Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

confused about color management????

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 1:01:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Cross-posting, to reach different groups of people with slightly
different interests and presumably experience.

I have been reading up a lot on color management. I am truly, truly
confused about the options, and especially the price range the gear
to accomplish all this. Except for the digital camera part of my
question, these questions are the same for me for both digital and
film "inputs."

Intuitively, the color management process should start with my digital
camera and end up with my printer or printers. So, I be starting with
the camera, or the camera for each w/b setting? What about different
lenses? And in order to be objective, I should photograph a known
color target. Yes/No?

I have 8 different Nikon lenses, some D-series but most are MF AI. Do
I really want to do a test for each different lens?

Then I think I somehow have to set my monitor to display colors to
match the test targets, but do I need to establish a separate ICC
profile for the camera et all plus monitor, or just the monitor? What
if (I should be so lucky!) to have two D SLRs or a D SLR and a
point-and-shoot? How do I control for those variables?

Is it necessary to do a separate camera profile for each w/b setting?

Now that the camera and monitor are set up, presumably I do test
prints. How do those get calibrated? I have read on some web sites
that you need to do a separate profile for each different paper you
use. That's a lot of profiling?

Do I need a separate printer profiling for each paper for each
camera/w-b/lens/monitor setting, or can I simplify things
considerably?

Now, I have thousands and thousands of film slides, plus color
negative and black-and-white negatives, What happens when I get a
scanner? How does that get calibrated? If I scan in Kodachrome,
various Ektachrome, some color negative, and some black-and-white,
what do I need to do? Do I do film photos of the test targets?

So, I'm confused as to what I really need to do, and how often I
should do it. And how much time I should expect to spend on each
step. What do I need to buy (or rent) to accomplish all this, and how
much should I be prepared to spend? and where do I get all this?

And while we're on the topic, can this same exercise also calibrate my
digital or film camera's exposure meter or my external Pentax
Spotmeter V, or the shutters of my film cameras? Or if not,what
additional items/work steps would allow me to do this calibration?

Any good web sites or books? Any suggestions for how to get started,
so I don't try to "boil the ocean" with this?
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 1:45:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:

> Do I need a separate printer profiling for each paper
> for each camera/w-b/lens/monitor setting, or can I simplify things

Once you get your monitor profiled, you can see all images as they will
print. The adobe gamma thingy in photoshop gets you pretty close, to be
picky, people get a 'spider' to put on the screen & re-test every couple
months or so. That's not very expensive.

In photoshop, decide on a standard working color space and set your
camera & scanner to output to that gamut (AdobeRGB probably).

Shoot in RAW and set your defaults to whatever pleases you (on the
profiled monitor) as far as saturation contrast, etc. Scanners might
need a profile but I never heard of a camera or lens profile. Photoshop
can save defaults for different cameras or lenses is you had a low
saturation lens maybe boost the default saturation for that but it's
probably overkill.

White balance can be corrected in raw processing. There is no profile
involved if your monitor is right.

Buy a profile for your combination of printer & paper, that seems to be
important. You could pay for stuff to do your own profiles but that
sounds like a major hassle. Just buy the manufacturer's paper & you're
good or get a profile for anything else.

I think that's basically it but verify you've got every step along the
way working: one bad link & the whole thing is screwed.

disclaimer: I've only been reading about this stuff & don't have a good
enough printer to have succeeded in closing the loop but I believe the
advice above is useful.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 5:45:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

> Any suggestions for how to get started,
> so I don't try to "boil the ocean" with this?

You don't need to calibrate your lenses and camera.

The calibration is to change the way Photoshop displays colours on your
monitor so that they look the same on screen as when they are printed
on paper. Different papers and inks can affect the printed output, so
ideally you want a different profile for each printer/paper/ink
combination, although you'll need to judge for yourself whether there
is any noticable difference and whether it is really worth it for you.

If you are sending your files away to be printed externally, then I
would imagine you're probably best to use some kind of standard
profile, but I've never done this so I will defer to those who have.

I'm also a "beginner" at this, so I hope my advice is more on your
level, than some of the more technical responses you've also got (I'll
be cioming back to this thread when I understand them!). It annoyed me
for ages that my monitor was richer than my printer output, forcing me
to oversaturate the on-screen display in order to get the picture I
wanted. I was doing by trial and error until someone explained about
profiles.
Related resources
June 13, 2005 6:55:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:

> Cross-posting, to reach different groups of people with slightly
> different interests and presumably experience.
>
> I have been reading up a lot on color management. I am truly, truly
> confused about the options, and especially the price range the gear
> to accomplish all this. Except for the digital camera part of my
> question, these questions are the same for me for both digital and
> film "inputs."

Get the book "Color confidence" By Tim Grey. Less than $10 used at amazon
and you will no longer be confused.


>
> Intuitively, the color management process should start with my digital
> camera and end up with my printer or printers. So, I be starting with
> the camera, or the camera for each w/b setting? What about different
> lenses? And in order to be objective, I should photograph a known
> color target. Yes/No?

Unless you are shooting in a fixed color temp of lighting all the time (i.e.
a home studio) there is no use or reason in trying to "profile" the camera.


>
> Then I think I somehow have to set my monitor to display colors to
> match the test targets, but do I need to establish a separate ICC
> profile for the camera et all plus monitor, or just the monitor?

Just the monitor. Adobe Gama can get you close. If you own a GOOD monitor,
it's worth buying a "spyder" to calibrate it.

>
> Is it necessary to do a separate camera profile for each w/b setting?

No No No!

>
> Now that the camera and monitor are set up, presumably I do test
> prints. How do those get calibrated? I have read on some web sites
> that you need to do a separate profile for each different paper you
> use. That's a lot of profiling?

Why are you going to use a bunch of different papers? Pick one paper you
like and use someplace like Cathy's profiles to get an accurate profile
made for your printer. Don't trust the canned profile that comes with
-your- printer to be accurate for -your- idividual sample of that printer.

>
> Do I need a separate printer profiling for each paper for each
> camera/w-b/lens/monitor setting, or can I simplify things
> considerably?

You only need a profile for each printer/paper/ink combo and a profile for
your monitor.

>
> Now, I have thousands and thousands of film slides, plus color
> negative and black-and-white negatives, What happens when I get a
> scanner? How does that get calibrated?

Again calibrate the monitor and it if looks right there, you're golden. A
good film scanner shouldn't need to have profiles made for it.

>
> So, I'm confused as to what I really need to do, and how often I
> should do it.

Again get the book I mentioned so you actually understand what is involved
and why you're doing it. I can't write a book here to explain it! It's not
as complicated as you're making it out to be.


>
> And while we're on the topic, can this same exercise also calibrate my
> digital or film camera's exposure meter or my external Pentax
> Spotmeter V, or the shutters of my film cameras?

From this I can really tell you don't understand what color management is.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 1:50:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

In article <g71qa1dumjuplhb24mea9aku5hmpf2jc3l@4ax.com>,
dont_bother@IDontCare.COM says...
> Cross-posting, to reach different groups of people with slightly
> different interests and presumably experience.
>
> I have been reading up a lot on color management. I am truly, truly
> confused about the options, and especially the price range the gear
> to accomplish all this. Except for the digital camera part of my
> question, these questions are the same for me for both digital and
> film "inputs."
>
> Intuitively, the color management process should start with my digital
> camera and end up with my printer or printers. So, I be starting with
> the camera, or the camera for each w/b setting? What about different
> lenses? And in order to be objective, I should photograph a known
> color target. Yes/No?
>
> I have 8 different Nikon lenses, some D-series but most are MF AI. Do
> I really want to do a test for each different lens?
>
> Then I think I somehow have to set my monitor to display colors to
> match the test targets, but do I need to establish a separate ICC
> profile for the camera et all plus monitor, or just the monitor? What
> if (I should be so lucky!) to have two D SLRs or a D SLR and a
> point-and-shoot? How do I control for those variables?
>
> Is it necessary to do a separate camera profile for each w/b setting?
>
> Now that the camera and monitor are set up, presumably I do test
> prints. How do those get calibrated? I have read on some web sites
> that you need to do a separate profile for each different paper you
> use. That's a lot of profiling?
>
> Do I need a separate printer profiling for each paper for each
> camera/w-b/lens/monitor setting, or can I simplify things
> considerably?
>
> Now, I have thousands and thousands of film slides, plus color
> negative and black-and-white negatives, What happens when I get a
> scanner? How does that get calibrated? If I scan in Kodachrome,
> various Ektachrome, some color negative, and some black-and-white,
> what do I need to do? Do I do film photos of the test targets?
>
> So, I'm confused as to what I really need to do, and how often I
> should do it. And how much time I should expect to spend on each
> step. What do I need to buy (or rent) to accomplish all this, and how
> much should I be prepared to spend? and where do I get all this?
>
> And while we're on the topic, can this same exercise also calibrate my
> digital or film camera's exposure meter or my external Pentax
> Spotmeter V, or the shutters of my film cameras? Or if not,what
> additional items/work steps would allow me to do this calibration?
The purpose of profilling is so that as you display an image on
different media it will look "the same".
So you need to profile your monitor. You need profiles for your
printer/paper combinations, and you need a profile for your scanner.
The scanner profile allows the software to compensate for distortions
created by the scanner itself.
I have several discussions of this topic in the tips section of my
web site. You may find a couple of them useful to you.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 5:52:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:55:32 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Father Kodak wrote:
>

>
>Get the book "Color confidence" By Tim Grey. Less than $10 used at amazon
>and you will no longer be confused.
>


>
>From this I can really tell you don't understand what color management is.

