Recommendation for RAW program

From: "Steven Wandy"

| I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times | on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program | and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS | utility? Thanks
|

Adobe PhotoElements
Paint Shop Pro

—
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Steven Wandy wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

You could try Raw Shooter Essentials from Pixmantec. It’s free. I happen to like the Adobe Raw Converter better, however.

Steven Wandy wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

I’ve tried several RAW converters for my E300 and IMHO nothing comes close to Olympus studio 1.2/1.3. The PSCS leaves the colors too bland for my taste and doesn’t render them very well. Compare the results to a in camera jpeg shot at the same time and you’ll see what I’m talking about. They loose the "Olympus color" which is why I bought this camera to start with.

Using the ‘high function’ converter in studio on E300 files (don’t use the ‘high speed’ on these), false noise set to 6-8, set WB To taste and the rest at their defaults gives wonderful colors, good highlights and shadows, while holding the sharp details. Don’t confuse this with the "master" converter that came with the E300, that one is awful. Studio has an option to save the files and then open PS etc so it’s not hard to incorporate it into your workflow. Also lets you choose from sRGB, aRGB or ProRGB and tags the files so PS knows what to do with them, master doesn’t do this..

Besides this there are several other neat editing features like distortion and shading compensation that read the exif data and apply the perfect amount automatically. Neat stuff.

It’s available as a free download/trial version so give it a try and see what you think. B&H has the full version for $100. It’s WELL worth checking out.
—

Stacey

Steven Wandy writes …

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility?

You can download Capture One 3.7 Pro and try it for 30 days, then LE for another 15 days and buy LE if you like this program, for $99. I don’t know about the Oly bodies, but with Canon Pro cameras I get better results with C1 than with the Canon or Adobe software.

You can also download Rawshooter Essentials 1.1.3 (written by the same guy who did Capture One), it’s free right now as they try to get a new company up and running. For many images it does a better job for me than Capture One, and did I mention it’s free …

Run some test images thru each converter and compare to see which looks best to you.

Bill

If you have only used it a few few times it seems unlikely you adequately understand the functions of the Adobe raw converter. Before purchasing any other RAW converters you would probably be best off going through some of the turtorials you can find on the web about how to use the advanced functions of the Adobe converter. It is also imprortant to develop a work flow such that you anticipate what image processing you would want to perform in the raw converter and what image processing would better be done in Photoshop.While I believe shooting RAW is the only way to go with dSLR images none of the raw converters alone are a substitute for what can better be accomplished with traditional Photoshop tools.

wrote in message

Steven Wandy wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times
on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program
and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

You could try Raw Shooter Essentials from Pixmantec. It’s free. I happen to like the Adobe Raw Converter better, however.

Have you tried the latest version?

"Stacey" wrote in message

Steven Wandy wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

I’ve tried several RAW converters for my E300 and IMHO nothing comes close to Olympus studio 1.2/1.3. The PSCS leaves the colors too bland for my taste and doesn’t render them very well. Compare the results to a in camera
jpeg shot at the same time and you’ll see what I’m talking about. They loose the "Olympus color" which is why I bought this camera to start with.

As opposed to the actual colours that it should have captured, you sound like some of the Canonites, "I like my Canon because the colours are much brighter and more saturated", I thought a camera was supposed to capture what was actually there?

I don’t know about the Oly e-1, but I have found only 3 converters so far the work with e-300 Raws: Photoshop ACD 3.1 and the 2 Olympus products.
On my machine Raw shooter shows the thumbnails, but when I want to actually do something, it starts to open the image and then goes away. In the previous version it gave an error message and then ended. In this one it simply disappears.

I have had the same problem with a number of image managers which claim to support e-300. I get nothing or only thumbnails.

If anyone has gotten others to work with the e-300 I’d like to know.

Thanks.

Ira Solomon

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:00:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy" wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

I agree this is a fine program, but it does not want to run on one of my computers with an Athlon chip. It happens to be the one on which I do most of my editing.

On 5 Jun 2005 06:54:47 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "RK" wrote:

I agree this is a fine program, but it does not want to run on one of my computers with an Athlon chip. It happens to be the one on which I do most of my editing.

The original release had a problem with Athlons, however the last few updates run fine on my XP3200+.
———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

Ira Solomon wrote:

I don’t know about the Oly e-1, but I have found only 3 converters so far the work with e-300 Raws: Photoshop ACD 3.1 and the 2 Olympus products.
On my machine Raw shooter shows the thumbnails, but when I want to actually do something, it starts to open the image and then goes away.
In the previous version it gave an error message and then ended. In this one it simply disappears.

I have had the same problem with a number of image managers which claim to support e-300. I get nothing or only thumbnails.
If anyone has gotten others to work with the e-300 I’d like to know.
Thanks.

Ira Solomon

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:00:45 GMT, "Steven Wandy" wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

The Gimp works with Raw files.
—
neil
delete delete to reply

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:23:11 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message

Steven Wandy wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

I’ve tried several RAW converters for my E300 and IMHO nothing comes close to Olympus studio 1.2/1.3. The PSCS leaves the colors too bland for my taste and doesn’t render them very well. Compare the results to a in camera
jpeg shot at the same time and you’ll see what I’m talking about. They loose the "Olympus color" which is why I bought this camera to start with.

As opposed to the actual colours that it should have captured, you sound like some of the Canonites, "I like my Canon because the colours are much brighter and more saturated", I thought a camera was supposed to capture what was actually there?

