Andreas

[JSinclair]

Hey dude, it was easier for me to do this on NSMB than in flickr.
Just some quick info on Levels for you.

All of my work space is calibrated and in the same color space (Adobe1998 ), including my camera.

I took the liberty to grab a couple of your recent photos to show you the difference in YOUR monitor calibration vs. Mine.

You found this image http://static.flickr.com/106/314438772_f38a72c941_m.jpg too bright and commented that it needed to have a darkening of the shadows/contrast. Here is a shot of the same image open with the histogram open beside it

http://www.nsmb.com/jay/Jay1.jpg

As you can see with the histogram the dark side (Left) tapers off before hitting the wall on the left. this is proper exposure of the darks. on the light side (right) however it falls short of the wall and could be levelled to brighten the whites, but generally the histogram was close enough that I didn't care to Post process it.

I find most of your photos really dark, suggesting your monitor calibration is set to brighten your images up too much, giving you the impression that you should darken your images so they look black. In reality you have clipped the black on your histogram severly and are in fact way too dark in the image overall.

A balanced image (Generally speaking) should have a nice bell curve between the dark side and the light side of the histogram without hitting the walls too far up the sides. When the histogram hits the walls high up on either side it means you have clipped the image either in highlights or Darks. it means you have lost the detail and it is not recoverable.

here are two examples of why I think your monitor is too bright.

http://www.nsmb.com/jay/Andreas1.jpg

you can see how the histogram is pushed all the way to the left hand side (Dark) and clips the blacks/shadows.

here is another

http://www.nsmb.com/jay/andreas2.jpg

Same deal.

In both pics you have clipped the darks and are no where near having the lights exposed right.

When shooting, you can check your histogram in the camera in info mode. this will give you a good idea of what kind of exposure you have before you get home. DON'T TRUST THE LCD ON THE BACK OF YOUR CAMERA FOR HOW BRIGHT YOUR IMAGE IS!!!

The LCD is a guide and is relative to what you know to be true. it is back lit and thus makes your images look much brighter than they are in real life.

I'm not trying to bag on you, I am sure there are a bunch of people on here that can learn from this post as well.

I hope it helps. you have a good eye, there is no need for your images to be too dark.

:)
Jay

[pete@nsmb.com]

Jay, that was helpful to me, too. I use the histogram on my camera to check my photos sometimes and know a bit about how that works, but...when it comes to trying to calibrate my monitor/camera, how can I do that (or where can I read more about it)?

By the way - congrats on being accepted to Sports Shooter!

[SEKTER13]

Thanks for the post, I learned a few things. :)

[.243racer]

you learn well Jay ;)

[biggles604]

There are many monitor calibration tools out there. I've used this one (http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3912.html)in the past.
That was good info Jay.

[M_Dub]

good call jay

[$$Chris*Ko$$]

chyea, now everything actualy makes sense!!!

[PhotoFyffer]

having a great monitor for digital is almost as important as the camera sometimes, If your colors are off on the monitor it can make editing kinda tricky. I love my Mac Monitor.

[Faithless]

Good read, with the last one though, I was using manual lights, and didn't have the aperature right (was shot at f/18 1/250th of a second). Also it was shot on a borrowed 10d... a slow kinda camera, so when I went to check the image in preview it took me about ten minutes to get to the histiogram :P

What ISO was your first image Shot at anyways?

[JSinclair]

What ISO was your first image Shot at anyways?

the shot was 22mm@6.3 1.0 second exposure ISO1600 and if I remember correctly that was a rear curtain flash....


Andreas F18 are REALLY REALLY bright lights. Remember that when using flash the shutter speed is mostly irrelevant depending on how much ambient light you want in the shot. For Studio stuff like the portrait (100% flash) the Shutter should be somewhere above 1/60 and below your sync speed.

