U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 01-27-2011, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
12,227 posts, read 11,872,641 times
Reputation: 7111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData View Post
Using a single monitor is very outdated and ol fashioned. It is just like having a desk; that is the same size as the sheet of paper you are writing on.

I agree with you, I just have to make room for another monitor. Right now I have two printers and a flatbed scanner on the desk and a a smaller stand. That's why I find the CS5 books handy

Just read the instructions and then try.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 01-27-2011, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,323 posts, read 1,186,242 times
Reputation: 1146
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
I agree with you, I just have to make room for another monitor. Right now I have two printers and a flatbed scanner on the desk and a a smaller stand. That's why I find the CS5 books handy

Just read the instructions and then try.
I agree (about books) they are just so handy.

What type printers do you own ??

Have you ever used Red River Paper ??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-28-2011, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
12,227 posts, read 11,872,641 times
Reputation: 7111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData View Post
I agree (about books) they are just so handy.

What type printers do you own ??

Have you ever used Red River Paper ??
I haven't used red River paper, but so many people recommend it that I will have to give it a try one of these days. The printer I use for photos is a Canon Pro9000, which seems to wok fine with HP Premium photo paper (very bright-white). The paper profile I have been using for this paper in Canon Pro II. However, while I print right from CS5, I do so with the Canon Easy-PhotoPrint Pro plugin. There are two more printers I use, but not for photos, one connected to my computer, and the other in the network connected to my wife's computer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-28-2011, 09:15 AM
 
11,749 posts, read 16,740,752 times
Reputation: 2627
Ray you can buy the previous versions of CS at a greater discount than having to have the latest & greatest version of the software on Ebay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-28-2011, 12:50 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 7,046,874 times
Reputation: 1731
As a broken hearted Bears fan, I love the picture, no matter what the color balance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-28-2011, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
12,227 posts, read 11,872,641 times
Reputation: 7111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkingowl View Post
Ray you can buy the previous versions of CS at a greater discount than having to have the latest & greatest version of the software on Ebay.
There are a few improvements on CS5 over CS4, but the first still is a great application. If the discount is significant, go for it. Also, once installed on your computer and registered at Adobe, the updates for it are free. Just keep in mind that the educational discounts for faculty, student and staff are quite good. I got CS5 straight from Adobe at an educational discount ($199.00). When I purchased it from Adobe, I was also offered a free set of filters, "PhotoTools."

Then I got an E-mail from OnOne Software, the makers of PhotoTools, for a $49.00 package upgrade to the Pro version. I took the offer, of course. Also, I bought Nik Color Efex Pro at a school discount, but this one cost me $199.00. However, I am set for the next ten years or more

CS5 costs around $500.00 or more, and Nik Color Efex Pro around $299.00.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-28-2011, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Rust'n in Tustin
659 posts, read 603,086 times
Reputation: 782
I don't post process, what I shot is what I shot.

I just don't have the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-29-2011, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Rust'n in Tustin
659 posts, read 603,086 times
Reputation: 782
So I did a little PP. Which one looks better? Anybody else want to take a shot at it?



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-29-2011, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 3,996,310 times
Reputation: 1781
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysr_racer View Post
So I did a little PP. Which one looks better?
Neither one is "better", they are just different.

There are at least two basic dichotomies at work when you consider "color correction", and few people seem to actually catch on to the full significance of either of them.

First, there are two concepts of "correct". One is that it is correct if it looks the same as what the scene looked to a human eye at the point when the picture was taken. That is as opposed to what the photographer thinks looks most pleasing when displaying the photograph! Two distinctly different definitions of "correct", and both are useful.

Examples of those, and how people react to them, are legion. I've had one individual here on City-Data make claims that images on my web site are technically faulty because two shots clearly taken within seconds of each other have a different color correction. They clearly do not represent what I could see at the moment I took the pictures! But they are (both) technically correct... because I felt that one composition looks best with one color correction and the other looks best with a different color correction. They are both correct, and the difference is very intentional! That is what makes me a photographer rather than just a camera operator.

There is another distinction which is a little more difficult to describe, that also has been something a couple of folks here on C-D have tripped on. The concept of a "calibrated monitor", and the significance of that when it comes to judging images posted on the web. Photographers who understand the significance pretty much are amused at the noises made by people claiming they've got it nailed... simply because the vast majority of monitors used by people viewing the images are not calibrated, and have a huge range of actual characteristics! (Which means it makes no freaking difference what you do to the color correction, it won't be anything close to correct most of the time.)

Here's the deal with "monitor calibration"... I've got a custom menu on my window manager that allows me to choose between six different calibrations! Four of them are for comparing to prints with different type of paper or printers. Selecting one of those allow me to use programs (most web browsers for example) that are not "color managed" and see something close to what an image would be if printed (for example, one of them matches what mpix.com prints, and three match variations on my printer with different paper). The other two are a basic uncalibrated linear profile, and the last one is calibrated to the sRGB profile that typically is supposed to be what everything on the WEB matches.

All of those different calibrations are "correct", but they are used for different purposes. It would, if only all applications were "color managed", be possible to only use one monitor calibration. But that isn't the case (and technically I would argue that it should never be the case). On the other end of the stick is that color managed applications confuse people to no end, and it is not uncommon to end up with settings where more than one calibration profile is being applied to any given image, with results that someone claims are accurate because they have a "calibrated monitor". The problem is that the monitor is not calibrated for the use they are making of it, and or the profile is not being correctly applied.

The upshot of all of the above is that asking here which of your two versions look better does not give you valid answers. It tells you what different people find more pleasing on their monitor, not what is "correct" and not even what you see on your different monitor!

The real question is which one do you like best??? Go with that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 01-29-2011, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Rust'n in Tustin
659 posts, read 603,086 times
Reputation: 782
Jeeze, all I was looking for was "Number 2"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top