[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;33478750][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/6419421491/][img]http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6033/6419421491_ec35cd8242_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/6419421491/]me[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/cheesepuff/]codenamecueball[/url], on Flickr
is this worth posting
[editline]28th November 2011[/editline]
in a creative thread[/QUOTE]
Holy balls that's 3 times you've posted that.
I think it's very nice and high key
also I suddenly saw the lens as an eye and felt you needed two
[img]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9010/screenshot2011112817184.png[/img]
Can anyone using CS5 convert an image, shot in Adobe RGB, to sRGB (not in the save for web box), save as jpg (in save for web) then compare the two images (compare the jpg in a viewing program other than photoshop and the original image in photoshop)?
Has it shifted colours from the now sRGB image in photoshop and whatever you're viewing the jpeg in (chrome, safari, etc)?
[editline]28th November 2011[/editline]
Use an image viewer that recognises sRGB.
[editline]28th November 2011[/editline]
I don't have this problem in CS4, only in CS5.
Happens on my flatmate's copy of CS5 as well, and we both have legit copies.
Emailed Adobe but they're taking their sweet time.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;33481175]Can anyone using CS5 convert an image, shot in Adobe RGB, to sRGB (not in the save for web box), save as jpg (in save for web) then compare the two images (compare the jpg in a viewing program other than photoshop and the original image in photoshop)?
Has it shifted colours from the now sRGB image in photoshop and whatever you're viewing the jpeg in (chrome, safari, etc)?
[editline]28th November 2011[/editline]
Use an image viewer that recognises sRGB.
[editline]28th November 2011[/editline]
I don't have this problem in CS4, only in CS5.
Happens on my flatmate's copy of CS5 as well, and we both have legit copies.
Emailed Adobe but they're taking their sweet time.[/QUOTE]
shoot me the file you're working on, along with the edited copy you keep seeing the difference on so I can compare. (also because I'm not at a computer with access to my archive at the moment)
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33481357]shoot me the file you're working on, along with the edited copy you keep seeing the difference on so I can compare. (also because I'm not at a computer with access to my archive at the moment)[/QUOTE]
Happens with any file for me, but the effect is obvious with this (because it's dark and mostly blue): [url]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13537916/DSC_0238.psd[/url]
Tried with photos shot in AdobeRGB and sRGB from a D90 and D300.
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
Happens with images SOOC, opened in CS5, then saved.
alrighty, documenting the process, though obviously screencap compression may do something dumb to it.
fresh open
[t]http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/4580/screenshot2011112818433.png[/t]
conversion preview (got a little lighter in the water)
[t]http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5604/screenshot2011112818463.png[/t]
converted (appeared to have gotten darker again? odd, I noticed a change when I confirmed conversion)
[t]http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1381/screenshot2011112818504.png[/t]
save for web, preview monitor color (whoa that got dark as hell)
[t]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7516/screenshot2011112818525.png[/t]
preview legacy mac [no color management] (better, still not the same)
[t]http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/3444/screenshot2011112818533.png[/t]
preview internet standard RGB [no color management] (turned really neutral and lost contrast)
[t]http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/2080/screenshot2011112818541.png[/t]
Preview use document profile (identical to above result)
What's weird is that the 'original' preview also shows the odd problems all of the output previews are showing. I'm bothered by this now
in other news, that's a beautiful shot and I wish I could do something like that with the god forsaken cloud cast we get out here. Forecast for this whole week is "bleh" with a chance of "upside-down in the ditch because it fucking rained and froze over while you weren't looking"
It's an old shot from my D60.
I just realised that document is already in sRGB, so it shouldn't make a difference, I was going to say to try using Absolute Colorimetric intent when converting to sRGB.
Also, try saving it in save for web, without converting the colour profile it in photoshop (or in save for web).
It shouldn't make a difference if the image is already sRGB and the save for web box isn't doing any converting.
with a fresh open, getting the same issues with save for web.
changing to absolute colormetric...
preview still lightens the image and it goes back to normal after accepting the conversion. Looking at history, it isn't actually doing a process even though I'm doing the conversion. I presume it's already in absolute colormetric intent.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33482534]with a fresh open, getting the same issues with save for web.
changing to absolute colormetric...
preview still lightens the image and it goes back to normal after accepting the conversion. Looking at history, it isn't actually doing a process even though I'm doing the conversion. I presume it's already in absolute colormetric intent.[/QUOTE]
Tried it with a different picture.
