[iophotoworks]

April 3, 2011 at 10:53 am

Yes, as thalpin said, in CS3 you must first change from 16 down to 8 bit before the JPEG option will show up in the ‘Save As..’ dialog.
In CS5 the JPEG option will show up even on 16 bit files and they will automatically be converted to 8-bit on conversion.

If the JPEGS are intended for web use it might also be worth checking that the embedded profile is sRGB and not something else like Adobe RGB. Some email clients and web browsers are not colour management aware and just assume all JPEGS are sRGB – if the file is not sRGB then the colours will really messed up when rendered by such clients.

[iophotoworks]

March 30, 2011 at 10:31 am

With a JPEG the heavy processing is done inside the camera and the file is not as ‘flexible’ for further editing apart from small tweaks. If you make large changes to contrast & brightness the file can easily look overcooked or have posterization (like banding)

With RAW the file is designed for editing and you have a ‘deep’ file that can by pushed and pulled. Even if your exposure is not spot on you can over recover detail from a RAW file as you have 12 to 14 bits of data typically.

Think of the RAW file as a ‘negative’ was with film. Think of a JPEG as a Polaroid camera where you are just getting a finished print and the negative is discarded.

I would advise you to shoot RAW only if excellent image quality and further editing is important to you. If not, then JPEG is fine for casual stuff.

Have fun…

[iophotoworks]

March 29, 2011 at 6:40 pm

Welcome to the forum Kevin. You will find very helpful people here always willing to give advice.
When it comes to getting some of your work printed feel free to get in touch.

All the best!

[iophotoworks]

March 29, 2011 at 1:50 pm

Hi Alwyn,

You are welcome to call into iophotoworks sometime to see high quality B&W images on various papers.

Our B&W images are as good as the best darkroom print and don’t have colour casts. The secret to this is in very careful calibration on the printer side as well as using good quality paper.

Even our very basic low-cost photo paper RC is a high quality material from French company Canson. For the ultimate B&W we also have Baryta and cotton papers from Hahnemuhle.

Only thing is we don’t print smaller that 10″x8″ unless it is tied in with an exhibitions.

Regards,

[iophotoworks]

January 27, 2011 at 9:52 pm

HI Kevin,

It might seem strange to you at first but this almost uncomfortably dim level is a better representation of how the photograph would be on print. If you put it much higher than this you may end up editing your images in a way that makes them darker thus your prints will look too dark when you get them.

You may need to subdue the light in your working environment a little to cope with the more correct display brightness level. The problem with a lot of non-professional screens is they are glossy and to avoid reflections people turn up the backlight. They are an ergonomic disaster compared to matte displays. Some of these ultra-bright glossy displays don’t represent colour as well at the dimmer setting but there’s nothing you can do about that.

On professional displays 120 cd/m2 is even a bit too bright. On the EIZOs that I use, I set it at the recommended brightness 80 cd/m2 and these displays are even able to render accurate colour at this low setting I don’t think you need to go this low unless you are doing printing professionally.

Hope this helps!

Tony

[iophotoworks]

January 25, 2011 at 12:56 am

In Europe, 6500K is the most common setting for photography and graphics with Gamma 2.2.
Some would argue that if you are not working on a professional display (e.g. Eizo etc.) then you might be better off just leaving the display at its native white point instead of forcing it to 6500K. You will find most of them are quite close to this anyway and your eyes will adjust to the difference.

The most important thing is that you are calibrating your screen (as you are) and that you set the correct level of brightness (usually between 90-120 cd/m2). Whatever you do don’t set the screen to Adobe RGB or anything like that. Use your custom display profile.

Only the files should be in something like Adobe RGB – quite orthogonal to the display profile settings. The colour setting in your camera only affects the Jpegs it produces and not RAW. If you want your Raw files to go into Adobe RGB specfically you would need to set that in the workflow options in your RAW converter. If you use Lightroom it actually uses ProPhoto 16 bit internally and you can export files in whatever you want (typically Adobe RGB TIFF 8-bit to go to a publisher but it can vary depending in what they ask for)

The print profiles will be set by the designer/printer – you normally don’t need to do that (and you shouldn’t even try)

[iophotoworks]

January 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm

The internal working space in Lightroom is ‘Pro Photo’, 16bpc. This is not entirely obvious in the Lightroom UI.
The reason that Adobe use this internally is that Pro Photo has a huge colour gamut and 16 bits gives you enough levels to not only contain a 10, 12 or 14 bit RAW file but also it allows some heavy post-processing without pushing colours out of gamut or introducing posterization or banding.

