Jump to content
Search Damien's resources; or

LSSmith

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    264

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by LSSmith

    Hide Ear

    in Help with editing

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Gosh.

    You'll need another photo to provide good ear, and another photo to provide spare cheek, won't you?

    This looks REALLY difficult.

    That's what I figured. I'll comb through the rest of the images to see if there's anything suitable for the purpose. Thanks! :)

    Hide Ear

    in Help with editing

    Posted

    The mom loves the smiles on the boys' faces. The dad finds the "pushed forward ear" distracting. What is the best method for hiding the pushed forward ear? (I'm thinking that I need to create a new layer and mask the "behind child's" face over the ear, but if there's a better way to go about it, I'd like to know it.) Thanks!

    LSSmithPhotographyLLC_QuitmanGA_Ear.jpg

    LSSmithPhotographyLLC_QuitmanGA_Ear_Crop.jpg

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    Today, I presented the images to the client. She purchased my smallest package ($1600). I couldn't have done this without your patience and help. Thank you, Damien. :)

    I'm going to enjoy the glow for a day or two, then delve back into the rest of the solutions we've discussed in this thread.

    p.s. - I've set aside some of the funds for reinvesting into my business via the Levels and Bridge classes. Now, I have to get some qualifying samples to you! ?

     

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    I've just finished reading the class about Glary....then went on to read Scanner (that looks like a supremely nifty tool!)....and wondered about CleanUp (isn't that the same kind of thing as Glary?). So, in order of priorities: I need to install Glary and Scanner. I also need to take the Bridge Class. So much to do; so little time! ?

    However, given my packrattedness, good housekeeping tools and practices are essential, as I work on letting go of crap that really doesn't need to be on my computer.

    In the good news column, I keep all of my work on an external hard drive and I back up the more recent stuff to the cloud on a nearly daily basis. I'm still working through the backlog of older files, uploading those to the cloud in small batches every other day or so.

    :)

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Oh, phew!!

    Indeed!

    10 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Ooh, how often do you use WHCC?

    I haven't used them for a few years. I had started out using them and then switched to Millers on the recommendation of a bunch of photogs that I met at convention. (This was before I had any idea about proper monitors, calibration, or anything else.---It's been a steep learning curve.) What is your opinion of WHCC, beyond its use of the 6500 standard?

    With regards to images to be put out either on my website or social media, do you advise that I should create a whole new profile (or set of profiles) to be used separately from the one for prints? Could I use a previously used profile, courtesy of that Display Profile thingy that I downloaded from you a while back?       *very small voice* Or, should I ditch all of those old profiles, keeping only the current Millers Lab profile? I come from a long, venerable line of packrats....I tend to keep things, you know, just in case.... ?

    13 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Did you see the class I wrote about Glary?

    I have not....yet! I'll grab a fresh cup of coffee and click the link to get up to speed.

    14 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Yes, I still think this might be a good idea.

    Then I shall procure one, some time this week.

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    Other loose ends:

    1. Using Glary or another approved software to do whatever those things are supposed to do.

    2. Procure another HDMI cable in case the current one is faulty, leading to blurry screen and potentially other problems.

    3. I'm convinced that I'm forgetting something that we discussed in this thread.

    Should I set up points one and two above, as separate threads?

    Note bene: I'm sure that I've said it before: I have a serious and well-earned mistrust of computers because I lack a fundamental understanding of them. As I'm in the middle of color-correcting two different batches of event photos, I am loathe to introduce anything into/onto my system that might tamper with Photoshop/Bridge.  Will running a Utilities (?) program interfere with my current work? ----Thanks!

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    On 10/14/2018 at 6:07 PM, Damien Symonds said:

    Yes, but not just that!  Your photos will look too cold anywhere on the world wide web too.  The WWW uses sRGB as its standard, as you well know, and sRGB is a D65 colour space.  That's why most labs have sensibly moved to D65 in the last couple of decades.

    Now that I seem to have the Monitor Calibration for an acceptable Millers Lab profile, I suppose it's time to turn to creating different profiles for different labs (WHCC, for example) and for different purposes (web vs prints). Should I set this discussion up as a separate thread? Thanks!

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Huh?  I thought you said you'd finally got a calibration that gave you a print match?

    In terms of warmth and vibrancy, yes. The colors are very nearly the same. Skin on the subjects in the photos are very close to the ones in the prints.

