Reading mode: Light Dark

What am I doing wrong?

Go to last post
Stephen Christie said:
You could be a bit more polite for certain, man
Click to expand...
I tried that. Every time I said something polite, you told me I was wrong.
Stephen Christie said:
get over yourself.
Click to expand...
I am not the one making up total rubbish to try to impress people.
Stephen Christie said:
You’re wizzing in the wind man.
Click to expand...
Isn't that your art form.
Stephen Christie said:
I don't know what your last post was even about honestly sounded like mad rant not an intelligent conversation.
Click to expand...
Funny, I thought exactly the same thing about yours.
Stephen Christie said:
I thought someone else here said they used a 15% grey card to calibrate from,
Click to expand...
That's an outright lie.

You said you read about the differences between 15% and 17% gray cards in "many places" that are "not forums".

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=34333066

"it I have read many places (not forums) about 15% and 18% cards many places on the net"
Stephen Christie said:
if I read wrong that’s fine I’m sorry, no need to hate on me. Dam!
Click to expand...
Well, you've insulted me, you've lied to me, you've fabricated wildly inaccurate technical information in an attempt to make yourself look good,
Stephen Christie said:
You’re being rude and sarcastic at the same time.
Click to expand...
That is correct. Consider it to be my favor to you, holding up a mirror so that you can get a good look at your own behavior. If you don't like it, then think about how all the people that you're being rude to feel about it.
Stephen Christie said:
AdobeRGB 1998 Color Management Monitor Profiles certainly do exist and I do use them as many others do and should.

I set ICC Monitor profile to AdobeRGB
Click to expand...
That is flat out wrong. I've explained why, more than once.
Stephen Christie said:
I keep my monitor ICC color management profile on: Adobe RGB 1998
On my camera I use: Adobe RGB
In Photoshop or Light Room I change the Camera Calibration to: Adobe Standard
Click to expand...
I don't much care what you do.

But please, don't tell other people to do the same totally wrong things that you do.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Report Message: Recorded
Thank you, your report has been recorded and our moderators will be notified.
Click here to return to the message.

--
-Steve
 
lmao your funny man.
According to you, the last 15,000 images I took were all done wrong then.
I guess all those compliments I get in the gallery threads must be wrong too?

You do what works for you and I'll do what works for me.

No need to insult me personally attack me.

Here are a few images, that according to someone on the forum said, these colors should be all look bad and wrong since I did PP with Adobe 1998 monitor ICC and used Adobe Standard camera calibration in Light room to convert from RAW.

Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/MG1846/765943455_qymvk-D.jpg



Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/MG2055/765974533_LXisf-D.jpg



Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/IMG0453/746051125_BUqLR-D.jpg



Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/MG2874/767884164_SmWax-D.jpg



--
-Steve
 
Stephen Christie said:
No need to insult me personally attack me.
Click to expand...
That is quite true. There technically isn't any need for me to reply to your personal insults like "joe, biggest head on earth contest winner. lol" with any of my own.

But, as I pointed out earlier, I tried responding to you politely, and it simply did not work. So, I figured I'd try talking to you in your own style. Apparently, that was a mistake, because you went running to the moderators for the horrible crime of talking like you do.
Stephen Christie said:
lmao your funny man.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I wish I could say the same about you.
Stephen Christie said:
According to you, the last 15,000 images I took were all done wrong then.
Click to expand...
That is quite likely.
Stephen Christie said:
No need to insult me personally attack me.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself if there was a need for you to say things like:
  • honestly sounded like mad rant not an intelligent conversation.
  • You’re wizzing in the wind man.
  • how rude, dam.
  • man get over yourself
Now, be fair about things, Steve, and go report yourself to the moderators for personal attacks.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Care to comment on photos in this message?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=34353999

I bet you cant find a reason my colors look so good since I used ever wrong method possible according to you.

It's so cool how you say your opinion is better than mine on how to take a photo and process it, but my images have great color and are exposed well and the PP is quite good also. I'm not saying they are cropped and refined for a customer. These are candids of my own children, not ment for a job.
 
FYI :
Joe, I think if you re-read every word you typed you would gain some insight.

You accidentally contradicted yourself several times even inside a single sentance by accident. I had to re-read every sentance a few times to figure out what you really were trying to say. Copy paste it into MS Word and run a grammer check on it, you may see even more things than I did.

-
Stephen Christie said:
Care to comment on photos in this message?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=34353999

I bet you cant find a reason my colors look so good since I used ever wrong method possible according to you.

It's so cool how you say your opinion is better than mine on how to take a photo and process it, but my images have great color and are exposed well and the PP is quite good also. I'm not saying they are cropped and refined for a customer. These are candids of my own children, not ment for a job.
Click to expand...
--
-Steve
 
Joe wrote:

So, go right ahead, use your nonexistent "AdobeRGB windows monitor profile" for all the nonexistent pictures you like.

Stephen Writes:

According to you this is a fake thing, but I dont agree.

This screen capture (below) showing my Adobe RGB 1998 (2.2 gamma) monitor color management icc profile. and this MS page showing to to set it.

I didnt make it up, it's real and works very well for me and many others.



(icm_change_color_profile_monitor.mspx)

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/icm_change_color_profile_monitor.mspx

Here's an Adobe Doc on ICC color monitor profiles
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/321/321382.html
Where to obtain ICC profiles ?

Photoshop installs a selection of generic profiles for display and output devices to the following locations on Windows XP:
Windows/System32/Spool/Drivers/Color "

Here's another nice page also discussing the Adobe RGB 1998 2.2 gamma color monitor profile you say doesnt exist.
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

 
From the start I’m not even close to being an expert on this topic. However, I wanted to relay some information that’s readily available on Will Crocket’s site, shoot smarter. First, the majority of printers most labs use are sRGB color space (including MPIX) so why would I want to use Adobe RGB? Second, many of the monitors use a sRGB gamut. Third, Will claims that if you print through PS the profile can change as you update the product, more headaches.

I understand the importance of calibrating a monitor. At the very least I want to know how my prints are going to look before I get them back from the lab. But personally, I don’t want to try to be a lab. With their high end printers and profiling software I know they can do a far better job with output than I can.

Certainly Adobe RGB is useful, he recommends using it for commercial and other high end presentation work but for the majority, especially wedding photogs it sRGB. It would be nice to hear from Joseph on this notion. Will also recommends “stepping up” to a good monitor like Eizo if you are serious about your output.
 
Stephen Christie said:
I did mean the stock factory type AdobeRGB windows monitor profile and the camera adobe calibration choice in lightroom.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as the "stock factory type AdobeRGB windows monitor profile"

The AdobeRGB(1998) Colour Space , which is probably what you mean, is a device independent colour space meant for editing in, which some people mistakenly apply to a monitor instead of a monitor profile. When they do so they effectively switch off the colour management of the system, and work on what becomes an UN-calibrated monitor....

..... But hey! You "love the colour".... so that's all right then.) ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite the intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
 
Yes I and everyone else loves the color.
Check out my galleries I shoot every photos this way.

http://the-christies.smugmug.com

I took these jsut the other day:
Stephen Christie said:
lmao your funny man.
According to you, the last 15,000 images I took were all done wrong then.
I guess all those compliments I get in the gallery threads must be wrong too?

You do what works for you and I'll do what works for me.

No need to insult me personally attack me.

Here are a few images, that according to someone on the forum said, these colors should be all look bad and wrong since I did PP with Adobe 1998 monitor ICC and used Adobe Standard camera calibration in Light room to convert from RAW.

Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/MG1846/765943455_qymvk-D.jpg



Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/MG2055/765974533_LXisf-D.jpg



Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/IMG0453/746051125_BUqLR-D.jpg



Larger Download

http://the-christies.smugmug.com/Kids-Daily/2010/Kids-Daily/MG2874/767884164_SmWax-D.jpg



--
-Steve
Click to expand...
--
-Steve

-Steve
Barrie Davis said:
Stephen Christie said:
I did mean the stock factory type AdobeRGB windows monitor profile and the camera adobe calibration choice in lightroom.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as the "stock factory type AdobeRGB windows monitor profile"

The AdobeRGB(1998) Colour Space , which is probably what you mean, is a device independent colour space meant for editing in, which some people mistakenly apply to a monitor instead of a monitor profile. When they do so they effectively switch off the colour management of the system, and work on what becomes an UN-calibrated monitor....

..... But hey! You "love the colour".... so that's all right then.) ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite the intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
--
-Steve
 
The Kodak grey cards were 15% grey and indeed the one I have is a slightly darker colour than the Digital grey card I have as well.

I don't find it white balances well at all.

In fact when I went through my photographic training many years ago , Every single instructor told us to use the 15% grey card to calculate an exposure reading at some point.

I believe it has been an issue since Ansel adams time where tha manufacturer specified 15% and he worked it out to be 18% or something
 
Harrythephot said:
The Kodak grey cards were 15% grey and indeed the one I have is a slightly darker colour than the Digital grey card I have as well.