True enough. That is precisely why I posted this question. Thank you
very much for the book suggestion.

Kodak
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 2:21:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Chadwick wrote:
> > Any suggestions for how to get started,
> > so I don't try to "boil the ocean" with this?
>
> You don't need to calibrate your lenses and camera.

Okay I'm going to jump in here.

My monitor is already calibrated and well at that too. But I have a
couple of digital cameras and have observed that they capture color
differently. How can I *automatically* correct this, perhaps through
profiling for a digital camera, in photoshop or PSP, so I can be sure
that the colors shot with the camera are those in reality?





>
> The calibration is to change the way Photoshop displays colours on your
> monitor so that they look the same on screen as when they are printed
> on paper. Different papers and inks can affect the printed output, so
> ideally you want a different profile for each printer/paper/ink
> combination, although you'll need to judge for yourself whether there
> is any noticable difference and whether it is really worth it for you.
>
> If you are sending your files away to be printed externally, then I
> would imagine you're probably best to use some kind of standard
> profile, but I've never done this so I will defer to those who have.
>
> I'm also a "beginner" at this, so I hope my advice is more on your
> level, than some of the more technical responses you've also got (I'll
> be cioming back to this thread when I understand them!). It annoyed me
> for ages that my monitor was richer than my printer output, forcing me
> to oversaturate the on-screen display in order to get the picture I
> wanted. I was doing by trial and error until someone explained about
> profiles.
June 14, 2005 3:55:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:55:32 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Father Kodak wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>Get the book "Color confidence" By Tim Grey. Less than $10 used at amazon
>>and you will no longer be confused.
>>
>
>
>>
>>From this I can really tell you don't understand what color management
>>is.
>
> True enough. That is precisely why I posted this question. Thank you
> very much for the book suggestion.
>

Like I said, this subject is too involved to really learn it here from
asking a couple of questions and you're just as likely to get wrong answers
as right as lots of people seem to be confused on this topic. For less than
$10, this book will give you a good start into color managment. Sorry if my
last coment sounded "snippy" but as I said you need to sorta understand
color management to even know what questions to ask.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 3:55:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:55:09 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>Like I said, this subject is too involved to really learn it here from
>asking a couple of questions and you're just as likely to get wrong answers
>as right as lots of people seem to be confused on this topic. For less than
>$10, this book will give you a good start into color managment. Sorry if my
>last coment sounded "snippy" but as I said you need to sorta understand
>color management to even know what questions to ask.

Stacey,

Not all all snippy. Fact is, I'm very confused right now. And I
don't want to spend a whole lot of money just to find out that I have
wasted both time and money.

I'm still trying to figure out what problem it is that I need to
solve. And how to solve it. So your book suggestion is exactly what
I need. It's good that there are books available.

Abba Kodak
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:00:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2005 22:21:34 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
>Chadwick wrote:
>> > Any suggestions for how to get started,
>> > so I don't try to "boil the ocean" with this?
>>
>> You don't need to calibrate your lenses and camera.
>
>Okay I'm going to jump in here.
>
>My monitor is already calibrated and well at that too. But I have a
>couple of digital cameras and have observed that they capture color
>differently. How can I *automatically* correct this, perhaps through
>profiling for a digital camera, in photoshop or PSP, so I can be sure
>that the colors shot with the camera are those in reality?

I assume you are shooting RAW. If so you need to if using photoshop
CS2 calibrate for the sensor.

See: Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2: Industrial-Strength
Production Techniques
Bruce Fraser.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:01:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:45:04 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>Father Kodak wrote:
>
> > Do I need a separate printer profiling for each paper
> > for each camera/w-b/lens/monitor setting, or can I simplify things
>
>Once you get your monitor profiled, you can see all images as they will
>print. The adobe gamma thingy in photoshop gets you pretty close, to be
>picky, people get a 'spider' to put on the screen & re-test every couple
>months or so. That's not very expensive.
>
>In photoshop, decide on a standard working color space and set your
>camera & scanner to output to that gamut (AdobeRGB probably).
>
>Shoot in RAW and set your defaults to whatever pleases you (on the
>profiled monitor) as far as saturation contrast, etc. Scanners might
>need a profile but I never heard of a camera or lens profile. Photoshop
>can save defaults for different cameras or lenses is you had a low
>saturation lens maybe boost the default saturation for that but it's
>probably overkill.

You do need to calibrate your RAW convert in photoshop for your
sensor.

See: Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2: Industrial-Strength
Production Techniques
Bruce Fraser


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:58:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:g71qa1dumjuplhb24mea9aku5hmpf2jc3l@4ax.com...

