My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:20:15 -0600, user DeleteThis @domain.invalid wrote:

>Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
>> OK,
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who provided me with Antarctica photography tips
>> in my original post last November, even if the thread wandered around
>> for a bit!
>>
>> I came back a few days ago and I have done an initial trawl through
>> some of the photos and have put them online here:
>>
>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/
>>
>
>Beautiful photos, however, there is something seriously wrong with
>the gamma, as posted. They are all far too dark.

Interesting.

I've had my monitor calibrated with a Spyder for a gamma 2.2 target
and have double-checked the colour profiles, etc. Still looks fine
here (Vista machine).

Just checked on my WinXP laptop and that looks OK too although
viewing angles on that are a bit restricted. I'll check the online
photos tomorrow on my colleagues PCs.

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

In article <1MOdneM1xbIHtxzanZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net says...
-Robert Brace wrote:
-> <user.DeleteThis@domain.invalid> wrote in message
-> news:flqve3$5ck$1@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
->> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
->>> OK,
->>>
->>> Thanks to everyone who provided me with Antarctica photography tips
->>> in my original post last November, even if the thread wandered around
->>> for a bit!
->>>
->>> I came back a few days ago and I have done an initial trawl through
->>> some of the photos and have put them online here:
->>>
->>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/
->>>
->> Beautiful photos, however, there is something seriously wrong with
->> the gamma, as posted. They are all far too dark.
->>
->> Doug McDonald
->
-> "Far too dark" compared with what?
-> They look fine on my properly calibrated monitor.
-
-They are too dark.
-
-My gamma is 2.2, whitepoint 6500. What's yours, Bob, and Singh?

2.2, 6500k

http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode=album&album=./Gray%20Scale

what does this look like?
can you see the difference between the two dark grays?

-
-

--
Bob Crownfield
crownfield.DeleteThis@verizon.net
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Robert Brace <rlbrace.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:

><user.TakeThisOut@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>news:flqve3$5ck$1@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
>> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
>>> OK,
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone who provided me with Antarctica photography tips
>>> in my original post last November, even if the thread wandered around
>>> for a bit!
>>>
>>> I came back a few days ago and I have done an initial trawl through
>>> some of the photos and have put them online here:
>>>
>>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/
>>>
>>
>> Beautiful photos, however, there is something seriously wrong with
>> the gamma, as posted. They are all far too dark.
>>
>> Doug McDonald

>"Far too dark" compared with what?
>They look fine on my properly calibrated monitor.
>Bob

Are some of you folks using Macs and others Windows?

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

In article <fls221$kpp$2@reader2.panix.com>, gans.TakeThisOut@panix.com says...
-In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Robert Brace <rlbrace.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:
-
-><user.TakeThisOut@domain.invalid> wrote in message
->news:flqve3$5ck$1@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
->> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
->>> OK,
->>>
->>> Thanks to everyone who provided me with Antarctica photography tips
->>> in my original post last November, even if the thread wandered around
->>> for a bit!
->>>
->>> I came back a few days ago and I have done an initial trawl through
->>> some of the photos and have put them online here:
->>>
->>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/
->>>
->>
->> Beautiful photos, however, there is something seriously wrong with
->> the gamma, as posted. They are all far too dark.
->>
->> Doug McDonald
-
->"Far too dark" compared with what?
->They look fine on my properly calibrated monitor.
->Bob
-
-Are some of you folks using Macs and others Windows?

win xp, profiled monitor.


-
-

--
Bob Crownfield
crownfield.TakeThisOut@verizon.net
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:23:06 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> They are too dark.
>>
>> My gamma is 2.2, whitepoint 6500. What's yours, Bob, and Singh?
>
> I've just checked my monitor with my Spyder and the following is
> displayed for a Gamma 2.2 target after calibration:
>
> Display luminance (candelas)
> Black= 0.00
> White= 188.9
>
> Whitepoint (CIE x, y)
> 0.317 0.331
>
> I use Photoshop CS3 for my photos and have set images profiles to RGB
> and the colour profile to the Monitor RGB which makes no visible
> difference when I set to Windows RGB during "Proof Colors" but does
> make a difference when I set to Macintosh RGB. So I think that my
> setup is OK.
>
> PS - My first name is Kulvinder!

