You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Computers/Tech/Photo within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by nocturn
Great timing then.
Well, it took a little bit for me to learn enough about the flow of a soccer game and where the up-and-down action
Well, it took a little bit for me to learn enough about the flow of a soccer game and where the up-and-down action would be before my timing got good enough to capture some good stuff. 23 "okay" photos and maybe four really good ones from 450 frames shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unfiltered
Which lens were you using, Glenn?
Corey
That was with the 70-200 f/2.8.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
OK Glenn, as far as I can seem to tell, it is a limitation of the sRGB gamut and we are only seeing the difference between the two because the high quality calibrated monitor is good enough to reproduce tones which are outside of sRGB. Basically, if you had a crappier monitor, you wouldn't see the difference between the Lightroom version and the sRBG version, but because you have a monitor with a nice wide gamut, the difference between the two is very apparent.
Reading up on it, it seems that the closer your monitor is to the sRGB color space, the better sRGB works, the more colors and tones your monitor can display, the worse it looks. So it is really a limitation of sRGB. In Photoshop you can soft proof the output by going to View -> Proof setup -> Monitor Color (Then Ctrl + Y to toggle back and forth) which would let you fine tune your output for sRGB, but I'm not sure yet what the best way to do this is in Lightroom. I have read that some people are having better luck with Lightroom 1.0 as opposed to 1.1, so perhaps they have changed the way they were dealing with gamma correction on export?
Okay. So I've got to go out and get a crappier monitor.
:P
Does any of this affect the way things print when I send the images out to be professionally printed? It seems that my prints came back very dark last time I did that, but then again, that was before I started exporting in sRGB (the .jpg's the prints were made from were exported in Adobe RGB).
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Does any of this affect the way things print when I send the images out to be professionally printed? It seems that my prints came back very dark last time I did that...
This I think is the biggest shortcoming of Lightroom, no soft proofing. Normaly, professional printer will supply you with a printer profile (I use White House Custom Color and you actually have to proof 5 shots with them using their profile before you can open an account). So in Photoshop you can load that profile into the View -> Proof Setup, and that way you can see what it will look like when printed, and usually those pro printers are serious, so that profile is dead balls on when viewing on a calibrated monitor, it is very satisfying, what you see is what you get. And because you are looking at what it will look like from the printer, you can make any adjustments you need to make that version look good. If Lightroom had soft proofing, it would be even better because you wouldn't need a print copy and an original copy, you could make you changes in the development module and just save it as a virtual copy. So this is one of the very very few cases where I say "Boo Lightroom" - and if Lightroom did have soft proofing, it would solve the issue that we are seeing because you could soft proof in sRGB so you could make any adjustments you need. I have seen a lot of requests to get this in Lightroom (and as soon as I'm done with this, I'm heading over to Adobe to ask for it again )
Once you make those adjustments, most printers want the file tagged sRGB, but more and more are down with the Adobe RGB.
Last edited by ValleyFan; October 25th, 2007 at 09:30 PM.
This I think is the biggest shortcoming of Lightroom, no soft proofing. Normaly, professional printer will supply you with a printer profile (I use White House Custom Color and you actually have to proof 5 shots with them using their profile before you can open an account). So in Photoshop you can load that profile into the View -> Proof Setup, and that way you can see what it will look like when printed, and usually those pro printers are serious, so that profile is dead balls on when viewing on a calibrated monitor, it is very satisfying, what you see is what you get. And because you are looking at what it will look like from the printer, you can make any adjustments you need to make that version look good. If Lightroom had soft proofing, it would be even better because you wouldn't need a print copy and an original copy, you could make you changes in the development module and just save it as a virtual copy. So this is one of the very very few cases where I say "Boo Lightroom" - and if Lightroom did have soft proofing, it would solve the issue that we are seeing because you could soft proof in sRGB so you could make any adjustments you need. I have seen a lot of requests to get this in Lightroom (and as soon as I'm done with this, I'm heading over to Adobe to ask for it again )
Once you make those adjustments, most printers want the file tagged sRGB, but more and more are down with the Adobe RGB.
White House sure is proud of their prints, eh? CHA-CHING!
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
White House sure is proud of their prints, eh? CHA-CHING!
Actually, the reason I got into them is their 5x7 price. They are pretty much more expensive on every other size, but 5x7 they are a very reasonable $0.39 with a $12 minimum (and they have all the artsy fartsy sizes and papers as well as nice volume tools like ftp upload)
Actually, the reason I got into them is their 5x7 price. They are pretty much more expensive on every other size, but 5x7 they are a very reasonable $0.39 with a $12 minimum (and they have all the artsy fartsy sizes and papers as well as nice volume tools like ftp upload)
That was a tough shot to get!! I held the camera right against the tree trunk about six feet off the ground. That was about the fifth image I took. Every other one, you could see a part of me in the image. I literally had to make love to that tree in order to get out of the image.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
FlyBoeingJets
)