I don't find it white balances well at all.

In fact when I went through my photographic training many years ago , Every single instructor told us to use the 15% grey card to calculate an exposure reading at some point.

I believe it has been an issue since Ansel adams time where tha manufacturer specified 15% and he worked it out to be 18% or something
Click to expand...
--
-Steve
 
Stephen Christie said:
Yes I and everyone else loves the color.
Click to expand...
Yes, the pictures are nice, especially the kiddies, and the colour looks normal enough.

That doesn't mean you got it right. It means you GOT LUCKY, and the errors in your system happened to be self cancelling ones.
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite the intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
 
Well, that's funny you to say. I wish I had 100% luck of luck at casinos!

100% of my 14,000 photos this last year are good in color it was not luck.

I actual am follow the recommendation of ADOBE for how to configure monitor printer and Photoshop for color processing of photos.

I've been a pro graphic artist using these methods for over 10 years with 100% success.

Adobe has made many easy to understand articles about this easy way to get color matching form monitor print and camera for a decade.

They have developed ways to customize the profiles for color matching of different things, but the basic method I use is still good and Adobe still says it's the easy way to succeed.
Barrie Davis said:
Stephen Christie said:
Yes I and everyone else loves the color.
Click to expand...
Yes, the pictures are nice, especially the kiddies, and the colour looks normal enough.

That doesn't mean you got it right. It means you GOT LUCKY, and the errors in your system happened to be self cancelling ones.
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite the intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
--
-Steve
 
Stephen Christie said:
100% of my 14,000 photos this last year are good in color it was not luck.
Click to expand...
Well if you got lucky with number one, and didn't change anything after that, there isn't any reason to think you luck would run out, is there?

But hey! Just wait till you get a new monitor and THEN try to make it work, baby! ;-)
Stephen Christie said:
I actual am follow the recommendation of ADOBE for how to configure monitor printer and Photoshop for color processing of photos.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! The AdobeRGB(1998) colour space is an editing space, (working space) not a monitor space. You have misread the instructions.
Stephen Christie said:
I've been a pro graphic artist using these methods for over 10 years with 100% success.
Click to expand...
Have you indeed!? Then you have had plenty of time to read "Real World Colour Management" by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting. They know what they are talking about and produced the 'bible' on this topic...

http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/
Stephen Christie said:
Adobe has made many easy to understand articles about this easy way to get color matching form monitor print and camera for a decade.
Click to expand...
Except that you have misunderstood them, especially in regard to monitor profiles. Errr... do you HAVE a monitor profiling device.. the Spyder or Eye One for instance, because if you have not used one, you have NOT got a calibrated monitor... and that is the end of the matter.
Stephen Christie said:
They have developed ways to customize the profiles for color matching of different things, but the basic method I use is still good and Adobe still says it's the easy way to succeed.
Click to expand...
That's drivel, and from comments like that it becomes clear you're floundering for want of any real knowledge. Indeed, with your combination of arrogance with ignorance, you do not deserve the lack of problems you have had so far...

Just do us all a favour and stay away from enquiries needing colour management advice. Thank you.
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite the intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
 
So you admit my images are stunning 100% of the time and on YOUR monitor, not just mine, yet you still disrepsect me and cut me down like i know nothing.
Way to prove your a mean person - You win that contest for sure.
Stephen Christie said:
According to you this is a fake thing, but I dont agree.

This screen capture (below) showing my Adobe RGB 1998 (2.2 gamma) monitor color management icc profile. and this MS page showing to to set it.

I didnt make it up, it's real and works very well for me and many others.



(icm_change_color_profile_monitor.mspx)

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/icm_change_color_profile_monitor.mspx

Here's an Adobe Doc on ICC color monitor profiles
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/321/321382.html
Where to obtain ICC profiles ?

Photoshop installs a selection of generic profiles for display and output devices to the following locations on Windows XP:
Windows/System32/Spool/Drivers/Color "

Here's another nice page also discussing the Adobe RGB 1998 2.2 gamma color monitor profile you say doesnt exist.
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
Click to expand...
Barrie Davis said:
Stephen Christie said:
100% of my 14,000 photos this last year are good in color it was not luck.
Click to expand...
Well if you got lucky with number one, and didn't change anything after that, there isn't any reason to think you luck would run out, is there?

