ddrueding
Fixture
Wouldn't the easiest method be to not use apps that don't support color management? What does IrfanView offer that PS doesn't?
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Sorry, i think I am mistaken here. Both options have the same effect for me -- that is, either making your monitor profile the working space or disabling colour management. Both make PS match IrfanView.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
It's much faster to load. Simple, uncluttered, minimalist, and gets the job done. That's what you want in an image viewer, not the kitchen sink as you would desire in a full-fledged photo editor.
BTW, I just found a relatively small and simple freeware image viewer that supports colour management and monitor profiles. It's called Fast Picture Viewer (basic edition). The free basic edition only supports JPEG, but you can pay $40 for full image format support, including the manufacturers' proprietary RAW formats.
http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/
You have to go to Menu > Options and Enable color-space conversion and Override target profile. Select your monitor's profile from the drop-down box and it will match the colours you see in Photoshop with full colour management.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
And if you use Linux, I think digikam supports full colour management as well:
http://www.digikam.org/drupal/
http://www.digikam.org/drupal/
ddrueding
Fixture
Works for me. Thanks.
Stereodude
Not really a
It's not just IrfanView. It's pretty much every app. The problem is PS shows me something that basically no other program will. So, even if it's right (which I don't think it is). So, ultimately I can't see what I will actually get until I save it in PS and open it in another application.
Stereodude
Not really a
Anyhow... Another picture:
ddrueding
Fixture
Anyhow... Another picture:
Very nice. Where is that?
Stereodude
Not really a
ddrueding
Fixture
I was just reading an article in a Photo magazine talking about that area, seemed very cool.
I think the best thing to come from me getting into photography is that I am more likely to go to beautiful places. I don't know why I didn't before, but it is a nice side-effect.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Babelfish Translation: "Now that this hobby has drained a lot of my disposable income, I can no longer blow money on bottle service and other such extravagences... and have since learned to appreciate nature and picturesque scenery as a result," LOL... :mrgrn:
ddrueding
Fixture
ddrueding
Fixture
All those pictures are beautiful. How did you get long exposures? A filter of some kind? For the last picture, did you throw the rock in? How did you time it?
For the long exposures, I just set the ISO to 100 and used a small F-stop. I didn't even have a tripod, I rested the camera on the large railing and used the time-release shutter...turned out OK given I was not equipped for such photos.
That first photo was:
Camera: Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure: 1.6 sec (8/5)
Aperture: f/20
Focal Length: 51 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Lens: 24-70 F2.8L
The last photo has no real event to it. The flume had a rock sitting out in the flowing water that had that nice arch of water rushing over top. I didn't throw it in.
That first photo was:
Camera: Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Exposure: 1.6 sec (8/5)
Aperture: f/20
Focal Length: 51 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Lens: 24-70 F2.8L
The last photo has no real event to it. The flume had a rock sitting out in the flowing water that had that nice arch of water rushing over top. I didn't throw it in.
Here's a fun one of my girlfriend taking a picture of a frog we saw while hiking through the woods. She was able to get way closer than me. I couldn't even see through the eye piece in my camera because it was fogged up so bad from hiking with the camera over the shoulder.
Exposure: 0.025 sec (1/40)
Aperture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
Fun colorful moss:
Exposure: 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 1000
Our good luck charm for the day...
Exposure: 0.013 sec (1/80)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure: 0.025 sec (1/40)
Aperture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 1600
Fun colorful moss:
Exposure: 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 1000
Our good luck charm for the day...
Exposure: 0.013 sec (1/80)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 200
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Very nice, handy. Classic slow shutter speed ethereal effect on flowing water. BTW, why don't you throw us a bone and link larger pics (like 1200 at the very least, or preferably 1600 pixels)? These small pics just don't do it justice...
e_dawg, they should be clickable to the larger versions around 1024 pixels.
Try these for larger images:
1st batch in order:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3271/2627351358_db589e5988_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2626536215_98f065251c_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2627356488_1955e463c8_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2626530615_ab0c57c989_o.jpg
Second batch:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2627320690_a5c0a48169_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2627294662_9541bd80ae_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2626510313_71fac147df_o.jpg
Try these for larger images:
1st batch in order:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3271/2627351358_db589e5988_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2626536215_98f065251c_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2627356488_1955e463c8_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2626530615_ab0c57c989_o.jpg
Second batch:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2627320690_a5c0a48169_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2627294662_9541bd80ae_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2626510313_71fac147df_o.jpg
ddrueding
Fixture
Why don't you just link to the Flickr page, so we can see the photo properties for ourselves?
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Well that's what I meant... have the linked target images at 1280 or preferably 1600 px, as the inline images are best kept under 1024. But those additional links you posted to the 2250 px images will do nicely
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
The ability to look at an image this week
ddrueding
Fixture
<shrug> with my system it loads in a few seconds. It isn't instantaneous, but damn fast. For basic image viewing, I use Canon's DPP.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
How long would it take you to sort through ~1000 images and do the first rough junk/might be worth keeping classification using Photoslug?
It has the power but you get the user interface from hell, and performance fit to make Vista look like Windows 3.1.
DPP is a strange choice. OK, it's faster than Photoslug, but then what isn't? And it (DPP) is mega-clunky. It seems effective enough, but the interface ...... euuuch. Seriously bad ergonomics.
Good software is about, above all else, helping you, the user, do the maximum amount of work in the minimum amount of time. Photoslug is appallingly bad on thgat score, and DPP isn't a whole lot better. You really should get yourself some decent software, Dave. Start with one of the many excellent fast, efficient light-duty image viewers around: for example, PMView, AC-DC, Irfanview, Thumbs Plus, or any of maybe a dozen others.
I resort to bad software when, and only when, the fast, efficient, effective software I prefer can't do the task I need to do. For raw conersion I've been using the Adobe thing that comes with Photoshop, Bibble, and sometimes DPP. The Adobe one is probably the most powerful, DPP has some neat tricks and better performance but a truly dreadful user experience, while Bibble is at once the best and the worst of all - some very useful interface improvements - and it's the interface that lets you get useful work done - some general assorted bugginess, and some stuff that's downright weird. Maybe Bibble 5.0 will fix all that weird stuff up, but don't hold your breath.
It has the power but you get the user interface from hell, and performance fit to make Vista look like Windows 3.1.
DPP is a strange choice. OK, it's faster than Photoslug, but then what isn't? And it (DPP) is mega-clunky. It seems effective enough, but the interface ...... euuuch. Seriously bad ergonomics.
Good software is about, above all else, helping you, the user, do the maximum amount of work in the minimum amount of time. Photoslug is appallingly bad on thgat score, and DPP isn't a whole lot better. You really should get yourself some decent software, Dave. Start with one of the many excellent fast, efficient light-duty image viewers around: for example, PMView, AC-DC, Irfanview, Thumbs Plus, or any of maybe a dozen others.
I resort to bad software when, and only when, the fast, efficient, effective software I prefer can't do the task I need to do. For raw conersion I've been using the Adobe thing that comes with Photoshop, Bibble, and sometimes DPP. The Adobe one is probably the most powerful, DPP has some neat tricks and better performance but a truly dreadful user experience, while Bibble is at once the best and the worst of all - some very useful interface improvements - and it's the interface that lets you get useful work done - some general assorted bugginess, and some stuff that's downright weird. Maybe Bibble 5.0 will fix all that weird stuff up, but don't hold your breath.
ddrueding
Fixture
The things I like about DPP for going through large amounts of pictures are:
Large thumbnail view
Can view all types of files (including RAW)
Can flag all files with "1", "2", and/or "3" for sorting
Can drag-n-drop as if from explorer (into other apps, around the file system, etc)
The only thing I wish it had was a better transition from thumbnails to full-screen and back, and for flipping through full-screen images.
I'll try some of the ones you mentioned when I get my computer up again.
Large thumbnail view
Can view all types of files (including RAW)
Can flag all files with "1", "2", and/or "3" for sorting
Can drag-n-drop as if from explorer (into other apps, around the file system, etc)
The only thing I wish it had was a better transition from thumbnails to full-screen and back, and for flipping through full-screen images.
I'll try some of the ones you mentioned when I get my computer up again.
Stereodude
Not really a
A little something for today:
ddrueding
Fixture
Nice sharpness and DOF. Shooting info?
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Canon XS w/IS kit lens announced today $700...yawn.
At the highend, @Photokinkya Hassie will detail a 645 sensor....$$$$$$$$?
50MP only $40k, next year tilt-shift adapter that works with several lenses, only $5k :-x
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1215545796.html
300MB image files! (what, no lower quality compressed jpg option? ;P )
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1215545028.html
:roflmao:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1215545258.html
So does this mean in 6yrs i can pickup a used one for <$1k?
At the highend, @Photokinkya Hassie will detail a 645 sensor....$$$$$$$$?
50MP only $40k, next year tilt-shift adapter that works with several lenses, only $5k :-x
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1215545796.html
300MB image files! (what, no lower quality compressed jpg option? ;P )
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1215545028.html
:roflmao:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1215545258.html
So does this mean in 6yrs i can pickup a used one for <$1k?
ddrueding
Fixture
Capture rate: 1.2 /1.4 seconds per capture :rofl:
Stereodude
Not really a
Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
ExposureTime - 1/50 seconds
FNumber - 8
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExposureBiasValue - 0
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 19 mm
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks, I expected the FNumer to be much higher.
Stereodude
Not really a
What do you expect with a 300MB file?
Personally, I want to know how they're storing 300MB in only 1.2 to 1.4 seconds.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Asynchronous buffer using DDR2 chips?
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Obviously, you've never used a Fuji E900 before. 8 seconds between shots in RAW mode.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
C'mon, you ought to know: Velociraptors in Raid-0.What do you expect with a 300MB file?
Personally, I want to know how they're storing 300MB in only 1.2 to 1.4 seconds.
Stereodude
Not really a
I don't know how they're going to fit a pair of those in the camera, but what do I know?
ddrueding
Fixture
Medium format and only 2.5" drives? They'll fit. Besides, at 300MB per image, you ought to be able to store a few (like, 3000).
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
I wuz kidding, guys.
Stereodude
Not really a
I figured as much.
I went out on a limb and decided to buy a new lens that has been on my mind for a long time, the 135mm F2.0L. It has blown me away with its sharpness so far. Even at F2.0 it's really good. Below are just a few examples while testing and playing with the new lens. The only post processing was a touch of sharpness added as I do for all my pictures.
As always...pic of Zelda
click to enlarge
Fountain in Boston
Me dodging the water
Stain glass window in an old church in Boston
Dolly and her toy
As always...pic of Zelda
click to enlarge
Fountain in Boston
Me dodging the water
Stain glass window in an old church in Boston
Dolly and her toy
ddrueding
Fixture
Gorgeous, fantastic lens. Though I'm sure I couldn't do as well with it. Just out of curiosity, who do you trust to take pictures of you?