Not since Dagurre did his first o-type. 🙂 A camera captures what you want to it to capture, in the way you want to capture it. It’s dependent on lens choice (e.g. Nikon lens have always been considered slightly "warmer" than other makes) film choice (are you a Velvia person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?) how you process the film, the amount of time you leave the film in the film bath, what you do with the film afterwards i.e. post-processing (or alternatively all the options given with digital film and then digital post-processing) and, finally, if you print it, on what paper, in what way and with what chemicals/inkjet inks/etc.

So, the short answer to your question is: Nope, not in 150+ years… 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:23:11 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

[snip}

As opposed to the actual colours that it should have captured, you sound like some of the Canonites, "I like my Canon because the colours are much brighter and more saturated", I thought a camera was supposed to capture what was actually there?

[snip]

The camera *does* capture what is there. It is the camera that records what is *real*!

The problem is that our brain — our visual interpretor — does not!

The camera records. Our brain interprets.

Our brain is a wondrous computer that sees the same colors under extremely varying light conditions: tungsten, florescent, sun, shade, etc. "Yes, I realize that this scene is bathed in a strange light and the colors being reflected are contaminated by that light, but I’ll compensate for its effects and present it to you as it would be under ‘normal’ lighting conditions." Our brain really — truly! — does this remarkable task.

However, the camera sees these colors only as reflected by the ambient light. It’s dumb. We’re smart — much to our chagrin when it comes to dealing with the camera’s output as the source for our photo editing.

So camera makers, film makers, lens makers, photo editors, et alii, second guess to the best of their ability in an attempt to reconcile the conflict betwen what the camera records as the real world and what we expect to see in our virtual world.. There is no way they can satisfy everyone’s biases as to what is ‘real’.

We are privileged in having been admitted to deal with this awesome aspect of our being.

We should be pollaxed by the wonder of our vision! Don’t fight it. Stand in awe of it. Deal with it with the tools at hand.

Robert Service got it right:
"I wish that I could understand
The wondrous mystery of my hand."

Good luck! . . . . patrick

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well. —

Stacey

when I did my thesis on the memory of color I came across this problem: ie our memories of color are not accurate. You can try this for yourself by taking a sample of a ‘blue’ sky, and look at it in isolation. I proposed that ‘amamteur films’ would record in a manner that was pleasing to the viewer (and that includes making skin tones nice) and ‘pro films’ that would record more accurately.

The truth is that as their is no such thing as color, only a pshyco-perception, and as everyone sees differently, because the ratio of dyes in the optic sensors vary from person to person, all you can do is get a result that you personally fins pleasing.

Just my 2p worth.

DB

Stacey wrote:

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.

Portra 160NC et al, sell by the truckload. Likewise the Fuji ‘people’ films (NPS, Astia), Provia, etc…

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

never liked Velvia or Kodachrome, used Ektachrome for 20 years or more. Nicer pushes, better skin tones, no articficial bright reds, quicker and local processing.

"Stacey" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well. —

Stacey

forgot to add we did switch to Fuji Provia towards the end of using film. (only used transparency films no negative films)

"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Stacey wrote:

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.

Portra 160NC et al, sell by the truckload. Likewise the Fuji ‘people’ films (NPS, Astia), Provia, etc…

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

jpeg shot at the same time and you’ll see what I’m talking about. They loose the "Olympus color" which is why I bought this camera to start with.

As opposed to the actual colours that it should have captured, you sound like some of the Canonites, "I like my Canon because the colours are much brighter and more saturated", I thought a camera was supposed to capture what was actually there?

Not since Dagurre did his first o-type. 🙂 A camera captures what you want to it to capture, in the way you want to capture it. It’s dependent on lens choice (e.g. Nikon lens have always been considered slightly "warmer" than other makes) film choice (are you a Velvia person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?) how you process the film, the amount of time you leave the film in the film bath, what you do with the film afterwards i.e. post-processing (or alternatively all the options given with digital film and then digital post-processing) and, finally, if you print it, on what paper, in what way and with what chemicals/inkjet inks/etc.

So, the short answer to your question is: Nope, not in 150+ years…

But there is the problem isn’t it, digital is not film. You do not have the choice to swap from Kodachrome to Velvia, you are "stuck" with the sensor that the camera was built with, my point being that "I" am thinking that it would be better to try and capture what is actually there and then do your "film" adjustments in PS or whatever program you use. If your camera does "things" to the captured image can you undo them if you need to? Of course with all D-SLR’s you have the ability to make some changes in camera but you should be careful what you ask for because you just might get it and regret it after.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:43:30 GMT, "patrick" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:23:11 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

[snip}

As opposed to the actual colours that it should have captured, you sound like some of the Canonites, "I like my Canon because the colours are much brighter and more saturated", I thought a camera was supposed to capture what was actually there?

[snip]

The camera *does* capture what is there. It is the camera that records what is *real*!

Er no, it doesn’t. It only captures what the digital sensor or film is capable of capturing. Neither have the capacity to capture the full range of light on a summer’s day for example. Some are overly influenced by IR light. IR film captures something completely different.

The problem is that our brain — our visual interpretor — does not!
The camera records. Our brain interprets.

The camera only records only what we allow it to through our use of film or digital sensors – it is interprets just as much as the brain does. It just interprets differently.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:53:49 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.

True. Though Reala still sells reasonably well, and that’s the closest "natural" film I’ve seen.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:13:12 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.

Portra 160NC et al, sell by the truckload. Likewise the Fuji ‘people’ films (NPS, Astia), Provia, etc…

You missed the one which I think is most accurate – Reala. The other films you mention are not necessarily more accurate, they just give a different interpretation, though the skin tones in Portra are pretty close.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:00:01 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

So, the short answer to your question is: Nope, not in 150+ years…

But there is the problem isn’t it, digital is not film.

It doesn’t matter. A digital sensor is no more capable of "seeing" accurately than film. And you have more chances to manipulate it in camera than you ever did with film.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:13:12 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.

Portra 160NC et al, sell by the truckload. Likewise the Fuji ‘people’ films (NPS, Astia), Provia, etc…

You missed the one which I think is most accurate – Reala. The other films you mention are not necessarily more accurate, they just give a different interpretation, though the skin tones in Portra are pretty close.

I’m Reala is fine (I’ve never used it).

But the point was the marketing claim, not the reality. The films I mentioned are marketed for their accuracy in skin tones or other characteristic, and are reputed to be fairly accurate. They’ve been around for quite a while (in Kodak marketing time scales, IAC).

Astia and Provia are very good wrt skin tones. I don’t think any Kodak slide film does as well.

Cheers,
Alan

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:00:01 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

So, the short answer to your question is: Nope, not in 150+ years…

But there is the problem isn’t it, digital is not film.

It doesn’t matter. A digital sensor is no more capable of "seeing" accurately than film. And you have more chances to manipulate it in camera than you ever did with film.

Yes, thats what I said, the post I was answering said they liked Olympus’s version of sensor because they liked they way it looked, I suggested that it wopuld be better to try and capture the reality and adjust later.

wrote:

The truth is that as their is no such thing as color, only a pshyco-perception, and as everyone sees differently,

Then you can get into the whole -mixing colors of dye in inkjet prints- viewed under different light sources etc..

—

Stacey

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:53:49 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.

True. Though Reala still sells reasonably well, and that’s the closest "natural" film I’ve seen.

Hard to call any print film "accurate" isn’t it? 🙂 —

Stacey

Alan Browne wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Hecate wrote:

are you a Velvia
person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?

Bingo, you win the prize!

Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.

Portra 160NC et al, sell by the truckload.

I doubt that it’s even a drop in the bucket compared to the "snappy" films…
—

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

wrote:

The truth is that as their is no such thing as color, only a pshyco-perception, and as everyone sees differently,

Then you can get into the whole -mixing colors of dye in inkjet prints- viewed under different light sources etc..

And of course that the averaged spectrum of light falling across a sensor "pixel" can only be approximated by mixing levels of RGB, not precisely matched. But it’s close enough for perception.

—
Ken Tough

Stacey wrote:

Hard to call any print film "accurate" isn’t it? 🙂

The film itself is accurate. Printing is a whole other ball of sticky wax (or ink or dye). Having said that, the place that makes my portrait prints is run by a pro photog and she supervises the printing. Excellent prints. The other place where I print, using a Frontier is less relaiable in this sense.

Cheers,
Alan

—
— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Hard to call any print film "accurate" isn’t it? 🙂

The film itself is accurate. Printing is a whole other ball of sticky wax (or ink or dye). Having said that, the place that makes my portrait prints is run by a pro photog and she supervises the printing. Excellent prints. The other place where I print, using a Frontier is less relaiable in this sense.

very true. Fuji NHG is an accurate film, when well processed and printed.

—

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

not to mention every time you replace the ink cartridge the colors change. I did a batch of prints, changed the cartridge midway and thought I had lost my calibrations only to realize the ink didn’t match the previous batch.

slightly off topic but so interesting are people with synesthesia (sp?) they perceive objects and words as having colors and sounds the rest of us do not perceive. And color blind individuals certainly perceive a different visual reality than the rest of us who see colors. So I am not convinced we all do "see" color the same way.

then there is the whole perception vs. reality question. What is real? we know it cannot be what we perceive through our senses as that differs from person to person, reality implies a fixed truth that doesn’t change by who is viewing it.

"Stacey" wrote in message

wrote:

The truth is that as their is no such thing as color, only a pshyco-perception, and as everyone sees differently,

Then you can get into the whole -mixing colors of dye in inkjet prints- viewed under different light sources etc..

—

Stacey

"KatWoman" wrote in message

not to mention every time you replace the ink cartridge the colors change.

I

did a batch of prints, changed the cartridge midway and thought I had lost my calibrations only to realize the ink didn’t match the previous batch.
slightly off topic but so interesting are people with synesthesia (sp?)

they

perceive objects and words as having colors and sounds the rest of us do

not

perceive. And color blind individuals certainly perceive a different

visual

reality than the rest of us who see colors. So I am not convinced we all

do

"see" color the same way.

then there is the whole perception vs. reality question. What is real? we know it cannot be what we perceive through our senses as that differs from person to person, reality implies a fixed truth that doesn’t change by who is viewing it.

"Stacey" wrote in message

wrote:

The truth is that as their is no such thing as color, only a pshyco-perception, and as everyone sees differently,

Then you can get into the whole -mixing colors of dye in inkjet prints- viewed under different light sources etc..

—

Stacey

Now this is an interesting topic.

Color perception takes place as a sensation in the brain. You were told as a small child "learning your colors" that whenever you perceive the sensation from a particular wavelength of light that you are to call it say, if it was the wavelength that predominates the light we see scattered throughout the sky, "blue". You have no way of knowing that the sensation I perceive from the same wavelength that I call "blue" is anything like the sensation you perceive from the same wavelength. We may (in fact very likely do) perceive entirely different "realities".

And there is no way we can ever find out about each other’s perceptions, because our language will simply say that the sky is "blue".

We are trapped by our own language in a world of our own unique perceptions.

L.C.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:53:47 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

But the point was the marketing claim, not the reality. The films I mentioned are marketed for their accuracy in skin tones or other characteristic, and are reputed to be fairly accurate. They’ve been around for quite a while (in Kodak marketing time scales, IAC).
Astia and Provia are very good wrt skin tones. I don’t think any Kodak slide film does as well.

