UKChris wrote:
I recently sent a number of images to a magazine editor for publication. I had edited the images in Lightroom and the colors looked good on my HP laptop. When the editor viewed the images on his computer, he mentioned there was a red tint to them. I had added a little red saturation to the photos but nothing as stark as he made out. I also viewed the same image on a monitor separate to my laptop and although the colors were not quite the same, the red starkness was not there. Screens will all be set up differently, but does anyone have advice on how best to ensure the color I see on my images is likely to be reflected on others' screens?
BTW, moving to monochrome is not the answer I am looking for !! :-)
Thanks.
Chris
I recently sent a number of images to a magazine e... (
show quote)
Magazine editors use calibrated monitors so that they know exactly what the image will look like when it is printed. If your monitor is not calibrated monthly, what the editor will see will be different from what you see on your monitor.
bsprague wrote:
I think I understand that DNGs are raw light data. To see a "picture" the software has to construct it. So, each program that opens a DNG will have it's own bias as the starting point for your personal and potential improvement. Didn't Adobe put the DNG format in the 'public domain'. A couple cameras have used it for their RAW choice.
PSDs are the default "native" format for Photoshop where there may be complex work to do. There is no expectation or intent for PSDs to be useful outside the Adobe ecosystem. From Adobe, "Photographers who use Photoshop and other Adobe Creative Cloud products for post processing tasks — like image editing, retouching, and compositing, for example — will be very familiar with PSD files. There’s almost nothing a photographer can’t do inside a PSD, from fixing an underexposed photo to creating high-gloss editorial imagery."
I think I understand that DNGs are raw light data.... (
show quote)
A DNG file will contain ALL of the raw image data that was in the original Raw file, but may not contain some or all of the non-image data that was in the manufacturer's original Raw file, such as focus point, the manufacturer's info for their interpretation of their raw data, the manufacturer's conversion of the raw data to a jpeg, etc. That is why the DNG file is smaller.
If you want a universal file format, use the TIFF format. However it will be larger than the any other format that contains all of the original raw image data.
It is interesting that Capture One can easily interpret a DNG file from a camera manufacture (Leica, for example) but will have trouble properly interpreting a DNG file that was converted to DNG by Lightroom. All DNG files are NOT identical in format. Some other applications may have a similar difficulty. That is why I always save my raw files in their original format and don't convert to DNG files. Storage is cheap and avoids frustration.
If it isn't broke, why fix it? What is it about your current system that you have a problem with? Is your gear limiting you or would workshops, photography courses, or travel be a better investment than new gear. DSLR development has ended because mirrorless cameras provide significantly more advantages in focusing, shutter speed, information available prior to shutter release, and vibration at low shutter speeds--even an inexpensive, used, fixed lens mirrorless camera is a better investment if your current DSLR is limiting you. If your gear is limiting you, consider that going from one DSLR to another DSLR is an insignificant an advance in usefulness compared with going from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera. Good luck with your decision.
Martin wrote:
Which is better?????jpeg or raw
For the best of both worlds, use rapeg.
If you care about color fidelity in printing, you should get a monitor that can be hardware-calibrated. BenQ has good options. If you don't care about color quality of your output, get an inexpensive monitor.
You left out the most important information: What does he want to photograph and how will he share the images. For landscapes, travel, and family/friends photos, a good cell phone can’t be beat by any camera currently available. I know professional photographers who use iPhones because the image quality iPhones produce (possible with automatic internal AI processing) is not achievable with a camera without exposure bracketing and extensive post processing. Imagine your friend’s disappointment when he compares his camera images with his cellphone’s images.
Unless you are processing thousands of images at a time on a daily basis, you are wasting your money. The difference in processing a thousand images on you dream computer vs on a computer costing less than $2,000 will only be in a few minutes. Knowing what is worth doing is just as important as knowing what you can do.
User ID wrote:
Guess Im the first. My Nex-6 throws an error message after every shot requiring a power off and back on. Reloading with latest FW didn't help.
I believe that qualifies as dead.
Not dead; just in need of a visit to the doctor.
Snapseed is a great smartphone photo processor.
1. No front or back focus
2. Full screen AF points, even at apertures smaller than f/8
3. Histogram, clipping warnings, and peaking available on screen and in viewfinder.
4. No mirror shock at low shutter speeds
For landscape, f/2.8 is not useful. Also, 24mm is more useful for landscape than 35mm.