Olympus low pricing; Never again?

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by RichA, Jul 30, 2005.

  1. RichA

    Stacey Guest


    ??? Where does canon recomend that? Maybe for "generic" printing for people
    who can't be bothered to learn color management? Given the i9900 can print
    almost ALL of the aRGB color space, why would you want to cripple the
    printers output using sRGB?

    I bet, given you don't understand color management. I suppose it is easier
    to "dumb down" image quality to the lowest comon denominator, which is a
    monitor. But doing this gives up a lot of the image quality these camera's
    and new inkjet printers can produce.
    I'm surprised you've never read what color space the included canon printer
    profiles were actually made for.

    http://homepage.mac.com/renard/ls/Canon_ICC_Profile_Guide.pdf
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    No, they all ONLY accept images in RGB and the printer itself converts to
    CMYK. Most modern inkjets can deal with most of the aRGB color space (and a
    part of the proRGB space) yet many people still cripple them to the sRGB
    color space out of ignorance and the "If it ain't broke don't fix it"
    mentality. What's sad if if they are shooting jpegs in sRGB (or developing
    RAW that way) all of these edited files are crippled and will never be as
    good as the camera can produce.
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Does it really matter if you can't get it into print?


    And here is the same RAW file, one converted with ACR, the other with ORC
    both with all settings at default, giving the image +.5 stop exposure
    increase only with no adjustments in PS other than downsampling and saving
    as jpeg. Do they look the same to you?

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/ACR.jpg

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/ORC.jpg
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  4. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Brian Baird wrote:

    Or can't tell the difference, you REALLY think someone is going to get spot
    on color using ZERO color management?
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  5. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Well it doesn't sound like he is doing ANY color management and is just
    living with what he thinks is OK results?

    Yet he can question someone else's image color using a non-calibrated
    monitor?
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  6. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    That's all it is... And yes it's an insane way to do digital imaging. The
    time you've wasted argueing about how your way works, you could have read
    enough stuff on line to actually learn and understand color managment.
    Since you're shooting sRGB, you have no idea how much color quality you're
    giving up dumbing down your workflow so it's "easy"..
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  7. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Intersting, the camera I have (with ANY firmware past V1.0) has it..

    What difference does zoom/vs prime make?

    So now you think a lighter camera has less shake? The leica's I've used
    didn't seem particularly light to me aqnyway.
     
    Stacey, Aug 6, 2005
  8. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Can you fathom the concept that his setup may be calibrated well,
    without actually calibrating it? That when he looks at a standard image
    it has very good gamma and color balance already?
    --
     
    JPS, Aug 6, 2005
  9. RichA

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    No, they don't. Without seeing the original scene and lighting, I don't
    know which one is more accurate.
    --
     
    JPS, Aug 6, 2005
  10. RichA

    Pixby Guest

    The concept that "calibration" is somehow a global thing is totally
    flawed. My system of 5 PCs and 6 printers is calibrated to the median of
    them all. It produces as near to correct prints as any commercial print
    shop can expect yet when I then try to post an image the the Internet
    which is from my calibrated printing system, all of a sudden people cry
    "your system isn't calibrated" because they see blown highlights.

    The sad fact of life with RGB images is that calibration is subjective
    to a given system. I have one PC to which one printer is perfectly
    matched. It is calibrated to produce colour and density correct photos
    from my own cameras. It does this at the expense of globally compatible
    calibration.

    Your suggestion that Skip does not have a calibrated system - just
    because you see his images differently than he does, only highlights the
    problem with attempting to introduce "calibration" as some sort of
    standard we can all work with. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Often the only way to obtain balanced output which is "close enough"
    from Photoshop when for one reason or another - like changing paper
    brands, is to switch off colour management altogether.

    If you feel uneasy about trusting the management of colour to Microsoft,
    the monitor maker and the printer maker, you need to be able to do
    better in any situation or be considered a bragard. Few humans I know
    can do that with any degree of reliability.
     
    Pixby, Aug 6, 2005
  11. RichA

    Pixby Guest

    That's a stupid supposition Stacey. The whole concept of colour
    management is to produce correct colour photographs. If his system is
    balanced to do just that at the lab he uses, this is the way it should
    be. What is your point in this? are you just probing for holes so you
    can attack Skip for his negative posting about your poor attitude to
    anything positive said about Canon?
     
    Pixby, Aug 6, 2005
  12. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    Thanks, Douglas, this is what I, among others, have been saying...
     
    Skip M, Aug 6, 2005
  13. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    Hey, bright eyes, it works. It works well. We don't have any problems with
    it. In fact the only person I've ever come in contact with who has a
    problem with it is you. Which, for some reason, fails to motivate me to
    change it.
     
    Skip M, Aug 6, 2005
  14. RichA

    Skip M Guest

    I'll vote for lucky...
     
    Skip M, Aug 6, 2005
  15. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    No, because you're a fucking twit.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  16. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    Photoshop has a lower default contrast in ACR. Try setting it to +50.
    Then they'll probably look a lot closer.

    I don't see what this has to do with anything. Which, given your
    reasoning skills, isn't too out of the ordinary.
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  17. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    All Stacey has done is show that (drumroll)... ACR and the Olympus RAW
    software have a different default conversion. Amazing! Who would have
    thought?
     
    Brian Baird, Aug 6, 2005
  18. RichA

    Chrlz Guest

    ..all of a sudden people cry "your system isn't calibrated"
    Can you quote exactly where 'people' said that? In context?

    That point is a bit silly - a blown area is exactly that. Lost. Gone.
    Dead. Gone to meet it's maker.... If it's not intentional, it's BAD.

    *If* anyone posts images with blown highlights (other than by intention
    or specular highlights), it's *not* so much that their system is
    uncalbrated, it's because the poster blew them through *incompetence*.

    But hang on, you said *you* posted images with blown highlights.. so I
    guess that means...
     
    Chrlz, Aug 7, 2005
  19. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Pixby wrote:


    ???

    Yes if you change paper brands, you need to get a different "profile" for
    that paper, not "turn off color management".. Maybe you can't figure out
    how to get balanced output without turning off color managment, doesn't
    mean that's "the only way" or even the right way. It's a way for someone
    who doesn't understand color management, which many people don't seem to
    here?


    With a bunch of trial and error (sometimes has to be done for every print)
    you might be able to get close with zero color managment and no it's not
    trusting color to microsoft, it's trusting color to the person who's making
    the profiles for the output devices. I found if you hardware calibrate the
    monitor, have someone like Cathy's profiles make a custom profile for your
    printer/paper, it's spot on every time. That's the right way to deal with
    balancing the color on a system, not by hopeing, turning off color
    managment and/or adjusting the monitor to the output.
     
    Stacey, Aug 7, 2005
  20. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    Ignorance is bliss? You have no idea the quality you are losing shooting
    sRGB using that high end canon printer. Why do you think they have larger
    color spaces Skip? Or that canon includes profiles to use aRGB with the
    printer. DO you actually look at that Canon PDF that explains this? Do you
    even understand what a larger color space is?

    Why would you want to limit the range of possible colors you can print? If
    the printer can't print outside of sRGB I could understand shooting sRGB,
    but it can print almost the whole area of aRGB and some of proRGB so why
    cripple it? It's just like putting crappy film in a 35mm camera. And where
    again does Canon say to use sRGB?


    Like I said, I'm not shocked you'd rather argue that "I'm always right!"
    than to try to learn something..
     
    Stacey, Aug 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.