The problem with saying *any* film is accurate though is that it depends upon the viewers perception – i.e. the print colours. Saying a film is accurate begs the question, compared to what? 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:32:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Hard to call any print film "accurate" isn’t it? 🙂

The film itself is accurate. Printing is a whole other ball of sticky wax (or ink or dye). Having said that, the place that makes my portrait prints is run by a pro photog and she supervises the printing. Excellent prints. The other place where I print, using a Frontier is less relaiable in this sense.

Someone else might find, however, that your prints are too red,. too yellow, whatever. It’s only your perception that tells *you* that the prints are OK. They are as far as you’re concerned.

Saying the film is accurate, as I’ve already said in reply to another of your posts, doesn’t ask the question, accurate compared to what?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 06:19:36 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:00:01 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

So, the short answer to your question is: Nope, not in 150+ years…

But there is the problem isn’t it, digital is not film.

It doesn’t matter. A digital sensor is no more capable of "seeing" accurately than film. And you have more chances to manipulate it in camera than you ever did with film.

Yes, thats what I said, the post I was answering said they liked Olympus’s version of sensor because they liked they way it looked, I suggested that it wopuld be better to try and capture the reality and adjust later.

Well, not exactly. You’re saying "it would be better to capture the reality" which makes the assumption that the digital sensor captures reality. It doesn’t it captures an approximation that is biased to what the designers think is reality.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Pete D wrote:

You could try Raw Shooter Essentials from Pixmantec. It’s free. I happen to like the Adobe Raw Converter better, however.

Have you tried the latest version?

I’ve tried the latest versions of both. But I’m not sure which you’re asking about.

Stacey wrote:

Steven Wandy wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

I’ve tried several RAW converters for my E300 and IMHO nothing comes close to Olympus studio 1.2/1.3. The PSCS leaves the colors too bland for my

For me, what you see is what you get going from Adobe RAW to PSCS2. The problem I had with the Pixmantec RSE tool was that I’d get the colors how I liked them in the converter, but then when I pulled up the TIFF in PSCS2, they shifted significantly.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 06:19:36 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:00:01 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

So, the short answer to your question is: Nope, not in 150+ years…

But there is the problem isn’t it, digital is not film.

It doesn’t matter. A digital sensor is no more capable of "seeing" accurately than film. And you have more chances to manipulate it in camera than you ever did with film.

Yes, thats what I said, the post I was answering said they liked Olympus’s version of sensor because they liked they way it looked, I suggested that it
wopuld be better to try and capture the reality and adjust later.

Well, not exactly. You’re saying "it would be better to capture the reality" which makes the assumption that the digital sensor captures reality. It doesn’t it captures an approximation that is biased to what the designers think is reality.

Well, yes, why is this so hard, it seemed easy yesterday. 😉

On 7 Jun 2005 19:11:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital
wrote:

For me, what you see is what you get going from Adobe RAW to PSCS2. The problem I had with the Pixmantec RSE tool was that I’d get the colors how I liked them in the converter, but then when I pulled up the TIFF in PSCS2, they shifted significantly.

Did you verify in the Preferences dialog box that the proper monitor profile was being used?
———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

exactly.

oddly enough when I tested minumim perceptable color difference, the best at the test was red/green anomalous ie ‘color blind’!

as we all know the cones
< http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.ht ml> have spectral sensitivty by virtue of the dyes in them. And that mix of dyes varies from person to person

DB

synesthesia is facinating!
http://web.mit.edu/synesthesia/www/synesthesia.html has a good starter.

basically its a ‘cross-wiring’ of the brain so the areas which normally process say language process vision etc so ‘sufferers’ see words

Ed Ruf wrote:

For me, what you see is what you get going from Adobe RAW to PSCS2. The problem I had with the Pixmantec RSE tool was that I’d get the colors how I liked them in the converter, but then when I pulled up the TIFF in PSCS2, they shifted significantly.

Did you verify in the Preferences dialog box that the proper monitor profile was being used?

Wow, you’re right, it’s not using the monitor profile. The instructions aren’t quite clear how to change that….

On 8 Jun 2005 07:18:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital
wrote:

Ed Ruf wrote:

Did you verify in the Preferences dialog box that the proper monitor profile was being used?

Wow, you’re right, it’s not using the monitor profile. The instructions aren’t quite clear how to change that….

Do you have the OS pointed at the right profile?
———-
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html

I wonder what happened to the ‘color MTF’ project?

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:14:06 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

Well, not exactly. You’re saying "it would be better to capture the reality" which makes the assumption that the digital sensor captures reality. It doesn’t it captures an approximation that is biased to what the designers think is reality.

Well, yes, why is this so hard, it seemed easy yesterday. 😉

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On 7 Jun 2005 19:11:07 -0700, wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Steven Wandy wrote:

I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS utility? Thanks

I’ve tried several RAW converters for my E300 and IMHO nothing comes close to Olympus studio 1.2/1.3. The PSCS leaves the colors too bland for my

For me, what you see is what you get going from Adobe RAW to PSCS2.

Nope. What you see is what you get in terms of input to your eyes, but isn’t what the sensor gets.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂

7%. I wouldn’t call that a pretty good chance. Maybe a small chance or just a chance.

Ed Ruf wrote:

Wow, you’re right, it’s not using the monitor profile. The instructions aren’t quite clear how to change that….

Do you have the OS pointed at the right profile?

Yes.

KatWoman wrote:

not to mention every time you replace the ink cartridge the colors change. I did a batch of prints, changed the cartridge midway and thought I had lost my calibrations only to realize the ink didn’t match the previous batch.

Which printer was this? So far my canon i9900 is staying consistant with ink changes.

slightly off topic but so interesting are people with synesthesia (sp?) they perceive objects and words as having colors and sounds the rest of us do not perceive. And color blind individuals certainly perceive a different visual reality than the rest of us who see colors. So I am not convinced we all do "see" color the same way.

I agree. I’m sure what I see on my screen, others may see as totally different.. Plus there is the "I like it" factor, you can’t please everyone. It’s like when I say I don’t like the colors I’ve seen come out of canon cameras, that’s not saying they are wrong/bad for everyone? People always want to see some "test" or a graph for EVERY aspect of a camera’s performance, some things just can’t be "tested" that way.

—

Stacey

Pete D wrote:

Yes, thats what I said, the post I was answering said they liked Olympus’s version of sensor because they liked they way it looked, I suggested that it wopuld be better to try and capture the reality and adjust later.

And then have to adjust -EVERY- image taken with the camera to look like what comes out of this one by default? Out of the hundreds of images I’ve taken so far I have yet to ‘touch" the color balance of any of them (except the ones I used ACR to develop), they all look to my liking right from the camera/RAW converter. Why would I want one I’d have to adjust every image from?

—

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message

Pete D wrote:

Yes, thats what I said, the post I was answering said they liked Olympus’s
version of sensor because they liked they way it looked, I suggested that it wopuld be better to try and capture the reality and adjust later.

And then have to adjust -EVERY- image taken with the camera to look like what comes out of this one by default? Out of the hundreds of images I’ve taken so far I have yet to ‘touch" the color balance of any of them (except
the ones I used ACR to develop), they all look to my liking right from the camera/RAW converter. Why would I want one I’d have to adjust every image from?

Ah yes but you wouldn’t have to unless you wanted a particular effect because you captured correctly in the first place.

but there are many forms of anomalous color vision, male red/green is just one. A sufferer of this would be a Deuteranope – red/green deficit, but there is also Protanope – another red/green deficit and Tritanope – blue/yellow deficit.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/diss/ltu/accessibility/colex1.htm has a good round up

Pete D wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message

Pete D wrote:

Yes, thats what I said, the post I was answering said they liked Olympus’s
version of sensor because they liked they way it looked, I suggested that it wopuld be better to try and capture the reality and adjust later.

And then have to adjust -EVERY- image taken with the camera to look like what comes out of this one by default? Out of the hundreds of images I’ve taken so far I have yet to ‘touch" the color balance of any of them (except
the ones I used ACR to develop), they all look to my liking right from the camera/RAW converter. Why would I want one I’d have to adjust every image from?

Ah yes but you wouldn’t have to unless you wanted a particular effect because you captured correctly in the first place.

So what defines "correctly" for you? What looks good to me or what YOU (or some test chart shot) thinks looks "correct"? As other people have stated, every person’s judgment of this isn’t going to be the same.

And maybe you can explain how I didn’t "capture it correctly" when the RAW file looks great developed in studio but needs all sorts of color corrections when developed in ACR? If I liked the results from ACR, I’d be using it. You also assume that any and all adjustments can be made in photoshop with no quality loss, which just isn’t the case. Many times saturation adjustments ruin the tonal details, heavy color adjustments end up posterizing the image etc.

I think people should use whatever products give them -the closest to their end goals- with the least amount of work and adjustments in photoshop. Again why would I want every image to be "correct" to your eyes and then have to work on every one to get them to where they look correct to mine? And if for some reason the image looks wrong from the olympus RAW software, I can always use ACR, haven’t found one like this yet… —

Stacey

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:32:42 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Hard to call any print film "accurate" isn’t it? 🙂

The film itself is accurate. Printing is a whole other ball of sticky wax (or ink or dye). Having said that, the place that makes my portrait prints is run by a pro photog and she supervises the printing. Excellent prints. The other place where I print, using a Frontier is less relaiable in this sense.

Someone else might find, however, that your prints are too red,. too yellow, whatever. It’s only your perception that tells *you* that the prints are OK.

But THEIR eyesight is what others should be judged from? 🙂

People don’t realize this "accuratre color" is very subjective and you can’t just say "This _____ has the best color balance". If this was true, no one would ever use velvia (or kodachrome etc) for anything and we know that isn’t the case. It the same with print contrast, obviously many people like the results from that consumer fuji crytal archive paper, I think it’s HORRID!
—

Stacey

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:12:28 -0400, Stacey wrote:

So what defines "correctly" for you? What looks good to me or what YOU (or some test chart shot) thinks looks "correct"? As other people have stated, every person’s judgment of this isn’t going to be the same.

hi, a fast hallo to the group. Have not been here for quite a time and it is nice to peep in again and say hallo to the same familiar names.

Hi Hecate, is Brian still around?

Stacey asks what defines ‘correctly’. Is this good enough Stacey?:-)))

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/grazing.jpg

’till later

Dave

Stacey wrote:

It the same with print contrast, obviously many people like the results from that consumer fuji crytal archive paper, I think it’s HORRID!
—

Stacey

In what way? I’ve not found a better wet-process paper than Fuji Crystal Archive II yet.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:17:01 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Someone else might find, however, that your prints are too red,. too yellow, whatever. It’s only your perception that tells *you* that the prints are OK.

But THEIR eyesight is what others should be judged from? 🙂
People don’t realize this "accuratre color" is very subjective and you can’t just say "This _____ has the best color balance". If this was true, no one would ever use velvia (or kodachrome etc) for anything and we know that isn’t the case. It the same with print contrast, obviously many people like the results from that consumer fuji crytal archive paper, I think it’s HORRID!

LOL! Exactly…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:31:19 -0000, Bubbabob
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂

7%. I wouldn’t call that a pretty good chance. Maybe a small chance or just a chance.

