I agree somewhat ... In the end, you do need a reference calibration for the printer and why not take it a step further - why not nuetralize the camera sensor and image file ?

Trying to Color Correct looking at a monitor and then printing out can be hit or miss at best.
Your eyes can easily deceive you.
Going by the numbers is a proven way to produce a color accurate file.
Couple that with a correctly calibrated/nuetral printer and you are all set.

I started my life in photography some years ago as an apprentice to a pair of commercial photographers back in the days of film.
They shot primarily large format and 120 roll film.
I got to do the developing and printing...so I got my hands wet and my butt reamed when I ran a bunch of prints not up to their standards.
These guys were not only accomplished photographers but also technicians as well.
You really needed to know your stuff to get good repeatable results especially for demanding clients.

They drummed it in to my head to start off by making an in camera nuetral negative or transparency, and correctly exposed of course.
Various film emulsions required some amount of filtration to compensate for production batch differences and varying color temperature of the strobes or hot lights.
After that, everything else would fall in to place naturally - and they were right - good negatives made good prints.
The same holds true for digital files.

The steps I outlined only seem to be complicated at first, like reading an exciting technical manual.
They are in fact simple once you do it once or twice.
A couple of clicks with the eyedropper and you are pretty much done.
You've got a great foundation for added creativity if you so desire.

If not, you can always lessen the effect by fading the adjustment layer to your personal taste if you so decide.

From the Old School :tiphat:

I think we're trying to say the same thing:tiphat:. That's why I use the RAW file as my base image. It's usually already a neutral starting point. I've used the curves method plenty of times and it can be very helpful. All I'm saying is that color correction or any other type of correction doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to fall into an acceptable range for the final displayed type. I've had the same images up on my iPhone, monitor and printer and all three display color very differently. Heck, the ambient room lighting you're viewing the device/print in changes how your eye sees color. It's really frustrating actually, but that's physics for ya.

It can also vary depending on what photo sharing site you're using and the final image file you save it as. Facebook for example, won't do your images any justice. The way they compress images makes them muddy. It's a wash trying to critique an image's color calibration if you're not seeing it on the exact same monitor in the exact same room. I create architectural renderings for clients and I kid you not, many can't comprehend that shade, shadows and brightness changes what color your eyes see. I show them one without shadows and they wonder why it doesn't look realistic:confused:

I totally agree that putting the work in to make it "perfect" will give you a stunning picture. I know it might not even be what you're sating, but I just think people can go overboard real fast trying to post process what should already be a great shot. Today's DSLR's do a pretty impressive job at calculating the correct exposure and color balance, why not take advantage?

Awesome!
Agree 100% on all counts! Especially overprocessing and exaggerated use of filters.
Every avenue of viewing is different whether it be a monitor or print.
I tend to favor prints because that's where I cut my teeth in photography.
And the end result is more in your control as well, so you can present your work without the unknown variables coming in to play.
I'm still using my Nikon D3 which in the digital realm of technology is almost a dinosaur.
Got tired of shelling out $thousands every 6 months just to keep up with the latest and greatest.
Might think of upgrading to a newer model once the 370z build is finished and paid for though !
In the meantime I can still make awesome quality images with it and with a little help from our friends at Adobe [still using CS3 btw ...:eek:...once you've got the basics down you realize that most of the upgraded features are just repackaged actions or bundled tools].
I've also 'recalibrated' my Hasselblad Digital back to import images with a pre-correction to offset the green cast inherent in the raw image.
Thanks for posting !

I'm actually thinking of doing the opposite and saving up to buy a medium format Mamiya or Hassalblad. I still shoot my Nikon FM when I'm feeling nostalgic. Tough finding film and a place to develop though. I do want to take a shot at developing at home.

:icon14:

http://media.giphy.com/media/5yLgoca...Ueu4/giphy.gif

lol, I meant the 120 film versions, like the 500c/m

Feedback and advice needed on these shots
 

Newbie here. Took some of shots when I saw hummingbirds. Really hard to shoot but want to learn more. Any feedback from anyone here on how to be better at it? ISO was really high.

ƒ/4.8
1/8000
ISO 8000 - about 11000


[IMG]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/623/2...9105d5ba_b.jpgADSC_1422 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/576/2...e31f1d31_b.jpgADSC_1395 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/725/2...b8409783_b.jpgADSC_1116 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]

^Nice shots man!:tiphat: But I would turn down the ISO little bit. 8000 is too high. It creates noises. Stay with 100 as much as possible especially at day time. But still, I love your pictures! :tup:

Nice Shots !
 

The Nature Pro's use a strobe set up for shots like this ... set up off camera and remotely fired.
Allows better depth and also almost completely stops movement [except perhaps for the wing tips]
Sharpness is greatly improved and you get more detail as well.
One of my friends photographs birds and insects this way ... He does get some great shots but he does throw away a lot of them too.

Took some rolling shots of my buddy's Zs. :)

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/...psu3erilqf.jpg

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/...psb5jsaylo.jpg

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/...psgpspxptj.jpg

I get it. Light is my friend on this one. Certainly don't have the right equipment but I think I understand how it should be set up. I'm still learning about how lighting make shots great/detailed or ugly and over exposed shots. On this one, I happen to be right there so it was in the moment and wouldn't know how to stage it properly which is almost what you have to do to get the depth and detail. I think if the feeder was not at the eave and out in the open, I'd get the natural light I need and done a much better job. I have better understanding. Thanks!

All of these awesome shots by you guys has inspired me to go back and edit a few engagement and wedding shots I did for family. This is one of my favorites but I can see where it could use some more work.
Hopefully by the time the kiddo is here, I'll be able to take some decent shots of him. I can't wait to share his birth announcement here. :)

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5803/...57acf7ec_c.jpgIMG_2112 by Panda House, on Flickr

:drool: Nice shots!!

These are very good.

Thanks!:tiphat: