I've mentioned this here before, but I've found it helps to custom WB
every single lighting situation possible. I find that manual control
of color balance, like manual control of exposure, provides more
predictable results and I spend far less time having to make
'corrections' in PS. Sure auto WB *may* be right on sometimes and in
the ballpark on others, but if you're striving for the best
consistency you can achieve, I think it's best to take control of the
entire process.
And I agree with Moose about cinematographers. Their skill is
impressive and they get their results by metering not just exposure,
but also color temp and filtering accordingly.
Maybe it's the discipline that I learned in the old days, but I still
strive to get an image a right as possible in the camera. Or maybe
I'm too lazy to want to fuss with PS too much . . . ;o)
hth/ScottGee1
On 7/12/05, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> R. Jackson wrote:
>
> >Thank god I'm not the only ignoramus on the list. There should be a
> >clear calibration procedure to match monitor to output for one thing
> >because my prints never match what I've been seeing on the screen.
> >
> There is, but it takes time and usually some money.
>
> >The colors are always a little off and never in the same direction
> >and the contrast is never exactly what it seems like it will be on
> >the screen. I wish there was an easy and automated way to run test
> >strips because that's about the only way to know for sure what's
> >going on, from what I've experienced so far. Of course, I'm not
> >exactly at the cutting edge of this stuff, anyway.
> >
> Not test strips anymore. Briefly, you scan a target on your flatbed and
> calibrate the scanner with an icc profile. Then you make a print using
> the appropriate settings in the printer driver. OR you turn off color
> management in the driver and activate it in the color managed printing
> application, such as PS. Then you scan the result, from which you get an
> icc profile for that combination of printer, ink and paper. That
> calibrates scanner and printer/ink/paper. Free profiles are available
> for many ink/paper combinations.
>
> Getting the monitor to match the printed output is either trickier or
> more expensive. you can buy hardware/software systems that physically
> measure what the monitor is putting out and, you guessed it, produce an
> icc profile for the monitor. The cheaper way is to use Adobe Gamma and
> other visual aids to profile the monitor. Not as good, depending on ho
> good your eye and monitor are, but pretty decent. That's what I've been
> doing. Then for various papers, I have made custom settings in the
> printer driver with slight adjustments.
>
> A print will never look exactly like a monitor image. Reflective vs.
> luminous is just really different. However, I haven't found it all that
> hard to be able to know from what's on the screen what the print will
> look like. But standardization and consistency is necessary to do that.
>
> >Every penny has
> >been dedicated to shooting motion picture film for about the last
> >four years and I haven't spent nearly the time shooting stills that I
> >used to. It's frustrating, though. I've been using Photoshop since
> >the mid-90's, but haven't upgraded since 7.0 came out and the printer
> >I use isn't exactly the best photo printer out there (a Canon i950).
> >A good example is some zoo photos I shot last year. I decided to
> >print a photo I took of a tiger and getting a print that looked OK to
> >me took four or five tries and the one I settled on one that still
> >looks too saturated.
> >
> >BTW, on a related subject, does anyone else ever start to feel like
> >you're losing your mind when you do color correction?
> >
> Occasionally. With scans of film with profiles, it's dead easy. With
> other stuff, a little use of the eyedropper in PS Curves can do wonders
> if there is anything that should be neutral or a pure white in the
> image. I always try that before going into anything more complicated.
> Carol Anne recently went on a trip with a couple of close girl friends
> and took along the Can*n S110. She's not a sophisticated photographer,
> but came up with some nice stuff for the participants and I made a
> little gallery for them. After a wonderful dinner, she took a shot of
> the desserts they shared, unconsciously leaving the camera case behind
> the cow creamer so it stands out nicely. :-) I don't know what the
> lighting was, but it sure fooled the camera. Blue cow, not white
> porcelain. A couple of clicks of the highlight dropper on cow highlights
> and all is well <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Dessert.htm>.
> Aside from the color, the lower image has more snap from some LCE.
>
> >Mostly this has
> >been an issue for me over the last couple of years in matching
> >footage for cutting. Matching the stuff up isn't usually too
> >stressful, but every time I look at the stuff after that...be it a
> >day or a week later...I almost always find myself obsessing over how
> >I perceive the final product to be "unnatural-looking" somehow. I
> >always feel like I've destroyed a subtle skin tone or screwed up the
> >red-spectrum somehow in the details of nature or...well, it's always
> >something. I wonder if someone offers some kind of color correction
> >classes with a built-in aspect of therapy? ;-)
> >
> >
> That must be really hard. The ability of cinematographers to maintain a
> consistent look, tone, whatever you call it, through all sorts of
> different scenes and all sorts of apparent lighting amazes me. I hope
> you figure it out!
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|