Massive Snip

> And while we're on the topic, can this same exercise also calibrate my
> digital or film camera's exposure meter or my external Pentax
> Spotmeter V, or the shutters of my film cameras? Or if not,what
> additional items/work steps would allow me to do this calibration?
>
> Any good web sites or books? Any suggestions for how to get started,
> so I don't try to "boil the ocean" with this?
------------------------------------------
I have a process suitable for casual and experienced users that some
contributors seem to disagree with so your mileage may vary according the
religion of the spyder. I have six workstations at home and work which are
all balanced with this process and all print to 3 different printers with as
close as can be expected to the same results.

I also have an Epson r310 which *NEVER* has printed in unison with the other
printers so I only use it for printing CDs. If you have one of these
printers... Sign off now because this will be of no use to you. They are
incapable of managing their own colour with any degree of reliability.

1. Take a shot with your digital camera of (hopefully) a colour chart but if
not, at least a multi colour object. Make sure it is shot in daylight and
the colour temp of the white balance on "daylight" or 5500 Kelvin, not auto.

2. Print the picture on your printer set at factory defaults with the
correct paper type described and without any editing on your PC first.
Resize is OK.

3 Compare the print to the image on your screen of the picture... Preferably
not in Photoshop. Internet Explorer is a good for this or the native image
viewer of Windows XP.

4. Adjust the colours of your monitor via either the monitor's own colour
adjustments or the ones found in most Windows PCs under screen properties ,
advanced , colour management until it looks like the print.

The theory here is that if the camera takes a close to colour correct
picture and the printer prints a close to colour correct print (most do out
of the box - except some Epson's like 200 210, 300 310, RX MFs) and it
doesn't match the one you see on the screen, adjust your screen to fit the
other two.

See how you go. Some will claim only a spyder costing big bucks and some God
awfully complicated procedure will do but I have never found this a very
compelling reason for the spyder sitting in my draw that is no better than
this system.

Douglas
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:58:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42aeb84c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> I have a process suitable for casual and experienced users that some
contributors seem to disagree with so your mileage may vary according the
religion of the spyder. I have six workstations at home and work which are
all balanced with this process and all print to 3 different printers with as
close as can be expected to the same results.
>
> I also have an Epson r310 which *NEVER* has printed in unison with the
> other printers so I only use it for printing CDs. If you have one of these
> printers... Sign off now because this will be of no use to you. They are
> incapable of managing their own colour with any degree of reliability.
>
> 1. Take a shot with your digital camera of (hopefully) a colour chart but
> if not, at least a multi colour object. Make sure it is shot in daylight
> and
the colour temp of the white balance on "daylight" or 5500 Kelvin, not
auto.
>
> 2. Print the picture on your printer set at factory defaults with the
> correct paper type described and without any editing on your PC first.
> Resize is OK.
>
> 3 Compare the print to the image on your screen of the picture...
> Preferably not in Photoshop. Internet Explorer is a good for this or the
> native image viewer of Windows XP.
>
> 4. Adjust the colours of your monitor via either the monitor's own colour
> adjustments or the ones found in most Windows PCs under screen properties
> , advanced , colour management until it looks like the print.
>
> The theory here is that if the camera takes a close to colour correct
picture and the printer prints a close to colour correct print (most do out
of the box - except some Epson's like 200 210, 300 310, RX MFs) and it
doesn't match the one you see on the screen, adjust your screen to fit the
other two.
>
See how you go. Some will claim only a spyder costing big bucks and some
God awfully complicated procedure will do but I have never found this a very
compelling reason for the spyder sitting in my draw that is no better than
this system.
>
> Douglas
------------------------------
Great! At last a common sense approach for those of us who do not want to
go through a time consuming/costly process to print decent (maybe not the
best) photos.
It makes sense to me to *start* at the final stage (printing) and work
backwards to the monitor. I need to try this approach.
When I view a photo in Windows (jpg) (or NikonView (RAW)), then Photoshop,
and view the print, each is entirely different. The viewer supposedly
applies the in-camera settings and photos look great. Input the same photo
in Photoshop and it looks dark and underexposed and must be level adjusted
to even start to do any further tweaking.
The final print, using the default high quality setting in the Epson R800,
does not resemble any of the previously viewed options.
A possible cause (common to us uninformed users) is the color management
selections in the camera and in photoshop do not agree. Even with the proper
settings, the results do not change much. I seem to get better results by
choosing "no color management" in PS.
For those of us who use LCD monitors, monitor calibration is difficult (or
impossible if a direct digital connection is in place).
Don F
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:58:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

In article <gcAre.28635$rb6.21103@lakeread07>,
Don F <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote:
> Great! At last a common sense approach for those of us who do not want to
>go through a time consuming/costly process to print decent (maybe not the
>best) photos.
> It makes sense to me to *start* at the final stage (printing) and work
>backwards to the monitor. I need to try this approach.