Please accept my apology! And also for the fact that I am not sure how
to interpret the above numbers, even though I have a SpyderPro2.

None-the-less, web photos should be converted to sRGB space. But that
doesn't account for the overall gamma. On looking closer, I can see that
the apparent darkness is probably just what you intended on many photos.

On the other hand, taking for a moment the gentleman with a backpack,
dark glasses, blue-grey jacket, black pants: I had to move the mid point
slider in the Levels adjustment to about 1.70 to get what I thought was
pleasing skin tone- really, gamma, if you will. Before the adjustment,
not even the brightest iceberg was blown out; after, mostly the one over
his (your?) right shoulder has specular highlights and hits 255 on the
chart.

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

crownfield wrote:

> ->"Far too dark" compared with what?
> ->They look fine on my properly calibrated monitor.
> ->Bob
> -
> -Are some of you folks using Macs and others Windows?
>
> win xp, profiled monitor.
>

I think the OP may need to set "don't manage color"
in Photoshop. I had lots of trouble before setting
everything to sRGB and completely turning off color management.
I adjust my images to look OK on my screens, and to print,
I have a fixed "action" I use for the exact printer in
question. I do use 16 bit color up to the very last step
of converting to jpeg.

Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:55:02 -0600, user RemoveThis @domain.invalid wrote:

[snip]
>I think the OP may need to set "don't manage color"
>in Photoshop. I had lots of trouble before setting
>everything to sRGB and completely turning off color management.
>I adjust my images to look OK on my screens, and to print,
>I have a fixed "action" I use for the exact printer in
>question. I do use 16 bit color up to the very last step
>of converting to jpeg.

Everything looks the way it should be in IE7, IE6 and Firefox on
various Vista and WinXP machines that I've tried today at home at
work using other people's PCs.

I always check the posted images with web browsers to make sure that
I haven't made a mix up in the colour profiles.

So I can't really explain why some people are seeing things normally
and others are seeing things dark.

But is "dark" a relative thing? I do like darker images as explained
here but my monitor and colour profiles all seem OK:

http://www.metalvortex.com/chart/


--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:55:02 -0600, user.RemoveThis@domain.invalid wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> I think the OP may need to set "don't manage color"
>> in Photoshop. I had lots of trouble before setting
>> everything to sRGB and completely turning off color management.
>> I adjust my images to look OK on my screens, and to print,
>> I have a fixed "action" I use for the exact printer in
>> question. I do use 16 bit color up to the very last step
>> of converting to jpeg.
>
> Everything looks the way it should be in IE7, IE6 and Firefox on
> various Vista and WinXP machines that I've tried today at home at
> work using other people's PCs.
>
> I always check the posted images with web browsers to make sure that
> I haven't made a mix up in the colour profiles.
>
> So I can't really explain why some people are seeing things normally
> and others are seeing things dark.
>
> But is "dark" a relative thing? I do like darker images as explained
> here but my monitor and colour profiles all seem OK:
>
> http://www.metalvortex.com/chart/
>

Nice reference, your page cited above, K.(May I call you "K"? Kulvinder
is so hard to type!)

I violently disagree with the "don't manage color in Photoshop"
philosophy. Just because it's not at all times simple or easy to fully
understand isn't a good reason for trying. You clearly have a good grasp
on the subject!

I am interested in exploring the image I posted about somewhere in this
thread.

BTW thanks for posting your galleries!

--
John McWilliams
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:51:01 GMT, crownfield <crownfield RemoveThis @verizon.net>
wrote:

[snip]
>
> 2.2, 6500k
>
>http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode=album&album=./Gray%20Scale
>
>what does this look like?
>can you see the difference between the two dark grays?

Well, I'd like to say "yes" as I think that I can see a difference
but I don't know if that's just my brain wanting to see a difference
when there isn't any on the monitor.

All these are visible on my monitor:

http://www.metalvortex.com/chart/

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:51:01 GMT, crownfield <crownfield DeleteThis @verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> 2.2, 6500k
>>
>> http://vircen.com/rpd/index.cgi?mode=album&album=./Gray%20Scale
>>
>> what does this look like?
>> can you see the difference between the two dark grays?
>
> Well, I'd like to say "yes" as I think that I can see a difference
> but I don't know if that's just my brain wanting to see a difference
> when there isn't any on the monitor.
>
> All these are visible on my monitor:
>
> http://www.metalvortex.com/chart/
>

Same here and your images look fine to me.