To give you an example. I can shoot with my 2 flashes from 6-8 feet away from my subject at 1/125 - 1/250 and only have F8... with one flash at full power I am generally at 5.6.

you will use your Aperture to set the exposure but also control your depth of field.

[JSinclair]

Jay, that was helpful to me, too. I use the histogram on my camera to check my photos sometimes and know a bit about how that works, but...when it comes to trying to calibrate my monitor/camera, how can I do that (or where can I read more about it)?

By the way - congrats on being accepted to Sports Shooter!

Thanks and I'm glad there is some info there to help people.

When it comes to Calibration, there are some good tools on the market depending on budget. Pete, your mac screen will be calibrated quite nicely without any aftermarket tweaks.

The key is to use the same color space throughout your shooting process. Set you camera to use Adobe 1998 and not SRgb. Then you can run a profile in most photo editing suites (PS, aperture, lightroom etc) to choose Adobe 1998 as your color space. After that make sure than when you export photos (Aperture) that you have selected Adobe 1998 as well when exporting to Jpeg.

As far as Levels go, if you look at the histogram in your editing software you can usually adjust the sliders at each end. If you are really concerned with output or images for your portfolio, a level tweak is important. if it is just a shot for shits and giggles, I would't worry about it.

You should however be able to get a good exposure out of the camera. The more work you do in the camera the less you'll have to do in Post processing. White balance and exposure are easy stuff to get right in the camera. Deal with Tweaks and sharpening later in Post.

[JSinclair]

you learn well Jay ;)

Credit where Credit is due. Jordan has helped a lot in the Color space stuff, as well as gotten on my ass for levels.

I first learned Levels from Fergs a few years ago.

Then Brad Mangen from ss.com mentioned that my calibration was off and that my blacks were not black...considering he shoots for Sports Illustrated, I changed my shit.

:)

and yes I do learn well, everyday I learn something new by listening to peers with more knowledge than I.

I still need to work on a good digital workflow, I feel like I am never doing the same thing twice, and that I have Way too many bad shots on my computer...

[ShoreIH]

which venue was the rave/club pic taken at?

[biking_cam]

Thanks, I learned something from this thread.
Is checking to see if you can see the differences in a grey scale such as this good for calibrating?

http://www.posteffects.com/tests/grayscale.jpg

[JSinclair]

yeah the scale is a decent way to calibrate. The issue is not so much for the person cruising the net and checking out pictures, although it will show you what the photographer actually took...

The Calibration thing comes into play when you are outputting for a magazine or having your images printed or for use professionally. It is really important to understand what you images will look like in print and adjust accordingly.

When it comes to output (Print) and graphic design, monitor calibration is extremely important, matching colors for clients and matching pantones is a large portion of the gig.

For the average person though, making sure you can see all the gradients in the scale above goes a long way...

[GeoffG]

When shooting, you can check your histogram in the camera in info mode. this will give you a good idea of what kind of exposure you have before you get home. DON'T TRUST THE LCD ON THE BACK OF YOUR CAMERA FOR HOW BRIGHT YOUR IMAGE IS!!!

That actually helps me out a lot. A lot of the time I have looked at the LCD and determine whether it's good from that. I have looked at the histogram, but never knew what to look at. Everybody learns from this thread:).

[white ri0t]

having a great monitor for digital is almost as important as the camera sometimes, If your colors are off on the monitor it can make editing kinda tricky. I love my Mac Monitor.Mac invented the colour monitor, which is why they all show up calibrated.

[Coop]

Cool I never knew that either.

[Faithless]

BTW

http://static.flickr.com/105/306306717_de4d81e015.jpg
(shot with 1 580 ex 1 430 ex and a canon transmitter)

i was seriously thinking about picking up a second 430 ex and a canon ir transmitter. The fact that you can still get ettl, and control ratios almost bought it for me, but it would make more sense to get radio flashes even if I lose ettl and have to set the ratios automatically.

[SIDESHOW]

are those your real eyebrows in yer av?? been curious for a while.

[SIDESHOW]

I bought a used Imac 17" for 900 bucks, with a 2gb( I think) processor.

Cheaper than most flat panels, and it comes wrapped around a pretty serious computer, why people run PCs for anything but office apps is beyond me, they always blame it on price, come to my house and look at what 900 bucks gets ya on Craigslist. 4 times the horsepower that we made BITS2 with.

[PhotoFyffer]

ya sideshow, They said they cost way more, but look at what u get, and for photography aperture is the best program ever when doing large projects. There is no program that comes close.

[D1r7 R0(k]

BTW

http://static.flickr.com/105/306306717_de4d81e015.jpg
(shot with 1 580 ex 1 430 ex and a canon transmitter)

i was seriously thinking about picking up a second 430 ex and a canon ir transmitter. The fact that you can still get ettl, and control ratios almost bought it for me, but it would make more sense to get radio flashes even if I lose ettl and have to set the ratios automatically.
get some imapct lightstands and some 32" westscott umbrellas, or a softbox, to soften/diffuse the light coming outa the flash. the differance between shadow and light wont look as sharp/harsh.

example
direct flash
http://k41.pbase.com/o5/74/575474/1/69967376.sOCZGgVg.DSC_8127copy.jpg

with an umbrella(and underexposed :) )
http://ct.pbase.com/o5/74/575474/1/69967374.1GEwfwK9.DSC_7998copy.jpg



Jay - some excellent advice. my monitor (20" dell unltrasharp widescreen) deff aint claibrated to what the actual print looks like (since i print my own pics) :).

[ShoreIH]

which venue was the rave/club pic taken at?

?

[JSinclair]

Well dude, they are my real eyebrows, but what you are seing is the shadow above my eyebrow from teh muscle to lift em up.

I should reshoot a portrait, but I have been busy...maybe tonight.

[JSinclair]

?

Vancouver Maritime Labour center in East Van.

[Norman]

Cheaper than most flat panels, and it comes wrapped around a pretty serious computer, why people run PCs for anything but office apps is beyond me, they always blame it on price, come to my house and look at what 900 bucks gets ya on Craigslist. 4 times the horsepower that we made BITS2 with.

What are you talking about? You can get 19" lcds for as cheap as $250 now a days. For $900, you could get a sweet 24".

[JSinclair]

What are you talking about? You can get 19" lcds for as cheap as $250 now a days. For $900, you could get a sweet 24".

But it wouldn't be wrapped in a Mac...

[SIDESHOW]

What are you talking about? You can get 19" lcds for as cheap as $250 now a days. For $900, you could get a sweet 24".


ya and you would have to calibrate etc, whereas the Macs come spot on, I read a thingy that said that the monitor on the imac was better than the actual mac flat panels.

I know quite a few photogs running imac for all their at home work. Also a couple guys that sell their work and use the imac for display cuz the sweet image helps them sell shots.

Sorry Norman your 250 buck flat panels don't even compare. Thats why they are still sitting on the shelf at FS not on my desk...lol

[synchro]

What are you talking about? You can get 19" lcds for as cheap as $250 now a days. For $900, you could get a sweet 24".

pffft - try $210. i got a sweet deal on a nice phillips at anitec a couple months ago.


ps thanks for the info jay.

[Rosscofat]

Jay just helped me 1on1 Thanks a TON jay!

[scottvelez]

ya and you would have to calibrate etc, whereas the Macs come spot on

I don't believe that's true.

Mac guys use external calibration tools all the time.

And don't forget that most Mac monitors use a 1.8 gamma while Windows PC typically use 2.2

Don't assume your system is calibrated. Buy a decent color calibration tool and be done with it. Many are reasonably priced (less than $300).
"Eye balling" calibration is a complete waste of time and once you make those destructive edits to your images, you lose that image data forever.

[ShoreIH]

Vancouver Maritime Labour center in East Van.


! which rave? i thought the wall looked like the mlc

[Norman]

ya and you would have to calibrate etc, whereas the Macs come spot on, I read a thingy that said that the monitor on the imac was better than the actual mac flat panels.

I know quite a few photogs running imac for all their at home work. Also a couple guys that sell their work and use the imac for display cuz the sweet image helps them sell shots.

Sorry Norman your 250 buck flat panels don't even compare. Thats why they are still sitting on the shelf at FS not on my desk...lol

Nothing is calibrated out of the box and in order to get accurate results, you need to use a hardware calibrator.

You anecdotal evidence is useless. For every photographer who uses a mac and sells their images, I'm sure I can find a PC one.

Finally, NEWS FLASH - there are only a handful of companies that actually make LCD panels. For example, the Apple 20" display is the same LG.Phillips panel as used in a cheaper Dell 20".

Congratulations for not having a clue about LCD technology.

[D1r7 R0(k]

Nothing is calibrated out of the box and in order to get accurate results, you need to use a hardware calibrator.

You anecdotal evidence is useless. For every photographer who uses a mac and sells their images, I'm sure I can find a PC one.

Finally, NEWS FLASH - there are only a handful of companies that actually make LCD panels. For example, the Apple 20" display is the same LG.Phillips panel as used in a cheaper Dell 20".

Congratulations for not having a clue about LCD technology.

ha...thats an intreasting fact...i didnt have any doubt when i bought my dell 20" ultrasharp 2005FPW that a similar mac display would look any better...BTW, i do all my work on a PC. now that macs have gone intel, they are deff over-rated.

[AllShockedUp]

ha...thats an intreasting fact...i didnt have any doubt when i bought my dell 20" ultrasharp 2005FPW that a similar mac display would look any better...BTW, i do all my work on a PC. now that macs have gone intel, they are deff over-rated.

Why? People don't buy Macs for the processor, they buy them for the OS, the design, and the integrated-ness.

[D1r7 R0(k]

Why? People don't buy Macs for the processor, they buy them for the OS, the design, and the integrated-ness.

which imo is all a bit overrated. same stuff can be done on a PC for less money.

[Bowen]

which imo is all a bit overrated. same stuff can be done on a PC for less money.

Yeah, but you look cooler when you use a Mac. That's why I have an iBook, anyways.

[scottvelez]

which imo is all a bit overrated. same stuff can be done on a PC for less money.

Sure, and Honda's and BMW's both get you to the store, but which would you rather have?

[D1r7 R0(k]

Sure, and Honda's and BMW's both get you to the store, but which would you rather have?

irrelavent. :rolleyes:

[.243racer]

:lol: @ people talking about calibrating LCD monitors

[biggles604]

:lol: @ people talking about calibrating LCD monitors
Why? They are very adjustable (If you have a half decent one). Without adjustment, every panel will be slightly different.
Another word on the limited panel manufacturers; you can get many monitors that use the same panel, but the control electronics are different and it can have a huge effect on image quality.

[JSinclair]

! which rave? i thought the wall looked like the mlc

Lift 2

[Faithless]

Sure, and Honda's and BMW's both get you to the store, but which would you rather have?

very irrelevant.

[Norman]

Why? They are very adjustable (If you have a half decent one). Without adjustment, every panel will be slightly different.
Another word on the limited panel manufacturers; you can get many monitors that use the same panel, but the control electronics are different and it can have a huge effect on image quality.

Oh ignore him.. he's too snobbish to use LCDs for editing. CRTs all the way!

[.243racer]

Oh ignore him.. he's too snobbish to use LCDs for editing. CRTs all the way!

Well I am right. It's just the nature of the two displays.

[Norman]

Well I am right. It's just the nature of the two displays.

Yer still a snob :P

[.243racer]

Yer still a snob :P

:deadhorse:

:lol:

[Troup]

:deadhorse:

:lol:except it's not funny. I disapprove.