There are a couple of drawbacks with this approach. First is that it works
only for one printer.

The second problem, which is more serious in my opinion, is that you cannot
exchange pictures with other people, because everybody uses a completely
different color space.

A final problem is that you cannot really change the color space of a
monitor. You can change the white balance, and you have some control over
the contrast. Printer output is CMY(K), which is quite different from
RGB color spaces.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:58:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:37:29 -0400, "Don F" <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com>
wrote:


>------------------------------
> Great! At last a common sense approach for those of us who do not want to
>go through a time consuming/costly process to print decent (maybe not the
>best) photos.
> It makes sense to me to *start* at the final stage (printing) and work
>backwards to the monitor. I need to try this approach.

This seems intuitive enough.

> When I view a photo in Windows (jpg) (or NikonView (RAW)), then Photoshop,
>and view the print, each is entirely different. The viewer supposedly
>applies the in-camera settings and photos look great. Input the same photo
>in Photoshop and it looks dark and underexposed and must be level adjusted
>to even start to do any further tweaking.

It sounds like there are some defaults in place on either Photoshop or
the Windows viewer. Have you discovered a consistent "offset?"

> The final print, using the default high quality setting in the Epson R800,
>does not resemble any of the previously viewed options.

Is that because the monitor/printer combination hasn't been
calibrated. Again, is there a consistent "offset between monitor (with
each application) and printer?

> A possible cause (common to us uninformed users) is the color management
>selections in the camera and in photoshop do not agree. Even with the proper
>settings, the results do not change much. I seem to get better results by

Somehow that seems counter-intuitive.

>choosing "no color management" in PS.
> For those of us who use LCD monitors, monitor calibration is difficult (or
>impossible if a direct digital connection is in place).

Can you explain why an LCD monitor, or an LCD monitor with direct
digital connection is difficult or impossible to do color managements?
I'm no expert in displays, but my strong impression is that LCDs are
rapidly displaying CRT displays everywhere. Does the video card, or
the quality of the video card, play a role in this problem?
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:58:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

>> When I view a photo in Windows (jpg) (or NikonView (RAW)), then Photoshop,
>>and view the print, each is entirely different. The viewer supposedly
>>applies the in-camera settings and photos look great. Input the same photo
>>in Photoshop and it looks dark and underexposed and must be level adjusted
>>to even start to do any further tweaking.
>
>
> It sounds like there are some defaults in place on either Photoshop or
> the Windows viewer. Have you discovered a consistent "offset?"
>

I don't shoot RAW, so I don't use the Canon File Viewer utility a lot. I
use Photoshop Elements 2 that I got with my 300D.
All photos always look brighter in PS than in the Windows viewer.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:58:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message "Don F"
<donf11@NOSPAMhome.com>
> wrote:
>>------------------------------
>> Great! At last a common sense approach for those of us who do not want
>> to
>>go through a time consuming/costly process to print decent (maybe not the
>>best) photos.
>> It makes sense to me to *start* at the final stage (printing) and work
>>backwards to the monitor. I need to try this approach.
>
> This seems intuitive enough.
>
>> When I view a photo in Windows (jpg) (or NikonView (RAW)), then
>> Photoshop, and view the print, each is entirely different. The viewer
>> supposedly applies the in-camera settings and photos look great. Input
>> the same photo in Photoshop and it looks dark and underexposed and must
>> be level adjusted to even start to do any further tweaking.
>
> It sounds like there are some defaults in place on either Photoshop or
> the Windows viewer. Have you discovered a consistent "offset?"
>
I should have been more explicit. I shoot mostly RAW and use NikonView
(for viewing) and I use both Nikon Capture and PS to edit my photos. I
understand that most viewers apply the in-camera settings to the RAW data
before being presented on the monitor.
RAW data file contains both in-camera setting information and the RAW
photo digital information seperately. Photo editors discard all in camera
settings and use only the "RAW" data. This is (probably) the reason for the
"offset" I experience.
I am fairly certain that this problem would disappear if I shot using the
JPEG format.
Bottom line is I am attempting to establish a work-flow method that
requires a minimum of post processing and I still insist on using the RAW
data format. That doesn't make sense.

>> The final print, using the default high quality setting in the Epson
>> R800, does not resemble any of the previously viewed options.
>
> Is that because the monitor/printer combination hasn't been
> calibrated. Again, is there a consistent "offset between monitor (with
> each application) and printer?