Greg
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
[]
> Everything looks the way it should be in IE7, IE6 and Firefox on
> various Vista and WinXP machines that I've tried today at home at
> work using other people's PCs.

And they display correctly here as well.

> I always check the posted images with web browsers to make sure that
> I haven't made a mix up in the colour profiles.
>
> So I can't really explain why some people are seeing things normally
> and others are seeing things dark.
>
> But is "dark" a relative thing? I do like darker images as explained
> here but my monitor and colour profiles all seem OK:
>
> http://www.metalvortex.com/chart/

Your chart displays correctly as well.

I think that (a) some people using Macs will not have their displays set
to display Windows images correctly, (b) some people use colour
(mis)-management software and their displays are set to match their
printers or their cameras or whatever (rather than the normal RGB
standard), (c) some browsers may be adding their own interpretation of
gamma, (d) some displays may be incorrectly adjusted, and (e) some people
have a different view of what the images should be. Most interesting to
hear what people are using and what they find.

So whilst I accept that people find the images dark, please do /not/
adjust your settings.

BTW: one other area where I find people can make mistakes - sharpening.
Folks with a less-than perfect CRT monitor sharpen so that images display
"correctly", for getting that images will appear much sharper on an LCD
display. The result - their images look grossly over-sharp when view on
today's displays!

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <real-address-in-sig DeleteThis @lineone.net> wrote in message
news:obn4o39a4ngfie5aq41eainvb3der26plj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:55:02 -0600, user DeleteThis @domain.invalid wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>I think the OP may need to set "don't manage color"
>>in Photoshop. I had lots of trouble before setting
>>everything to sRGB and completely turning off color management.
>>I adjust my images to look OK on my screens, and to print,
>>I have a fixed "action" I use for the exact printer in
>>question. I do use 16 bit color up to the very last step
>>of converting to jpeg.
>
> Everything looks the way it should be in IE7, IE6 and Firefox on
> various Vista and WinXP machines that I've tried today at home at
> work using other people's PCs.
>
> I always check the posted images with web browsers to make sure that
> I haven't made a mix up in the colour profiles.
>
> So I can't really explain why some people are seeing things normally
> and others are seeing things dark.
>
> But is "dark" a relative thing? I do like darker images as explained
> here but my monitor and colour profiles all seem OK:
>
> http://www.metalvortex.com/chart/
>
>
> --
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>
> Website : www.metalvortex.com
> Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/
>
> Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

Kulvinder:
As I asked in my post -- "compared with what"?
Ignoring the "smart assed" answers, it normally depends on what you plan
to do with your images.
If you're projecting them, you will find your "development" will be
somewhat different than if they are going to be printed (and somewhat
dependent on size as well). I find projection tends to "blow out" critical
highlights quickly, so I tend to lean towards darker "development" from RAW
captures so the on-screen images give me a closer match to the original
scene.
As someone mentioned, compare it to the "vast majority" of images? As I
haven't seen the "vast majority" of images, nor do I intend to in this
lifetime, process to please yourself and for intended use.
Bob
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos 

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams
<jpmcw RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

[snip]
>Please accept my apology! And also for the fact that I am not sure how
>to interpret the above numbers, even though I have a SpyderPro2.

OK

>None-the-less, web photos should be converted to sRGB space. But that
>doesn't account for the overall gamma. On looking closer, I can see that
>the apparent darkness is probably just what you intended on many photos.

>On the other hand, taking for a moment the gentleman with a backpack,
>dark glasses, blue-grey jacket, black pants: I had to move the mid point
>slider in the Levels adjustment to about 1.70 to get what I thought was
>pleasing skin tone- really, gamma, if you will. Before the adjustment,
>not even the brightest iceberg was blown out; after, mostly the one over
>his (your?) right shoulder has specular highlights and hits 255 on the
>chart.

I'll have to have another look at the histograms, but I never
intended the images to be very dark. I'll have a look.

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 >> Stay informed about: My Antarctica Dec 2007 photos