm. you can read these in by hand, but it takes all day.



Reading the patches is only half way through so i'll update this when i can

OK so the reading is finished and the reference data saved as a .txt file. Now i need to make the setting to suite photo/fineart printing.



Profile size: I always use Large because PS CS supports the format and i always seem to get a smoother gamut

Perceptual Rendering Intent: Neutral Gray. This will anchor the gray point to colour theory gray, not the paper colour gray. it's hard to explain this option but in photography printing neural LAB intent is always uses to help standardize.

Gamut Mapping: LOGO classic. 99% of profiles are built with this. other options are LOGO Chroma plus and LOGO colorful.
Chroma plus does what it says on the tin as does colorful.

Viewing light: in my case and for display D65 is the best setting.

Now i just need to start the calculation.

That's it! finished.



now i just need to run a test print to make sure I'm happy with gradations etc.
When i use this ICC you'll notice it's call:

Pro38 - printer
HmGe - paper name
2880 - dpi setting used to make the profile
UniDi - speed setting, in this case single pass.



Rendering intent when printing. Hahnemuhle always advise Perceptual with their media however it really depends on the image.
my advise it to use the gamut check in PS. it a large part of the image is in warning then i'd use Perceptual because it will remap all of the colour to maintain the relations in colour.

Below are my settings in the driver.