    It's just that it seems to me that, in the case of the last batch of prints, that a dingy, grey, opaque layer was added. I don't know how else to describe it. In the prints, that "layer" is particularly noticeable in the shadowy areas of a subject's skin.

    I paid particularly close attention, during this last round of calibration, to examine the on screen versions to make sure that the calibration resulted in images that matched as closely as possible to the prints. They're very close, but they're not identical.

     

    brb....I have to drop off hurricane relief supplies. I'll check in once I've returned.

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Oh, that annoying thing.  It's just a glitch, and doesn't usually happen twice in a row.  Recalibration should solve it.

    I've recalibrated the monitor and I think that I have acceptable results. The images on screen nearly match the prints in both warmth and vibrance. Millers allows me to submit four images for free test prints. Is there anything else that I need to check, calibration wise, before I submit the images that I've been using for calibration to the lab?

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    Wouldn't you know it? I ran the recalibration on the monitor, and when I went to save it, I kept getting a message about "Unable to set LUTs (-87)". What does that mean and what do I do about it tomorrow morning?

    6 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    At least you know you can edit on the laptop screen right away, if there is any editing that urgently needs doing.

    True. Could I also set the monitor to the laptop's profile, via that Display.exe thingy that you have, and which I downloaded a while back? Would that allow me to edit the images correctly...oh, wait....the monitor's backlighting would be an issue, wouldn't it, because it's different from the laptop's screen? *siiiiigh*

    At any rate, I look forward to your answers, and I'll keep plugging away and reporting back tomorrow.

    Thank you for taking time out of your Sunday to help me with this.

     

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Yep, if 0 is working, leave it there for sure.  In some cases, even 0 isn't low enough.  https://www.damiensymonds.net/desktop-monitor-brightness

    Let's leave it at Native for now, I think.

    Yes, but not just that!  Your photos will look too cold anywhere on the world wide web too.  The WWW uses sRGB as its standard, as you well know, and sRGB is a D65 colour space.  That's why most labs have sensibly moved to D65 in the last couple of decades.

    Okie doke. I'll leave the manual brightness at 0 and the ColorMunki at Native, for now.

    I'm guessing that I should start investigating other labs, to use, in the very near future. You've also touched on another concern of mine: I'm redoing my website and I'd rather not have to create additional files to compensate for a "Millers" profile. What a pain!

    Gonna recalibrate the monitor and report back on the results. After that, I have to go home. If needs be, I'll be back at the monitor calibration early tomorrow morning. *crossing fingers, toes, and eyeballs for a successful recalibration this time around*

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Well, maybe D50 as well?  Have you tried that yet?

    I have not tried it, yet, today.

    Questions:

    When I do recalibrate the monitor at D50, should I leave the brightness of the monitor, which I manually decreased to 0 yesterday, at 0 brightness? If not, to what should I manually set it? (Manually setting the monitor to 0 was the only way that I could seem to get the on screen images to be less bright enough for me to evaluate warmth and vividness/vibrancy correctly.)

    In ColorMunki, should I set the White Luminance Target to 100, rather than Native (in the current Monitor profile)?

    10 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    I just remembered that you use Millers, which do use D50.  So maybe your room light is ok after all.

    I realize that we have to establish a baseline somehow, and I'm okay with setting it so that images printed with Millers is the baseline for the purposes of expediency (in getting the current images to look beautiful for the client, who is patience personified at this point). However, by establishing the baseline as the "Millers" profile, am I screwing myself over if I wish to print one of these same images at a different lab, or, even worse, on a different medium, like canvas or acrylic? If I have to set up different monitor profiles, I presume that I could. It just seems like a lot of freaking work. Your thoughts, please?

    Prints are grey

    in Output - print, websites, Facebook, email, client disk, etc

    Posted

    At D50, the on screen images are a much better match in both warmth and vibrancy to the prints.

    Should I recalibrate my monitor, now? If yes, to what settings in the ColorMunki?

    10 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

    Too-warm room lighting makes prints look too warm, which makes the screen look too cold in comparison.

    Hrmmmm.... It's been a while since I read your article on proper lighting. I remember, at the time, being pleased that I was getting what I thought was a "day neutral" bulb (the one that currently is illuminating my closet/office). What do I need to do about the lighting?

×
×
  • Create New...