So we went for a walk this afternoon . . .

[Steve Foss]

Hey Jolly and Jonny, I'm still using a CRT for my photo studio. For my travel laptop, it's an LCD, and I've looked at a lot of LCD screens lately.

Two differences I've seen pretty consistently: Color seems a bit more washed out on some of the LCD monitors I've looked at compared with CRT screens, and CRT screens are softer. Images that look nicely sharp on CRTs look oversharpened on all the LCDs I've used.

I'm told by quite a few other photographers that LCDs are tough to calibrate and keep calibrated compared with CRTs, but I don't have any experience of my own there, as I never use the traveling laptop for printing or ordering prints.

Webby: OK, gotcha.

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

Thanks, Dan. My prints haven't changed in vibrancy over the past few months, so it's got to be something specific to either small changes in my online color regimen that I'm not aware of or the monitor calibration or virtual framing. Could be a bit of all of them. Who knows?

As for monitor calibration, it doesn't really help things if the poster's monitor is calibrated and 95 percent of the rest of the monitors in America (owned by people more casual about such things) are not calibrated. As I understand it, only when the monitors of both viewers are calibrated will the image look just the same color-wise on each person's screen. Yes?

---

Bingo, that was my point. I have a good idea what your work looks like and you on mine but it is hard to say if the image is saturated, the proper color, etc unless you are calibrated.

This is a photo "sharing" site not a photography site per say were most if not all the participants are using calibration of some form. Comments like "that has a slight blue tinge" don't really apply here nor should they.

I don't know what is different Steve, but it sure looks like you have upped the vibrancy in your work just slightly. IMHO they are not over saturated at all, they look very natural. Of course I shot over saturated sports shots so what looks good to me my not others. Saturation sells!!

[Guest]

I use a 24" gateway widescreen LCD and I only need to calibrate with my spyder 2 once every 2-3 months.. I don't really have to but I do just to keep consistancy. I wouldn't say its harder to keep calibrated but then of course, you get what you pay for in monitors also.

Quote:

---

I'm told by quite a few other photographers that LCDs are tough to calibrate and keep calibrated compared with CRTs, but I don't have any experience of my own there, as I never use the traveling laptop for printing or ordering prints.

Webby: OK, gotcha.

---

[Steve Foss]

Cool. Thanks for the info Webman.

Since you're in a giving mood, I've also read from several sources that using sRGB color space and the "save for Web" feature in photoshop for online images is one way to sort of level the playing field so most monitors will show the color not exactly the same, but closer to the same than if the images are "saved as" and use Adobe RGB color space. Thoughts on that?

[Guest]

But then again, all my images and colors could be displayed differently / wrong on your monitors.. haha.. So I guess its what works for you.. Your images look great Steve so I wouldn't worry about it..

[Steve Foss]

Thanks, and when you gonna get some more images that aren't of half-naked women so you can share them here?

[buzzsaw]

Hey Steve, I see others have already chimed in and noticed what I noticed... a bump in vibrance. It's the type of PP I like! I've also noticed that your taking the noise out nicely, some of your older work had its share, as did mine. Kinda like this ISO 400 shot of yours. http://www.fishingminnesota.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=838394&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

[Swimmer]

Buzz, I think you are spot on. Bump in focus? Or, focus=vibrance? My theory, sans technical explanation, is that there was perfect light, combined with perfect set-up, combined with years of Yoga-type balance with the 100-400 (the belly drags you down until you reach an equilibrium--speaking for myself only of course). Great vibrant shots Steve. PS, I did notice that Buzz had some shots several months ago that had unparalled (sp?) vibrance...and wondered of it. These are on par or better. Did you send the lens in for cal?

[Shack]

I have also noticed an improvement in the sharpness/color in your photos in the last couple of months! They seem more warm.

I figured this to be from an upgrade of your equipment?

I look at most all of the threads in this forum and stay back in the shadows and watch the very nice things that pop up on here.

Also stcatfish, nice images and the images of the wolf are great. Keep it up!

[Steve Foss]

Thanks, guys.

Sometimes I used to run noise ninja on subjects, but never liked the way it slightly softened the subject, and so for the last year or so I've been lassoing the BG and running noise ninja on that in certain cases, but never on the subject itself.

I haven't upgraded any equipment or gotten the 100-400 recalibrated or serviced or anything like that. I've taken my share of images with CPS loan equipment like the top prime superteles, but day to day I'm still shooting the same 100-400 I have for the last several years, and my body has gone from the 20D to the 30D (identical sensor in each), with an XT as backup (virtually identical IQ/sensor as the 20D/30D).

I guess I must have been making subtle changes to the way I pp images over the last couple years as I continue to refine techniques. No other real explanation, I reckon, though I DO think those frames tend to pull the eye right into the image and make the color pop a bit more.

I also don't even put my camera up and trigger the shutter anymore unless the light is at least nice. The first year or two, while I wanted nice light, I settled for less. The last two years, and in particular the last year, I don't settle for less than excellent light (some flat light can be excellent, too), unless it's a species I don't have or there's some other factor that makes the photograph work for me.

Buzz, the Lincoln's sparrows in your example were underexposed a full stop, so there was a big increase in noise in the shadow areas when I dropped mid-range levels to brighten them up, especially at iso400. That was completely operator error. Particularly in the last year I've paid much closer attention to the histogram and which metering mode I want to shoot in, continually exposing as far to the right as possible without blowing out the highlights. That decreases noise in the shadow areas, and may also explain why the IQ of postings here seems better.

Thanks again for all the feedback, fellas. I really appreciate your taking the time to chime in.

[buzzsaw]

Look what I started... yee haw!

Quote:

---

and my body has gone from the 20D to the 30D (identical sensor in each), with an XT as backup (virtually identical IQ/sensor as the 20D/30D).

---

I'm guessing your eyeing the 40D as the jump up in quality is huge! I have two good friends with the 40D that absolutely love them! I think everybodys workflow improves and your no exception. Are you shooting in RAW or jpeg? (no, not this subject again) I personally made the switch to RAW and while I do my best to get it all right in camera, it gives me the creative flexibility that jpeg doesn't allow. I love being able to use the recovery tool if I've blown any highlights or the exposure slider if I'm off a bit. I also prefer using the vibrance slider over the saturation. I will say that you need to boost those up as you can see in a side by side picture taken in RAW vs jpeg that the RAW image is alot more dull (naturally) vs a jpeg image that the camera has done some manipulation on. Anyways, your pics are looking better.

[Steve Foss]

Well, here's the way I've been looking at upgrades and RAW vs JPEG. Doesn't reflect everyone's preference, just my own view from this stage in my business

I'm not looking at any camera upgrade for quite some time. The 20D wore out in two years largely because half my shooting was for the newspaper, and I only upgraded because the 20D wore out. The 30D is rated for more shutters than the 20D, I don't shoot for the paper anymore, and I don't need any better IQ than I have to satisfy my business needs, so it'll likely be the 30D until it wears out in two or three years, unless an unexpected boon comes along. I already make fine art nature prints to 20x30 with the 30D, and when it comes to weddings and portraiture and photo excursions, nothing faster/bigger/better is needed.

Would it be nice to have the 40D? Sure. Do I in any way need it? No. Every new body that comes out each year has advances over the one that came before it, and I won't jump on that upgrade treadmill unless there's a real need for it, great as it would be to continually shoot the newest of the new line. I've worked very hard the last two years to de-emphasize equipment and continue to refine my technique and a unique style. I'm not in any way knocking folks who upgrade each time new equipment comes out. That's for sure fun if you can afford it.

My lens repertoire is sufficient for my needs as well, though if any upgrades happen in the near future it'll be to my glass instead of my camera body. I mostly shoot the 17-40L, 100 macro and 100-400L IS. The 24-105L is a great wedding lens for the way I shoot weddings and will bridge a gap there (not a problem gap, just a matter of convenience). That upgrade will probably happen next spring as my wedding season ramps up. With the 30D, these lenses/camera make up mid-grade Canon bodies and the lower (slowest aperture) tier of Canon's top lines of lenses. IQ on these bodies/lenses is excellent, low-light capability of the lenses is only fair because of limits in aperture.