If you set your workflow options in Camera RAW as well as the ‘Colour Settings’ in Photoshop to match the internal LR environment (Pro Photo 16bbc) you may possibly avoid the banding you are seeing. However, if for example ACR and Photoshop were set to 8-bit and Adobe RGB (and I see this all the time on clients computers) then you would not have as much editing flexibility as in Lightroom and the likelihood of introducing banding is higher.

Please note especially that Pro Photo and 8-bit is a very dangerous combination as you have a huge gamut with only 255 levels per channel so the chances of seeing or introducing posterization and banding with that combo are quite high. If you choose to use the power of Pro Photo then you really need to work in 16-bit bit-depth all the way through.

Also note that when you export to put things on the web then you are usually chopping the file down to 8-bit JPEG, sRGB and thus banding may be introduced at that point.

Hope this is helpful and makes some sense.

[iophotoworks]

January 12, 2011 at 9:44 pm

We are out of stock on the Pigma pens for now. Sorry.
I would be careful buying them on eBay as they may not be genuine. You are going to a lot of trouble buying a pen that is certified archival pigment so don’t buy from a dodgy source – at least if using eBay buy from an Art Shop with an eBay presence. They are easy enough to buy in Continental Europe at the retail level if you are traveling – most art shops would have them.

An alternative here is the Staedtler pigment liners which are available in Easons for about 3 euros. They are not certified archival but are solvent free, acid free etc so are probably good enough.

Some people use pencil on softer paper (or the back of fine-art paper). This can rub off though.
Stay away from permanent pens especially as they contain lots of nasties. Hope this helps.

[iophotoworks]

January 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm

You can buy nice portfolio boxes from silverprint.co.uk, also from monochrom.de
Also an idea to one made up to order with you own design/colour scheme (I can arrange this) – a bit nicer that the factory ones

Regarding folios, we import the original Brooks Jensen design folios from the US in a few colours and can supply a package of fine-art prints in one of these (before you ask we don’t sell them on their own… sorry)

[iophotoworks]

January 5, 2011 at 12:00 am

Damien’s post above summarises it well.

Every sensor has a native or base ISO. At this setting no amplification of the signal takes place (i.e. the gain on the sensor is not adjusted). Signal amplification induces noise and/or lowers the dynamic range. Additionally at native ISO, no software manipulation of the exposure would be applied in camera (some cameras have allow fake ISO values at both ends that don’t amplify electronically but actually under/over expose and then adjust in camera).

Unfortunately and surprisingly, camera manufacturers don’t make it obvious what the native ISO actually is and tend to round to 100 or 200 (Canon is 100, Nikon is 200). Testing of quite a few sensors has shown that the optimal performance is often closer to ISO 160 and if you set that value (or multiples of same 320, 640 etc) you might get the most noise-free results.

I use a Leica M9 and interestingly, the default ISO setting in that camera at 160 and the user interface kind of encourages you to use multiples of this number. The other manufacturers seem to use 100s (for user-friendliness perhaps?) but it is possible that these values not be hitting the sweet-spot of the sensor. A lot has been written about this subject online if you google.

[iophotoworks]

January 4, 2011 at 11:12 pm

I’ve written a short article about different approaches to signing prints. It’s on the iophotoworks website

http://www.iophotoworks.com/tech/signing/signing.html” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope you find some of it helpful.
Note I spent some time in the US so sometimes use American terms. I just noticed I refer to mounts as mattboards – it’s the same thing.

Most of our clients sign the print itself usually on the front (sometimes on the back) almost always with an archival pen and not pencil.

[iophotoworks]

October 25, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Hi RAS,

Yes, we do this and I’m sure you can find someone in Dublin also. It’s not complicated.
Most framers are happy enough to make custom mounts also and provide bags.
There should be no need to go to UK for something as simple as that.

Give me a call anytime if you need any advice.

All the best!

[iophotoworks]

October 25, 2010 at 6:39 pm

– Leica M7 loaded with HP5+
– Summilux 50 Asph (on camera)
– 2 extra rolls of HP5+
– Sekonic 308s
– Kodak Grey Card
– LensPen
– Hurricane Blower
– Small Notebook and pen
– XXX Extra Strong Mints

Tomorrow it will probably be a totally different permutation of gear ;-)

[iophotoworks]

October 25, 2010 at 4:25 pm

They should be mounted using a cold press (e.g. Drytac Jetmounter) and pressure sensitive d/s film like the one from Hot Press.
I am sure this is what Steve meant as he said “cold press double-sided mount film”

[iophotoworks]

October 25, 2010 at 1:15 pm

You can’t beat IKEA for value!

Just make sure that the plastic used in safe for storage. Some plastics aren’t suitable for this.
Polyester or polypropylene (biaxially oriented) are fine.
Avoid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as it usually contains plasticizers. These will cause rapid yellowing.