A good digital camera can record an impressive amount of color and
brightness information. A monitor displays a lesser amount of that
information and the printer (the weakest link in the chain) only displays a
fraction of what is seen on the monitor.
This is why Douglas' method of starting with a satisfactory print makes
sense to me. The final print will *only* be a compromised use of the
original color and brightness information and will be based on subjective
conclusions.

>> A possible cause (common to us uninformed users) is the color management
>> selections in the camera and in photoshop do not agree. Even with the
>> proper settings, the results do not change much. I seem to get better
>> results by choosing "no color management" in PS.
> Somehow that seems counter-intuitive.

That statement was made as an observation of some time consuming
*uneducated* PS tweaking results I got when I a better result was obtained
by just turning off color managment.
This statement is not meant to be educational ... just venting.

> For those of us who use LCD monitors, monitor calibration is difficult
> (or impossible if a direct digital connection is in place).
> Can you explain why an LCD monitor, or an LCD monitor with direct
> digital connection is difficult or impossible to do color managements?
> I'm no expert in displays, but my strong impression is that LCDs are
> rapidly displaying CRT displays everywhere. Does the video card, or
> the quality of the video card, play a role in this problem?

From what I understand, a critical adjustment in monitor calibration is
the "Contrast" adjustment. "Contrast" adjustment is lost with an LCD monitor
with a direct digital connection (at least with my monitor).
Don F
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:58:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:02:14 -0400, "Don F" <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com>
wrote:


>
> From what I understand, a critical adjustment in monitor calibration is
>the "Contrast" adjustment. "Contrast" adjustment is lost with an LCD monitor
>with a direct digital connection (at least with my monitor).


>Don F

Don, What monitor and video card? Do you think that different
revisions of the video card drive make a difference?

PK
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 3:08:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:20:54 -0700, Father Kodak

I should have written "driver" below.

FK

<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:02:14 -0400, "Don F" <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>> From what I understand, a critical adjustment in monitor calibration is
>>the "Contrast" adjustment. "Contrast" adjustment is lost with an LCD monitor
>>with a direct digital connection (at least with my monitor).
>
>
>>Don F
>
>Don, What monitor and video card? Do you think that different
>revisions of the video card drive make a difference?
>
>PK
June 15, 2005 5:15:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Don F wrote:


> A possible cause (common to us uninformed users) is the color management
> selections in the camera and in photoshop do not agree. Even with the
> proper
> settings, the results do not change much. I seem to get better results by
> choosing "no color management" in PS.
>

Then you are either doing it wrong or have really bad color profiles. The
problem with doing this "color chart" thing is there are WAY more colors
than you can adjust for this way. I guess if you're not picky this would
sorta work. Seems like a lame way to do it unless you abhor reading and
understanding color management. BTW doing this you do realise you'll never
be able to send pictures, post images or have stuff printed outside of your
home and expect them to look even decent don't you?.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:12:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:fgpua1tm934dg9rf3hgb6a02pmutftnann@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:02:14 -0400, "Don F" >
> Don, What monitor and video card? Do you think that different
> revisions of the video card drive make a difference?
>
> PK
----------
PK, I have a Samsung SyncMaster 172T monitor and a ATI 9600 XT video board
using Catalyst 5.1 driver.
Don F
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <gcAre.28635$rb6.21103@lakeread07>,
> Don F <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote:
>
>> Great! At last a common sense approach for those of us who do not want to
>>go through a time consuming/costly process to print decent (maybe not the
>>best) photos.
>> It makes sense to me to *start* at the final stage (printing) and work
>>backwards to the monitor. I need to try this approach.
>
>
> There are a couple of drawbacks with this approach. First is that it works
> only for one printer.
>
> The second problem, which is more serious in my opinion, is that you cannot
> exchange pictures with other people, because everybody uses a completely
> different color space.
>
> A final problem is that you cannot really change the color space of a
> monitor. You can change the white balance, and you have some control over
> the contrast. Printer output is CMY(K), which is quite different from
> RGB color spaces.
>
>
Phillip...
I didn't really intend to get into a rumble with people over this post
but what you are saying is totally without foundation. For starters,
almost every monitor with digital, on screen adjustments, allows you to
change the colour of the individual RGB channels to balance colour. If
they don't, every mainboard with onboard graphics and nearly every video
card have facilites to manipulate the RGB colours to balance the colour.

No Windows Printer (ones which use the Windows interface to driver the
printer - commonly called winprinters and most inkjets are) accepts CMYK
data from the PC. They accept RGB data and if they need to, convert it
to CMYK themselves, without any facility to alter the data after conversion.

I will agree that if you get it wrong... And to get it wrong so too, do
the manufacturer's of the camera and printer need to be wrong, you could
have a problem exchanging pictures with other people. I have never found
that to be the case.