More like 40% – nearly half of all males suffer from it from very mild to absolutely impossible to tell.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:34:30 +0200, DD wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:12:28 -0400, Stacey wrote:

So what defines "correctly" for you? What looks good to me or what YOU (or some test chart shot) thinks looks "correct"? As other people have stated, every person’s judgment of this isn’t going to be the same.

hi, a fast hallo to the group. Have not been here for quite a time and it is nice to peep in again and say hallo to the same familiar names.

Hi Hecate, is Brian still around?

As far as I know, but I haven’t noticed a post from him for a little while.

Stacey asks what defines ‘correctly’. Is this good enough Stacey?:-)))
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/grazing.jpg

’till later

OK, bearing in mind that browsers and colour management don’t mix <g> the giraffe looks great, but I think that tree isn’t good for him – he looks a bit green to me <g>

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Bubbabob wrote:

Stacey wrote:

It the same with print contrast, obviously many people like the results from that consumer fuji crytal archive paper, I think it’s HORRID!
—

Stacey

In what way? I’ve not found a better wet-process paper than Fuji Crystal Archive II yet.

Thanx, this is exactly my point!

To me that paper is SO high in contrast highlights are easily blown, shadows are almost always blocked up and in general just look bad. Other people (a lot of people?) like the "snappy" look this high contrast paper gives. I much prefer to use professional kodak "portrait" paper for anything I shoot from landscapes to macro shots of flowers.

—

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

To me that paper is SO high in contrast highlights are easily blown, shadows are almost always blocked up and in general just look bad. Other people (a lot of people?) like the "snappy" look this high contrast paper gives.

Hmm. I rather like Crystal Archive, and I’ve found that (since the service I use supports color management) that I can get exactly what I see on my screen, with no increase in contrast or whatever.

But my comparison is with other paper (including Kodak) from other services, almost none of which support color management, and most of which don’t let you specify "print as-is", instead boosting contrast and saturation to make the pictures "pop" or "snap" or whatever it is consumers seem to like.

So I guess my question is, are you sure it’s the paper you’re not liking, or could it be the methods used to make the print? From almost all of the "big" print services (all of the ones I’ve tried) you never really know what you’re going to get, but you can bet on it being more saturated and higher in contrast than what you sent them.

—
Jeremy |

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Stacey wrote:

To me that paper is SO high in contrast highlights are easily blown, shadows are almost always blocked up and in general just look bad. Other people (a lot of people?) like the "snappy" look this high contrast paper gives.

Hmm. I rather like Crystal Archive, and I’ve found that (since the service I use supports color management) that I can get exactly what I see on my screen, with no increase in contrast or whatever.

Again some people like the look this paper has, I don’t. That was my point.

So I guess my question is, are you sure it’s the paper you’re not liking, or could it be the methods used to make the print?

Fuji Frontier machines made with the same file, both told "no adjustments", both pro labs. I’ve even compared this paper in my home wet lab against kodak "portrait" professional papers, massive contrast difference between the two. The kodak consumer papers are just as bad as fuji’s (high contrast to make them snappy) and there are a couple of different "crytal archive" papers being sold i’ve been told so it’s hard to know which you’re talking about.

—

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

Fuji Frontier machines made with the same file, both told "no adjustments", both pro labs. I’ve even compared this paper in my home wet lab against kodak "portrait" professional papers, massive contrast difference between the two.

Interesting. Like I said, my only reference was to other paper from different places, none of which was really good to begin with. Any online places you’d recommend?

—
Jeremy |

Stacey wrote:

Fuji Frontier machines made with the same file, both told "no adjustments", both pro labs. I’ve even compared this paper in my home wet lab against kodak "portrait" professional papers, massive contrast difference between the two. The kodak consumer papers are just as bad as fuji’s (high contrast to make them snappy) and there are a couple of different "crytal archive" papers being sold i’ve been told so it’s hard to know which you’re talking about.

But did you use the appropriate profile for that machine? I use the DryCreek profile for the Noritsu QSS-3101 printer and get back PRECISELY what I see on my (calibrated) monitor. Exactly the same shadow detail and exactly the same highlights. Most of the so-called pro labs in my town don’t even have their printers profiled and those that do often won’t provide you with the profile. That’s why all of my serious work goes to CostCo these days, along with the work from at least three of the top wedding / portrait studios in town. Twice the quality at 1/10 the price of those so-called pro labs.

My only regret is that they aren’t running matte paper along with the glossy and ‘lustre’ finishes.

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:31:19 -0000, Bubbabob
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂

7%. I wouldn’t call that a pretty good chance. Maybe a small chance or just a chance.

More like 40% – nearly half of all males suffer from it from very mild to absolutely impossible to tell.

Nope. Red/Green is 7% in males and .4% in females. I work in the same building as a major medical library and have MedLine access. These same figures are all over the literature.

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Fuji Frontier machines made with the same file, both told "no adjustments", both pro labs. I’ve even compared this paper in my home wet lab against kodak "portrait" professional papers, massive contrast difference between the two.

Interesting. Like I said, my only reference was to other paper from different
places, none of which was really good to begin with. Any online places you’d recommend?

Nope, found a great lab near me that does fantastic work. Well I guess they are on the web…

http://www.huntcolorlab.com

http://www.huntcolorlab.com/digital.html

Not much to their web site but I have been using them for many years for analog work and they just started doing digital file printing. I proof with their "viewing profile" and as long as the file is within the gamut of this profile, the prints look great. I just send a "no corrections!" as a coment and they don’t mess with them. Just did a B&W digital file as a test and it looks great too! They print on kodak endura pro paper.
—

Stacey

Bubbabob wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Fuji Frontier machines made with the same file, both told "no adjustments", both pro labs. I’ve even compared this paper in my home wet lab against kodak "portrait" professional papers, massive contrast difference between the two. The kodak consumer papers are just as bad as fuji’s (high contrast to make them snappy) and there are a couple of different "crytal archive" papers being sold i’ve been told so it’s hard to know which you’re talking about.

