alt.graphics.photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en
alt.graphics.photoshop@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* What a difference a decent monitor makes! - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/browse_thread/thread/d0956f1b5a4bfc6f?hl=en
* How do I fix asymmetrical vignette? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/browse_thread/thread/187ba23707e4a431?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a difference a decent monitor makes!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/browse_thread/thread/d0956f1b5a4bfc6f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 5 2008 7:04 pm
From: Rob
Mike Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:21:54 -0800, Gary Edstrom wrote:
>
>> I have no need to impress others with a monitor I don't need and can't
>> afford. I only need to please myself.
>
> C'mon Gary - didn't you ever brag on your new toys?
>
> When you were six, LOL.
Isn't it the bigger the boys the bigger the toys!
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 8:06 am
From: Talker
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:21:54 -0800, Gary Edstrom
<GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:28:49 GMT, "D-Mac" <D-Mac @no.mail> wrote:
>
>>I use Backlit Samsung XL series monitors. Before that I used a variety of
>>different brands and thought the colour balance tool I used was good enough.
>>It was but a $2000 monitor is not just good enough, it is the purpose of it
>>all!.
>
>It is quite obvious that you and I have VERY different ideas of what
>constitutes a 'decent monitor'. I am NOT in the business of image
>processing or manipulation. I have never sold a picture in my life nor
>have I ever even exhibited my pictures. I am doing it simply for my own
>enjoyment with my own pictures. I don't need a $2,000-5,000 monitor!
>
>To me, a decent monitor is something that performs better than the one I
>had and this is MOST DEFINITELY in that category, even though it 'ONLY'
>cost $500.00.
>
>I have no need to impress others with a monitor I don't need and can't
>afford. I only need to please myself.
>
>Gary
Gary, While I don't work with pictures in a professional sense, I do
like to know that my monitor will display picture colors as accurately
as possible. $3000 for a 21 inch monitor, isn't all that expensive
if you want accuracy. Myself, I'm a perfectionist......if my aunt,
cousin, or whoever wants me to reproduce and repair an old family
picture, I wnat to make sure that the resulting image is perfect.
Having a top of the line monitor is a necessity for me to accomplish
that. I could settle for a lower end Dell monitor, and it would most
likely do a good job, but I want to know I have to best, so I'll opt
for the top of the line models that are at least over 100% of the
adobe gamet of colors. Most run of the mill monitors don't come close
to 100%, but they may be close enough for most people.
Of course, using calibration software is a must also, to keep
everything in sync......software and hardware like the Color Munki is
a good inexpensive way to accomplish that.
Talker
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 2:52 pm
From: Mike Russell
Bah. The notion that only expensive hardware can produce excellent images
is an elitist view that I disagree with completely. Many people spend
thousands of dollars on their equipment. Only a few have the wherewithal
to use it well. Those who are professionals accept this as part of their
operating cost, and will make up more than that amount in revenue from
their photographs. Hats off to them. This is purchasing the equipment
appropriately, and using it for its intended purpose.
If they are amateurs, as (I would wager) the OP of this post is, their main
gratification is buying and showing off the latest and greatest. If they
have no talent for good images, then these folks are feckless braggarts
with more money than sense. You'll find them, dressed in shorts in some
great cathedral, temple, or mosque, toting a 5000 dollar camera with a 150
dollar lens, taking the very occasional snapshot. And their images, if
they bother to show them to anyone, are no better than snapshots.
The final color corrected image is a function of the brain of the person
making the color correction, not the number of dollars that went into the
camera and computer equipment. The latter is simply a way to fine tune the
former, giving extra leverage to what the person knows how to do.
Going back to basics, a monitor will never match a print, no matter how
much money is poured into the camera and computer equipment and associated
calibration gear. The implication of this is that we all learn,
consciously or unconsciously, how to translate what our monitors show into
what the print will look like. As we learn, our printed images look better.
Calibration, within reason, is an important and necessary part of the
process of color correction. It is not the end all, any more than having a
10,000 dollar watch is necessary to be on time. These days, even the
cheapest watch is accurate to a few seconds a day. Likewise, even the
cheapest cameras take images that were out of our reach five or ten years
ago. In this environment - an embarrassment of digital riches, ask
yourself if the yearning for an expensive watch is not similar, in many
ways, to the desire for more and more expensive equipment.
There is a lot of room for improvement in technique based on "by the
numbers" techniques that get accurate (objective) color without relying
unduly on (subjective) monitor appearance. There are numeric operations,
using the info palette, that are guaranteed to improve the appearance of an
image, yet they are known to only a fraction of the people who use
Photoshop. Learning how to do this is a task that will take many years,
with milestones along the way as each new concept becomes clearer. All of
this can be yours without spending a penny on calibration equipment or
expensive monitors.
If this intrigues you, grab any book by Dan Margulis.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do I fix asymmetrical vignette?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/browse_thread/thread/187ba23707e4a431?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 2:36 am
From: "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
Mike Russell wrote:
> Save this layer by itself in a file, and make an action (attached to a
> function key) that loads the layer and flattens the image.
I was going to ask if the vignette is in the same position in every image.
If so, this is a great suggestion
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 6 2008 5:15 am
From: Gary Edstrom
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:36:52 -0000, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
<samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Russell wrote:
>> Save this layer by itself in a file, and make an action (attached to a
>> function key) that loads the layer and flattens the image.
>
>I was going to ask if the vignette is in the same position in every image.
>If so, this is a great suggestion
>
Thanks for the additional suggestion, Gary
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.graphics.photoshop"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.graphics.photoshop+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment