Red-Ringed Tupperware Party with (ineffective) Tin Foil Hats

Permagrin wrote in post #3377270
now that's all a foreign language to me!

Network attached storage: fancy name for a hard disk with a network cable port to hook it up instead of a USB or Firewire cable.

Really a different (and IMO more reliable) way of connecting large amounts of storage to my computers.

(of course some of these hard disk SYSTEMS can be truly fancy themselves, especially the larger arrays.. I feed and care for some at work)

belmondo wrote in post #3378431
Bingo!!

Who says practice doesn't make perfect?:p

I just installed the handstrap on my Mk III, and I did it in half the time it usually takes me. Those 3 hourse just flew.

Yay, congratulations!

Speaking of the E1, I managed to install it ALL wrong until I read the manual. Then I decided to leave it wrongly installed anyway, at least until I sent my BG-E2 equivalent back.

Permagrin wrote in post #3378478
Wool, thanks for pointing that out. I just picked up the test photos and they looked like crap.

Lightroom doesn't process in srgb (that's the whole frustration)...it uses adobe rgb or prophoto rgb to process but you can use srgb to export...hence the photos looking yellow. I cannot begin to tell you how frustrated I am with this blasted program.

EEEEEEEW! I thought the computer should do what *WE* want it to do, not tell us how it thinks it should be done. And Adobe certainly should not be forcing their choices down our throat.

I had a glimpse into the world of aRGB the other day, when I was playing with an old converter and even older 1D RAW's. You can set one of the Color Matrixes (presets before we had Picture Styles) to aRGB and it was absolutely horrible.

See Smugmug's treatise on why...
http://www.smugmug.com …rgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

I should note that as a systems architect myself I have to avoid falling into the trap of technical superiority. Sure a system may be TECHNICALLY better in one or two aspects, but those technical advantages can quickly be nullified by other real world constraints. The technically best does not always win. So while sRGB technically delivers slightly less color gamut, real world printers and monitors don't grok aRGB, thus messing it all up.

If you convert sRGB -> aRGB -> sRGB, what you end up with is a color space that has LESS color than both (or at least, the lowest common denominator)

Lightstream wrote in post #3378637
If you convert sRGB -> aRGB -> sRGB, what you end up with is a color space that has LESS color than both (or at least, the lowest common denominator)

that's what happened to my prints...it was working in photorgb but costco prints in srgb and when it converted they looked about 50% desaturated...

Permagrin wrote in post #3378651
that's what happened to my prints...it was working in photorgb but costco prints in srgb and when it converted they looked about 50% desaturated...

Pretty much so. It is rare that you encounter a professional printer (both the printing shop and the actual printer rendering the prints) with aRGB/proRGB. If you do, you will know

There is an argument about 'saving in aRGB because it preserves the most color data'. No, saving in RAW preserves the most color data because it is the RAW, duhhh so if you have your original RAWs you can always cut a special aRGB image when such situations arise that you can take advantage of.

My 20D has always been on sRGB - but when I started using RAW I noticed everything looked better in Photoshop than on the web.

Some helpful soul here on RRTP told me to check what my Adobe ACR was set to -- AHH, it was set to export the RAW to Adobe RGB.... made a big difference.

well I've got the settings correct, now I think so later I'll post a shot and you guys can tell me what you think...


off to get the tr's for tonight

timbernet wrote in post #3378673
My 20D has always been on sRGB - but when I started using RAW I noticed everything looked better in Photoshop than on the web.

Some helpful soul here on RRTP told me to check what my Adobe ACR was set to -- AHH, it was set to export the RAW to Adobe RGB.... made a big difference.

It's also a common cause of the "The compression really kills the color/contrast/sharpne​ss of my pics when I save for web" problems in LF. They're working in aRGB and Save for Web converts to sRGB because the web is sRGB.

TR's

"Final Frontier:Zane saves the day"

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Nice TR and you really gotta admire the detail in the artwork! That must have taken a lot of time to draw.

Permagrin wrote in post #3378613
I printed a couple of those and the prints look pretty good. It's just weird because they look so yellow on our screens (and I really have calibrated both our monitors...and those both look the same...too yellow). It's just weird. But the srgb prints themselves look good and the non-srgb look terrible so I switched it back and I'm going to have to figure out what to do next.

Sounds like a monitor issue if the prints looks good...

Personally, I stick with sRgb all the way through because thats what I print to .

aussieskier wrote in post #3378787
Sounds like a monitor issue if the prints looks good...

Personally, I stick with sRgb all the way through because thats what I print to .

I would say that too except that both our monitors look the same (and it all works fine with aperture). It's just weird. No worries though, I'll figure it out or switch programs.

Lightstream wrote in post #3378786
Nice TR and you really gotta admire the detail in the artwork! That must have taken a lot of time to draw.

Thanks, Yoda. From concept to post, each cartoon takes an average of 1.5 hours. Some not that long, some longer. The longer ones because I get almost done, and I don't like it, so I have to start over. But it's fun, so I don't really notice. Kinda like Belmondo's three hours of camera hand strap maneuvering.

puddlepirate44 wrote in post #3378819
Thanks, Yoda. From concept to post, each cartoon takes an average of 1.5 hours. Some not that long, some longer. The longer ones because I get almost done, and I don't like it, so I have to start over. But it's fun, so I don't really notice. Kinda like Belmondo's three hours of camera hand strap maneuvering.

And you've had so many episodes of TR since then.. thank you for sharing them with us

It's a bit different from a photo when it's just click and postprocess. Although sometimes going out there to set up and get the photo is the painful part

sorry for barging in. But I need a quick answer. I ran across a 430ex at a good price. Since I don't have a flash is this something I should invest in or just wait and get a 580EX ii

Jamie Holladay wrote in post #3378867
sorry for barging in. But I need a quick answer. I ran across a 430ex at a good price. Since I don't have a flash is this something I should invest in or just wait and get a 580EX ii

IMHO, the 430EX is a good flash. It doesn't have as much grunt as the 580, but it will work for most situations.

The good thing is, you can use it in a master/slave setup later when you do get your 580.

Jamie Holladay wrote in post #3378867
sorry for barging in. But I need a quick answer. I ran across a 430ex at a good price. Since I don't have a flash is this something I should invest in or just wait and get a 580EX ii

I have the 430EX - good flash - works for me... how good is good price?