56 Minutes with a 2002 Peterbuilt.

No I can see where you guys are coming from for sure. I guess I just didn't like the way things seemed to be going down the personal path. Keep it to the images and everybody is happy . And for the record Frank, I do have to agree that the blacks are misplaced in image 3. Why not just burn the tires in a tad for the internet version? Would only take a few seconds.

Agnu wrote in post #13263556
No I can see where you guys are coming from for sure. I guess I just didn't like the way things seemed to be going down the personal path. Keep it to the images and everybody is happy . And for the record Frank, I do have to agree that the blacks are misplaced in image 3. Why not just burn the tires in a tad for the internet version? Would only take a few seconds.

This was my question originally. "Internet Version" or "Print Version". My calibrated monitor shows a picture of a semi that is floating. Not sure how printing it would make it any different. The PP is not correct IMO.

aemravan wrote in post #13261720
I give up man...

I'm on the verge of that, too. I have the feeling that several of the posters haven't read all the posts before them & repeat comments that have already been asked & answered.

For those who did take the time to read them all, I don't know what I can say that I haven't already said. Thanks for your participation.

dinanm3atl wrote in post #13263693
This was my question originally. "Internet Version" or "Print Version". My
calibrated monitor shows a picture of a semi that is floating. Not sure how printing it would make it any different. The PP is not correct IMO.

If you're "not sure", then why would you state that "The PP is not correct" for prints?
"IMO" doesn't trump reality. I won't dispute that they don't look right on your monitor, if you stop disputing that the prints which you haven't seen actually look good.

I'll tell you what. Anyone from the SE Michigan area who wants to see the prints is welcome to. Just let me know, meet me at the National Coney Island at 14 mile & Dequindre, & they buy the coffee.

I am still lost. I send photo to Miller's(a respected online professional print lab). For their initial prints they offer color correction/calibration for free. I print them and if they weren't labeled you would have a hard time decided which was 'corrected' for print.

I fail to see how a photo where the subject matter looks photoshopped into the middle. Subject is literally floating. Has lost much of it's contrast. Etc. Will suddenly look better printed?

This thread makes me laugh.

I believed you missed the point, good sir. I give up on you, there is just not changing the fact that you will not take anything negative we say about the pics as being true. Simple as that. Sure art is subjective, blah blah blah, but bad PP is what is at question.

I have also come to realize that you yourself must have not read the article on color calibration, why? Because BOTH of my calibrated monitors show a terribly photoshoped picture, however, my crappy work screen which is wayyyy too blue and is underexposed by a long shot begins to show more darks where the wheels actually dont float off the background.

Printed media will look different, but only slightly, if you print source is printing the images that look acceptable from image 3 i recommend you find yourself a better print shop, hell, even walmart will do better. Any image i print matches what i see on the screen within 90%, depending on how much i want to spend on the particular screen. What the hell else would be a point to color calibration? I dont "guess" when editing pics, i know how they will look printed. Period.

im out, have a good one.

oh and one more thing, giving an automated message to every other thread that comes through here doesn't "save" the thread, or make someone feel welcome, if i dont have good constructive CC to give to some one i simply dont mention something that gives them no input on how to improve at all, ie: "Good light on SOME of them" .


sorry, but its easy to get fed up with arrogance and ignorance.

aemravan wrote in post #13270166
oh and one more thing, giving an automated message to every other thread that comes through here doesn't "save" the thread.


sorry, but its easy to get fed up with arrogance and ignorance.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1104684

Look at the post of the OP ? See when Photos guy posted? It was probably about to go in the abyss of page 2

and then again

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1104633

Original post and then look at his time.

He is bumping them from going on page two with out one post on them.


arrogance and ignorance

Just let this die

sigma pi wrote in post #13270601
Just let this die

I would agree with you, except I find it interesting seeing the range of comments the thread has been getting. Even the ones that have nothing remotely to do with the images?

And there's this: I say that the print looks good & some people give me opinions on why that can't possibly be true? So I'm lying/deluded/using the wrong printer? And I'm supposed to take those comments seriously? I don't think so.

I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on my offer in my last post:

^^^^ Post pics of prints

PhotosGuy wrote in post #13272831
I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on my offer in my last post:
"I'll tell you what. Anyone from the SE Michigan area who wants to see the prints is welcome to. Just let me know, meet me at the National Coney Island at 14 mile & Dequindre, & they buy the coffee.

Take more than that to get me to SE Michigan....never have figured out why people live up there.....

Well, this is now my favourite thread ever. Evaluating the quality of these images is entirely not in the monitor or the printer. But my billion dollar calibrated IPS panels sure do make me confident.

This thread was so epically awesome and that I completely lost track of any educational value that could have been learned.

Thanks!

It was interesting to me, too. Sometimes I'll post an image just to generate controversy, & I was prepared for the usual "It's not sharp!" for a pan where I've already said that only part was intended to be sharp, or "It's too dark", totally ignoring the fact that I had already said that some were done to simulate night, but the adamant reiteration that the prints couldn't possibly look good did surprise me.

But that's what makes the forum fun, right? Except that the post count does indicate that several hundred people did take one look & then beat it for higher ground?

PhotosGuy wrote in post #13293016
It was interesting to me, too. Sometimes I'll post an image just to generate controversy, & I was prepared for the usual "It's not sharp!" for a pan where I've already said that only part was intended to be sharp, or "It's too dark", totally ignoring the fact that I had already said that some were done to simulate night, but the adamant reiteration that the prints couldn't possibly look good did surprise me.

But that's what makes the forum fun, right? Except that the post count does indicate that several hundred people did take one look & then beat it for higher ground?

We want to see photos of your final prints.