It's already in sRGB (you converted it to working RGB, varies slightly from sRGB, try it again with an image taken in AdobeRGB and convert to sRGB, you should see barely any visible difference using absolute).
Saved for web, didn't make save for web convert it to sRGB since it's already sRGB, and embedded the sRGB profile in the image.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/QRF5z.jpg[/IMG]
Side by side, there's still been a colour shift.
The image: [url]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13537916/DSC_0241.psd[/url]
bopie you just appeared on my dash out of nowhere, nice one man
i bought a kodak instafilm camera from goodwill this week for $1.50, and it had film in it!
went back to take pictures and all of them came out black. at least they make good bookmarks :/
taking the camera back now.
taking it back for a full refund? heh
name-brand film cost ya $60 for a 10-pack of film, so I'd say it was a bargain either way :v:
[QUOTE=iWumbo;33470540]I read: I should post in the subforum moe.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_%28slang%29[/url]
As in that moe. I was really confused.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about that, R tends to not press sometimes on my other laptop
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33484251]taking it back for a full refund? heh
name-brand film cost ya $60 for a 10-pack of film, so I'd say it was a bargain either way :v:[/QUOTE]
yeah that's why i bought it, i figured that no matter what it would be interesting to test out. i played a gamble and kind of lost, but they really do make cool bookmarks. and they look really cool, they are very different from polaroids surprisingly.
[QUOTE=dagoth_ur;33484485]Sorry about that, R tends to not press sometimes on my other laptop[/QUOTE]
Oh. Well I hope you get it fixed soon.
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
And poof goes my auto merge.
Anybody else has any ideas about my photoshop problem?
I'm not too familiar with photoshop. Sorry. :(
Stolen from Bldr's tumblr. Thought I would post it to illustrate the effect of different focal lengths (technically field of view) for people that don't quite have a complete grasp on it.
[img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lveodbKdbL1r03etxo1_500.gif[/img]
The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the angle of view (often referred to as field of view FOV) while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout.
- [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom]Dolly Zoom[/url]
[QUOTE=bopie;33485787]Stolen from Bldr's tumblr. Thought I would post it to illustrate the effect of different focal lengths (technically field of view) for people that don't quite have a complete grasp on it.
[img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lveodbKdbL1r03etxo1_500.gif[/img]
The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the angle of view (often referred to as field of view FOV) while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout.
- [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom]Dolly Zoom[/url][/QUOTE]
when I explain this to someone I usually take a video of me getting closer and farther away with my 18-105 lens, it's hilarious watching this effect flatten and stretch a person's face
[QUOTE=bopie;33485787]Stolen from Bldr's tumblr. Thought I would post it to illustrate the effect of different focal lengths (technically field of view) for people that don't quite have a complete grasp on it.
[img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lveodbKdbL1r03etxo1_500.gif[/img]
The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the angle of view (often referred to as field of view FOV) while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout.
- [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom]Dolly Zoom[/url][/QUOTE]
i've been wanting to use this in a video for years
dolly zoom is really hard to do freehand though, you need a track for it to actually be decent
[QUOTE=iWumbo;33484581]Oh. Well I hope you get it fixed soon.
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
And poof goes my auto merge.[/QUOTE]
the laptop is a ford fiesta of the laptop world, an old banger, It's a Dell Inspiron 1300, Still gonna use it til it just decides not to live anymore.
Anyone here with an OM series camera? I'm thinking of looking for more lenses...
It was originally used in Vertigo by Hithcock I believe. Hence the name
Got a free lens I can actually use with my 60d. Not the best but still a lens.
what lens?
I has a santa hat?
GOD DAMNIT GAYRAY
Just a Canon 35-80mm. Like I said, not super good, but I only have my 18-135mm so any addition is a good addition.
Pretty pointless, considering the 18-135 is better and has a wider reach.
Free though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