But did you use the appropriate profile for that machine? I use the DryCreek profile for the Noritsu QSS-3101 printer and get back PRECISELY what I see on my (calibrated) monitor. Exactly the same shadow detail and exactly the same highlights.

What has that got to do with the difference between two printing papers? The consumer grade fuji paper is MUCH higher contrast than the kodak pro paper is. I’m glad you like the results you get and it suits your taste. I think it looks awful but that’s why they make different papers.. —

Stacey

I think people should use whatever products give them -the closest to their
end goals- with the least amount of work and adjustments in photoshop. Again why would I want every image to be "correct" to your eyes and then have to work on every one to get them to where they look correct to mine? And if for some reason the image looks wrong from the olympus RAW software,
I can always use ACR, haven’t found one like this yet… —

Stacey

Yes. Indeed.

Good luck, bye.

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:14:06 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

Well, not exactly. You’re saying "it would be better to capture the reality" which makes the assumption that the digital sensor captures reality. It doesn’t it captures an approximation that is biased to what the designers think is reality.

Well, yes, why is this so hard, it seemed easy yesterday. 😉

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Any male photographer concerned with evaluating color should get his optometrist to run through the Isohara color vision test charts. If he passes all those (as I have) then you can’t criticize his color perception.

Colin

Stacey wrote:

Bubbabob wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Fuji Frontier machines made with the same file, both told "no adjustments", both pro labs. I’ve even compared this paper in my home wet lab against kodak "portrait" professional papers, massive contrast difference between the two. The kodak consumer papers are just as bad as fuji’s (high contrast to make them snappy) and there are a couple of different "crytal archive" papers being sold i’ve been told so it’s hard to know which you’re talking about.

But did you use the appropriate profile for that machine? I use the DryCreek profile for the Noritsu QSS-3101 printer and get back PRECISELY what I see on my (calibrated) monitor. Exactly the same shadow detail and exactly the same highlights.

What has that got to do with the difference between two printing papers? The consumer grade fuji paper is MUCH higher contrast than the kodak pro paper is. I’m glad you like the results you get and it suits your taste. I think it looks awful but that’s why they make different papers..

It has everything to do with it. The purpose of profiling is, in part, to obviate the differences between papers (and chemicals, and processors).

The paper’s inherent contast is a completely moot point when the machine and the file are properly profiled. I get out exactly the contrast, shadow detail, saturation and highlights that I put in. There’s no guessing. I have complete control over the results.

In rec.photo.digital Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Hmm. I rather like Crystal Archive, and I’ve found that (since the service I use supports color management) that I can get exactly what I see on my screen, with no increase in contrast or whatever.

But my comparison is with other paper (including Kodak) from other services, almost none of which support color management, and most of which don’t let you specify "print as-is", instead boosting contrast and saturation to make the pictures "pop" or "snap" or whatever it is consumers seem to like.
So I guess my question is, are you sure it’s the paper you’re not liking, or could it be the methods used to make the print? From almost all of the "big" print services (all of the ones I’ve tried) you never really know what you’re going to get, but you can bet on it being more saturated and higher in contrast than what you sent them.

MPIX.com allows you to chose to print without automatic color adjustment. I printed a batch of pics side by side with the autoexposure stuff at walmart (using Crystal Archive paper). The Fuji printer DID use color adjustment. Several of my greens had yellow added to them and when compared to the original on-screen images, the adjustment was apparent. The MPIX.com pictures, without color adjustment looked exactly as I expected. Now, if I could find a place that used Fuji printers that allowed me to not use the automatic color adjustments, I could do a better comparison.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

MPIX.com allows you to chose to print without automatic color adjustment. I printed a batch of pics side by side with the autoexposure stuff at walmart (using Crystal Archive paper). The Fuji printer DID use color adjustment. Several of my greens had yellow added to them and when compared to the original on-screen images, the adjustment was apparent. The MPIX.com pictures, without color adjustment looked exactly as I expected. Now, if I could find a place that used Fuji printers that allowed me to not use the automatic color adjustments, I could do a better comparison.

…. auto color adjustment, not auto exposure stuff. ;-( —
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at

Dave
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:34:30 +0200, DD wrote:

bla bla bla

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/grazing.jpg

’till later

and Hecate answered with:

OK, bearing in mind that browsers and colour management don’t mix <g> the giraffe looks great, but I think that tree isn’t good for him – he looks a bit green to me <g>

—

Hecate – The Real One

but Hecate, this is South Africa; and everything is green here – òkay okay, not the giraffes (not even when they’re still young) but… when last was your monitor calibrated?

Somewhere you said

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂

Dave

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

MPIX.com allows you to chose to print without automatic color adjustment.

Hmm. They use sRGB only, and near as I can tell from their website, they don’t support color management at all. Maybe I’ll give them a try anyway.

Now, if I could find a place that used Fuji printers that allowed me to not use the automatic color adjustments, I could do a better comparison.

I’ve been using Printroom.com. Crystal Archive paper, auto adjustments are optional, and they support color management and ICC profiles, including providing a profile you can download for soft proofing. They do excellent work.

—
Jeremy |

Colin D wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:14:06 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:

Well, not exactly. You’re saying "it would be better to capture the reality" which makes the assumption that the digital sensor captures reality. It doesn’t it captures an approximation that is biased to what the designers think is reality.

Well, yes, why is this so hard, it seemed easy yesterday. 😉

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂 —
Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Any male photographer concerned with evaluating color should get his optometrist to run through the Isohara color vision test charts. If he passes all those (as I have) then you can’t criticize his color perception.