Photoshop is a professional program, supposedly for use by professionals
who know all about balanced colour. It's not my place to comment on why
rank amatures buy the program and expect to get Professional results but
the primary reason for bad print output is not the printer or camera but
a poorly configured colour management in Photoshop.

I sell a lot of Photoshop and I have discovered the easiest way to
overcome this problem is to switch off colour management alltogether and
rely instead on camera and printer makers. Presuming in the process that
a default printer installation will print close colours and a camera
will (if the white balance is right) take a close to correct picture.

Along with that comes "print with preview" and allow the printer to
manage it's own affairs. Maybe later, the user might want closer to
exact colour but for starters, why confuse the issue with information
the newbe can't understand?
Douglas
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:53:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

In article <42afa657$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> In article <gcAre.28635$rb6.21103@lakeread07>,
>> Don F <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote:
>> A final problem is that you cannot really change the color space of a
>> monitor. You can change the white balance, and you have some control over
>> the contrast. Printer output is CMY(K), which is quite different from
>> RGB color spaces.
>>
>>
>I didn't really intend to get into a rumble with people over this post
>but what you are saying is totally without foundation.

Maybe you can start by actually reading what I wrote.

>For starters,
>almost every monitor with digital, on screen adjustments, allows you to
>change the colour of the individual RGB channels to balance colour. If
>they don't, every mainboard with onboard graphics and nearly every video
>card have facilites to manipulate the RGB colours to balance the colour.

Like I said 'You can change the white balance'.

You cannot get outside sRGB with most monitors. Decent printers can produce
much more saturated yellows.

>No Windows Printer (ones which use the Windows interface to driver the
>printer - commonly called winprinters and most inkjets are) accepts CMYK
>data from the PC. They accept RGB data and if they need to, convert it
>to CMYK themselves, without any facility to alter the data after conversion.

I doesn't really matter whether the printer accepts data in CMYK or
RGB (you lose control over the black channel, but should not be a big
deal if the printer gets it right).

What matter is the color gamut. If the printer works hard to limit its
gamut to sRGB then it is better buy another printer.

If the printer simply makes its native color gamut available through RGB
there is nothing to worry about.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 6:00:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:37:29 -0400, "Don F" <donf11@NOSPAMhome.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>------------------------------
>> Great! At last a common sense approach for those of us who do not want to
>>go through a time consuming/costly process to print decent (maybe not the
>>best) photos.
>> It makes sense to me to *start* at the final stage (printing) and work
>>backwards to the monitor. I need to try this approach.
>
>
> This seems intuitive enough.
>
>
>> When I view a photo in Windows (jpg) (or NikonView (RAW)), then Photoshop,
>>and view the print, each is entirely different. The viewer supposedly
>>applies the in-camera settings and photos look great. Input the same photo
>>in Photoshop and it looks dark and underexposed and must be level adjusted
>>to even start to do any further tweaking.
>
>
> It sounds like there are some defaults in place on either Photoshop or
> the Windows viewer. Have you discovered a consistent "offset?"
>
>
>> The final print, using the default high quality setting in the Epson R800,
>>does not resemble any of the previously viewed options.
>
>
> Is that because the monitor/printer combination hasn't been
> calibrated. Again, is there a consistent "offset between monitor (with
> each application) and printer?
>
>
>> A possible cause (common to us uninformed users) is the color management
>>selections in the camera and in photoshop do not agree. Even with the proper
>>settings, the results do not change much. I seem to get better results by
>
>
> Somehow that seems counter-intuitive.
>
>
>>choosing "no color management" in PS.
>> For those of us who use LCD monitors, monitor calibration is difficult (or
>>impossible if a direct digital connection is in place).
>
>
> Can you explain why an LCD monitor, or an LCD monitor with direct
> digital connection is difficult or impossible to do color managements?
> I'm no expert in displays, but my strong impression is that LCDs are
> rapidly displaying CRT displays everywhere. Does the video card, or
> the quality of the video card, play a role in this problem?

LCDs are pretty good on colour as a general rule. RGB in RGB to see and
RGB out. Use that simple rule to get you started. Leave Photoshop colour
management to the Pros for now. In colour management, switch it off.

When you print, use print with preview and if you don't have a ICM
profile for the paper you are using, set the printer to use the proof as
source or again, let the printer do the colour management. ll the
setting are there.

Get it all back to basics. Camera RGB in, monitor adjust to match the
colour chart you shot, print from the first available program and
re-adjust the monitor.

Douglas
June 15, 2005 6:00:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> In colour management, switch it off.
>


I told you you'd get some REALLY bad information from people who know less
than you do! Get a book and don't listen to these people who say this is
"too hard". One evening of reading and maybe another to set it up and
you'll get PERFECT results everytime, not just sorta close some of the
time.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 6:00:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:20:39 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ryadia wrote:
>
>> In colour management, switch it off.
>>
>
>
>I told you you'd get some REALLY bad information from people who know less
>than you do! Get a book and don't listen to these people who say this is
>"too hard". One evening of reading and maybe another to set it up and
>you'll get PERFECT results everytime, not just sorta close some of the
>time.