But hey! Just wait till you get a new monitor and THEN try to make it work, baby! ;-)
Barrie Davis said:
I actual am follow the recommendation of ADOBE for how to configure monitor printer and Photoshop for color processing of photos.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! The AdobeRGB(1998) colour space is an editing space, (working space) not a monitor space. You have misread the instructions.
Barrie Davis said:
I've been a pro graphic artist using these methods for over 10 years with 100% success.
Click to expand...
Have you indeed!? Then you have had plenty of time to read "Real World Colour Management" by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting. They know what they are talking about and produced the 'bible' on this topic...

http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/
Barrie Davis said:
Adobe has made many easy to understand articles about this easy way to get color matching form monitor print and camera for a decade.
Click to expand...
Except that you have misunderstood them, especially in regard to monitor profiles. Errr... do you HAVE a monitor profiling device.. the Spyder or Eye One for instance, because if you have not used one, you have NOT got a calibrated monitor... and that is the end of the matter.
Barrie Davis said:
They have developed ways to customize the profiles for color matching of different things, but the basic method I use is still good and Adobe still says it's the easy way to succeed.
Click to expand...
That's drivel, and from comments like that it becomes clear you're floundering for want of any real knowledge. Indeed, with your combination of arrogance with ignorance, you do not deserve the lack of problems you have had so far...

Just do us all a favour and stay away from enquiries needing colour management advice. Thank you.
--
Regards,
Baz

I am 'Looking for Henry Lee ' (could be Lea, or even Leigh) and despite going 'Hey round the corner', and looking 'behind the bush', I have not yet found him. If he survives, Henry is in his mid-60s, British, and quite the intellectual.

What is it all about? Well, something relating to a conversation we had in the pub 35 years ago has come to spectacular fruition, and I'd like him to know how right he was.

If you know somebody who could be this man, please put him in touch with me. Thank you.
Click to expand...
--
-Steve
 
Stephen Christie said:
So you admit my images are stunning 100% of the time and on YOUR monitor, not just mine,
Click to expand...
Don't flatter yourself. They are not "stunning" - they are just normal looking, with no obvious faults.

However, there is no reason to believe that what I'm seeing is what YOU are seeing, because I'm on a hardware calibrated monitor, and you are NOT.

In fact, you are actually using a working space as if it was a monitor profile, (also as printer profile, apparently!) so we can be pretty damn SURE that what you are seeing on screen is WRONG....

..... and whether or not you like the LOOK of what you're seeing, it's still wrong.
Stephen Christie said:
yet you still disrepsect me and cut me down like i know nothing.
Click to expand...
You are WORSE than a know-nothing. You are a know-nothing who thinks he knows it all.

Indeed, you are one of those pests buzzing around that gets in the way of people like Joe, who is probably one of the most photographically knowledgable people on the planet....

--(I'd put him in the top six photographic technicians of all time, and hope that I'm not understating his achievements. Goodness knows, I am not worthy, but you are just a pimple on his bum, relatively speaking!)--
Stephen Christie said:
Stephen Christie said:
Just do us all a favour and stay away from enquiries needing colour management advice. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes. Please keep your colour management 'knowledge' to yourself. Thanks.
--
Baz
 
Harrythephot said:
The Kodak grey cards were 15% grey
Click to expand...
If they ever were, it was a very, very long time ago. Too long ago for me to find actual printed references.

I checked some pretty old books, all the way back to my 1941 copy of William Mortensen, Mortensen: On The Negative". The oldest one I could find that actually mentioned gray cards was my very first photography book (Aaron Sussman, The Amateur Photographer's Handbook/, Eight Revised Edition, 1973, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York). It refers specifically to the "Kodak 18% Gray Target" in three different chapters (p. 129, 263, 471). And there's no mention of 15% cards or a shift from 15% to 18%.

That's the same thing I found on Google, there's literally no mention, anywhere, of 15% gray cards.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=34352409
Harrythephot said:
and indeed the one I have is a slightly darker colour than the Digital grey card I have as well.

I don't find it white balances well at all.
Click to expand...
That was characteristic of most "film days" gray cards. I've had Kodak cards, They didn't particularly care about neutrality, they were exposure tools. They were visibly green when compared to a Munsell Labs (later Gretag Macbeth, and still later X-Rite) card. Even the infamous "ExpoDisc" was guaranteed for a very high tolerance on its 18% exposure, but pretty loose tolerance on color neutrality.
Harrythephot said:
In fact when I went through my photographic training many years ago , Every single instructor told us to use the 15% grey card to calculate an exposure reading at some point.
Click to expand...
How "many years ago" was that?
Harrythephot said:
I believe it has been an issue since Ansel adams time where tha manufacturer specified 15% and he worked it out to be 18% or something
Click to expand...
If that were the case, references would be easy to find.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top