Since I have 400mm already (slow aperture lens but IS is a great equalizer) and a lifetime of woodscraft, I've been able to get close enough to birds and animals to get nice images of them. Since I'm not shooting indoor sports I have no need for the fast-aperture f2.8 or wider series of lenses, nice as I've found they are to shoot. Since I'm not trying to market my wildlife/avian work to the top glossy mags, I don't have to worry about the equipment snobbishness some of them have. Some top photo editors say you can't do top work except with the very top equipment, which I've never bought into.

It would be nice to put a 1DsMk3 on the 400f2.8L IS and the TCs, but unless I pursue some type of equipment financing or become such a fixture that I can afford it out of profits, it likely never will happen, so I'll just borrow now and then from CPS and keep working and hoping, working and hoping.

Aside from a few specialized applications, I've shot only in RAW for the last two years. I've been sold on it a long time and started shooting it immediately after I converted to digital more than three years ago. Aside from the ease in changing settings on the PS preview screen with RAW images (you can do some of these tasks with a jpeg in PS once it's opened but it's more hassle), in the end a RAW image will allow you to make a bigger enlargement before the image starts to fall apart.

Well, that got a little long. Sorry 'bout that. Seemed like good stuff to write at the time.

And any and all comments on these thoughts are welcome. They're not Gospel, just the way I'm doing things now.

[jonny_redhorse]

back to the monitors .......my old 21" dell crt(made by sony) is in the garage collecting dust ....just don't want to pay the st.louis county 12 bucks to get rid of it...thing still works!....must weigh 70 pounds ...were talkin monolith here ....maybe use it as an anchor

[Steve Foss]

Jonny, we've got an old high-quality 21-inch, too. I believe 70 pounds is right on the money! We just use it now on an older computer dedicated to our drum scanner, but man it takes up a lot of room.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Quote:

---

Would it be nice to have the 40D? Sure.

---

Steve,from what I have read on some of the Canon sites,and from speaking to the guys at Canon on their 800 number,you will find a little more noise in certain situations from the 40D.

The Canon "dude" told me 10 megs was really pushing the crop size sensors to the edge. He said the 8.2 was a good fit for that sensor size and if I wanted bigger and cleaner,to go with a 5D,or another full frame-which I did. If I find the 5D isn't substantially better than the 30-it's going back.

[Steve Foss]

Yeah, that's one reason I'm not all that excited about the 40D. An extra two Mp doesn't help me in any real meaningful way, and the 40D is basically using the XTi sensor, which is fine but, as we know, the more pixels you cram onto a sensor, the higher the noise. Canon put 10 Mp into the 40D only for marketing purposes, trying to keep up with or stay ahead of the Joneses in the megapixel wars.

Now, that Digic III processor in the 40D will cut down on some of that, and the 40D is an excellent camera and a particularly fine upgrade from the Rebel series.

If I do add a body, it'll be a used 5D or a new one as soon as prices drop when its successor is announced. I'm with you on that. Shot one awhile back and those 12 Mp on a full-frame sensor makes it sweet, sweet, sweet. Whether you find it better than the 30D will depend, of course, on how you use and and for what. Its burst rate is the slow 3fps max, but it wasn't developed for sports and high burst rate specialties, but for portraits, landscapes and macro. Particularly shooting in RAW, you'll be able to make prints significantly larger than the 20x30 I've been able to pull off with the 30D. That's due in part to the extra 4Mp, but at least as much, as perhaps more, because 12 Mp on that large sensor means each pixel is larger than the ones on the 8 and 10 Mp 1.6 crop sensors.

You'll have to let me know what you think of yours after some serious test driving. Aside from the prestige and long life of the "1" series, I just don't need all that for my business, and it's the 5D that has me somewhat interested in adding another body with the 30D becoming a backup.