Windsurfers at Manly, BrisbaneModerators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
Previous topic • Next topic
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Windsurfers at Manly, BrisbaneA trip up to the Brisbane bayside suburb of Manly last weekend provided some interesting opportunities. For much of it I was shooting into the strong morning sun.
I'm not sure about the b&w photos. On my laptop at home they look fine but at work on the CRT they look quite dark. Neither monitor is calibrated. CC away. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasphoto/122294013/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/34/122294013_1e49577d7f.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Windsurfer" /></a> Sigma 70-300DG, 1/1600 @ f10 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasphoto/122294014/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/38/122294014_f0784b9c99.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Manly windsurfers" /></a> Nikkor 18-70, 1/4000 @f4.5 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasphoto/122294012/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1/122294012_61b7efc888.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Three sails" /></a> Sigma 70-300DG, 1/25 @ f10 <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasphoto/122294011/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/1/122294011_53e4e7262c.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Manly Harbour" /></a> Nikkor 18-70, 1/40 @ f18 Nikon D70s, Nikkor 18-70, Sigma 70-300DG APO
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasphoto/
Jonas, All nice shots and is hard at times when the sun is not working with you. The laptop bit is same with mine as i looked at the pics i took at Car racing well any really on the laptop and they look bloody great, put on the computer at home with CRT and the pics are dark so laptop is very decieving.
I intend not to do any PP work much on the lap top for this reason and have found that my CRT monitor not been calibrated or anything is very true to scale as what i see on here i see the same on my prints. If i was to send a file in for print from the laptop it would have been dark as hell and i wonder if this is where the calibration comes into play, maybe some one will tell us. Cheers John D3,D2x,D70,18-70 kit lens,Sigma 70-200mm F2.8EX HSM,Nikon AF-I 300m F2.8, TC20E 2X
80-400VR,SB800,Vosonic X Drive,VP6210 40 http://www.oz-images.com
Thanks BBJ and Owen.
I suppose the issue of monitor calibration is one of the downers of digital photography. Just as many people see my pics online/onscreen as they do in prints, but the results of the two mediums vary widely. I agree any PP done on an LCD never looks as vibrant or bright on the prints. It's all guess work I suppose. Nikon D70s, Nikkor 18-70, Sigma 70-300DG APO
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasphoto/
My pic is the first one. The sun sparkling off the water always looks great in B/W.
Every magazine/company's production department I submitt to all use CRT's. I could not tell you the specific reason for this, though there is something maybe about the contrast and brightness lattitude of a LCD? Like I said, I can't remember exactly why but using them for PP is a plain and simple no no. Having people that critique your work from a LCD (even one that has been calibrated with the most expensive gear you can find) to a CRT can also result in very varied results. Laptops are the worst as the slightest angle change on the screen results in some major differences Brad Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to there level, then beat you with experience.
Although I gotta admitt, sometimes it makes for a good laugh ![]()
Thanks Brad, i agree with you as i do a lot of printing and after seeing the differance from the laptop to the crt here at home i would not use it to do any PP work and send to printers from the Laptop.
I had thought about a lcd for home but i do like my 19inch AOC and i know when i adjust things here and get them printed it is spot on or that close to it i cant tell the diff. I dont do my own printing but all done at lab and the pics are micky mouse. Cheers John BBJ D3,D2x,D70,18-70 kit lens,Sigma 70-200mm F2.8EX HSM,Nikon AF-I 300m F2.8, TC20E 2X
80-400VR,SB800,Vosonic X Drive,VP6210 40 http://www.oz-images.com
Previous topic • Next topic
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|