What a difference a year makes

[billbunton]

Wow, that's a big difference Scott! Don't you wish there was a way to go back and reshoot too? I look at some of the birds I shot a year ago, and though I can process them better, I know I could improve on the image itself now too.

[srwatters]

What Bill said!!!

I pay so much more attention to detail now.

But that's what life is all about, living and learning. When I know it all (no jokes about me thinking I'm there already!), just dig the hole and cover me up.

[LoungeLizard]

Originally Posted by digitaldooda

From interviewing many of the pro photo labs in Dallas, I asked them for advice on what to offer in my digital imaging courses. One of the bits of important information was to use curves for more subtle adjusting and to have no skin tone go above 189 in any color channel (red) in an RGB mode. Even though that may look a little dark, it gives the lab enough digital information to give you a pleasing skin tone that doesn't go red. Nice shot.

Vickie

Doesn't that imply you're letting the lab do the color adjustments for you? If you're running in a color managed environment you may not want the lab to do color adjustments for you.

Just curious.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

Doesn't that imply you're letting the lab do the color adjustments for you? If you're running in a color managed environment you may not want the lab to do color adjustments for you.

I'm wondering the same thing. I soft proof with my lab's printer/paper profiles and make adjustments from my master to generate the file they get. I even embed their profile in my image so they only have to open->print. No adjustments of any kind on their part.

YMMV.

[LoungeLizard]

Originally Posted by srwatters

I'm wondering the same thing. I soft proof with my lab's printer/paper profiles and make adjustments from my master to generate the file they get. I even embed their profile in my image so they only have to open->print. No adjustments of any kind on their part.

YMMV.

...exactly. Now, to stir up another controversy. I've got to prints of the same photo in my office. Take away the fact that one is on metallic paper and the other is not, you CANNOT tell any difference. This is the part that will stir things up: one was done at Miller's (metallic) the other at Costco. Yes, I can tell one paper is thinner than the other, but since I'm fully color managed and I tell them both to NOT color correct, my results are the same.

[Silvernic]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

...exactly. Now, to stir up another controversy. I've got to prints of the same photo in my office. Take away the fact that one is on metallic paper and the other is not, you CANNOT tell any difference. This is the part that will stir things up: one was done at Miller's (metallic) the other at Costco. Yes, I can tell one paper is thinner than the other, but since I'm fully color managed and I tell them both to NOT color correct, my results are the same.

Jesus, I totally agree. I'm actually starting to print 8x10s at costco and then spray and mount them myself at home. Once mounted the paper thickness doesn't matter and the quality seems the same. Hmmm, this isn't off topic is it? Back to the thread. Scott, you're awesome. I am not. At first glance I thought the first picture was the better of the two. After reading all of the posts, I'm definitely leaning toward the second one. I think I have to learn what good is before I can begin to try to duplicate it.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by Silvernic

Jesus, I totally agree. I'm actually starting to print 8x10s at costco and then spray and mount them myself at home. Once mounted the paper thickness doesn't matter and the quality seems the same.

Costco is great value, but their gamut is a bit narrow compared to some of the pro labs. To compare, send a color chart to both labs, and you'll see what I mean.

I send a lot of work there, but send my "high dollar" work to someone like RGB in Dallas.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by Silvernic

Back to the thread. Scott, you're awesome. I am not. At first glance I thought the first picture was the better of the two. After reading all of the posts, I'm definitely leaning toward the second one. I think I have to learn what good is before I can begin to try to duplicate it.

You're going to give me a big head...

How about version 'c'



This is the one in my stock image portfolio

[NoLight]

Wow huge difference

[digitaldooda]

I think you should color manage. I just perceive that the reds in most of the photos I see posted are too hot. The 189 skin tone works even if you color manage. You have more to work with in your printing. I mentioned the labs because they have had years of experience with printing and can give me useful guidelines t o help those new to digital photography who are trying to get good results when proofing and using an outlab service. Its just another point of view....it does not invalidate your right to color manage.

Also, there are probably just a few folks here that are not printing their own and I don't want to forget them. Learning some good practices when you are first starting out can save a lot of time.

Vickei