FYI
http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.html

BTW – there may be women with four types of cones running around, and compared to them the vast majority of us may be a little colorblind.

Interesting question: how to devise a test to filter them from the general pouplation?
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

DD wrote:
….

and Hecate answered with:

OK, bearing in mind that browsers and colour management don’t mix <g> the giraffe looks great, but I think that tree isn’t good for him – he looks a bit green to me <g>

but Hecate, this is South Africa; and everything is green here –

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:37:35 -0000, Bubbabob
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:31:19 -0000, Bubbabob
wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Yes, it’s fascinating isn’t it – you can even factor in the fact that if the photographer is male there is a pretty good chance that he suffers from at least mild red/green colour blindness. 🙂

7%. I wouldn’t call that a pretty good chance. Maybe a small chance or just a chance.

More like 40% – nearly half of all males suffer from it from very mild to absolutely impossible to tell.

Nope. Red/Green is 7% in males and .4% in females. I work in the same building as a major medical library and have MedLine access. These same figures are all over the literature.

This link gives different figures:

http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/aboutCB.html

As does this:

http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00043350.html

Both are higher than you mention though nowhere near as high as I thought. However, your comment that the same figures are seen all the time obviously isn’t entirely right either. I could have picked many more examples giving 8-12% ranges for men. At the top of those figures than means one man in 6. I don’t know about you, but that’s a lot as far as I’m concerned 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:20:43 +0200, DD wrote:

Dave
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:34:30 +0200, DD wrote:

bla bla bla

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/grazing.jpg

’till later

and Hecate answered with:

OK, bearing in mind that browsers and colour management don’t mix <g> the giraffe looks great, but I think that tree isn’t good for him – he looks a bit green to me <g>

—

Hecate – The Real One

but Hecate, this is South Africa; and everything is green here – òkay okay, not the giraffes (not even when they’re still young) but… when last was your monitor calibrated?

2 weeks ago 🙂 Maybe it’s my eyes (see upthread) 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:36:49 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

DD wrote:
…

and Hecate answered with:

OK, bearing in mind that browsers and colour management don’t mix <g> the giraffe looks great, but I think that tree isn’t good for him – he looks a bit green to me <g>

but Hecate, this is South Africa; and everything is green here – òkay okay, not the giraffes (not even when they’re still young) but… when last was your monitor calibrated?

Class listen to Hecate. Parts of the giraffe are green.
Here are some sample values from the tail, body, and head of the giraffe: RGB(118,138,115)
RGB(101,116,97)
RGB(114,131,109)
RGB(108,112,81)
RGB(99,112,91)

Moving the dark end of the red curve up a bit, or better yet bumping magenta in Lab mode perks the whole image up. There are several reasons why monitor calibration should not be relied on for this sort of thing – use the info pallette.

Thanks Mike. I was beginning to think it was me 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:36:49 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

DD wrote:
…

and Hecate answered with:

OK, bearing in mind that browsers and colour management don’t mix <g> the giraffe looks great, but I think that tree isn’t good for him – he looks a bit green to me <g>

but Hecate, this is South Africa; and everything is green here – òkay okay, not the giraffes (not even when they’re still young) but… when last was your monitor calibrated?

Class listen to Hecate. Parts of the giraffe are green.
Here are some sample values from the tail, body, and head of the giraffe: RGB(118,138,115)
RGB(101,116,97)
RGB(114,131,109)
RGB(108,112,81)
RGB(99,112,91)

Moving the dark end of the red curve up a bit, or better yet bumping magenta in Lab mode perks the whole image up. There are several reasons why monitor calibration should not be relied on for this sort of thing – use the info pallette.

thanks Mike, for analyzing it. I’ll do the alteration and post it again.
Don’t tell Hecate, but what I said about calibration, was said jokingly.
By now I know the girl’s knowledge about PS is superior to mine. I still had to defend myself. Shucks, I’m of the stronger sex!

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:01:11 +0200, DD wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:36:49 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

DD wrote:
…

and Hecate answered with:

OK, bearing in mind that browsers and colour management don’t mix <g> the giraffe looks great, but I think that tree isn’t good for him – he looks a bit green to me <g>

but Hecate, this is South Africa; and everything is green here – òkay okay, not the giraffes (not even when they’re still young) but… when last was your monitor calibrated?

Class listen to Hecate. Parts of the giraffe are green.
Here are some sample values from the tail, body, and head of the giraffe: RGB(118,138,115)
RGB(101,116,97)
RGB(114,131,109)
RGB(108,112,81)
RGB(99,112,91)

Moving the dark end of the red curve up a bit, or better yet bumping magenta in Lab mode perks the whole image up. There are several reasons why monitor calibration should not be relied on for this sort of thing – use the info pallette.

thanks Mike, for analyzing it. I’ll do the alteration and post it again.
Don’t tell Hecate, but what I said about calibration, was said jokingly.
By now I know the girl’s knowledge about PS is superior to mine. I still had to defend myself. Shucks, I’m of the stronger sex!

LOL! I realised, hence the smiley. Hey, I’ve been doing this a long time and I can usually spot something like that without resorting to the eyedropper. Actually, it’s a bugbear of mine because of the number of times I see adverts/posters/etc and they haven’t bothered to get it right. Things like that can cost money – if something doesn’t look right because nobody has bothered to get the image colour right in an advert would you buy the product? My assumption is that if they can’t be bothered to get the ad right, then that applies to their product and I can’t be bothered to buy it. Having said that, I’m sure a lot of people go by not noticing.

Of course, that doesn’t refer to your giraffe. It could happen to anyone and at least your image had the advantage of being nicely shot 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…