Stacey,

Thanks. I guess I will get at least one book. The first to learn
from and the second to see if the first book was right.

I had NO IDEA that a technical topic like color management could be so
controversial!! I was hoping to get comments like:

---
Father Kodak, I use the XYZ device to measure my monitor's colors and
I think it's the greatest thing since interchangeable focus screens.
And, don't spend $850 for ABC software to manage all this. The GHI
software for only $79.95 is easier to use and much more accurate
anyway.
----

THAT is the kind of comment I was hoping to get.

Abba Kodak
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:05:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3h9rrrFg2842U1@individual.net...
> Don F wrote:
>
>
>> A possible cause (common to us uninformed users) is the color
>> management
>> selections in the camera and in photoshop do not agree. Even with the
>> proper
>> settings, the results do not change much. I seem to get better results
>> by
>> choosing "no color management" in PS.
>>
>
> Then you are either doing it wrong or have really bad color profiles. The
> problem with doing this "color chart" thing is there are WAY more colors
> than you can adjust for this way. I guess if you're not picky this would
> sorta work. Seems like a lame way to do it unless you abhor reading and
> understanding color management. BTW doing this you do realise you'll never
> be able to send pictures, post images or have stuff printed outside of
> your
> home and expect them to look even decent don't you?.
> --
>
> Stacey

The problem with someone offering a very simple method to get a usable print
in the period before you actually get to have much of a clue and be able to
(wrongly) pass comments about people you know nothing about... Is digital
flack from idiots who think because they know it all (knowalls) then
everyone else ought to.

Get a like Stacey, you certainly don't have one here.

Douglas
June 15, 2005 10:47:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:


>
> Thanks. I guess I will get at least one book. The first to learn
> from and the second to see if the first book was right.
>
> I had NO IDEA that a technical topic like color management could be so
> controversial!! I was hoping to get comments like:
>
> ---
> Father Kodak, I use the XYZ device to measure my monitor's colors and
> I think it's the greatest thing since interchangeable focus screens.
> And, don't spend $850 for ABC software to manage all this. The GHI
> software for only $79.95 is easier to use and much more accurate
> anyway.
> ----
>
> THAT is the kind of comment I was hoping to get.
>
>

OK try this:

Get an eye 1 monitor calibrator, nice software and easy to use. It's the
older version and is pretty cheap right now, should be under $80.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

See http://cathysprofiles.com/ and get her to make a profile for your
specific printer/paper, $40.

Get this software to print with, http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/ , it
does all the resizing and resolution choices for you and deals with
profiling in a very basic way, $45.

So for way under $200 you can have professional level tools to allow correct
color managment. Seems like a no brainer to me to use this instead of a
"guess color managment" workflow..You'll waste that much in paper and ink
trying to avoid spending this money in a very short period of time.
--

Stacey
June 15, 2005 10:52:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Ryadia@home wrote:


>
> The problem with someone offering a very simple method to get a usable
> print in the period before you actually get to have much of a clue and be
> able to (wrongly) pass comments about people you know nothing about... Is
> digital flack from idiots who think because they know it all (knowalls)
> then everyone else ought to.
>

So the "idiots" are the people who understand color managment and suggest a
simple to read book so they can also understand it and the smart people are
the ones who argue that these other people coudn't possibly be able to
understand this information so should learn to live with "guess color
managment" aproaches?

And your contribution to the OP was, Flaming me?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:32:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Ryadia@home wrote:
>
>
>
>>The problem with someone offering a very simple method to get a usable
>>print in the period before you actually get to have much of a clue and be
>>able to (wrongly) pass comments about people you know nothing about... Is
>>digital flack from idiots who think because they know it all (knowalls)
>>then everyone else ought to.
>>
>
>
> So the "idiots" are the people who understand color managment and suggest a
> simple to read book so they can also understand it and the smart people are
> the ones who argue that these other people coudn't possibly be able to
> understand this information so should learn to live with "guess color
> managment" aproaches?
>
> And your contribution to the OP was, Flaming me?
>
Have you got balls Stacey or do you just go around looking for trouble?
It might surprise you to discover that just being able to print your
first picture is daunting challenge for many people buying their first
digital camera.

And then their are the Photographers (one of whome I once thought you
were) who are only interested in the craft, not the technology. I guess
that counts you out of the former eh?

Douglas
June 16, 2005 4:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Stacey wrote:

>>
>> And your contribution to the OP was, Flaming me?
>>

> It might surprise you to discover that just being able to print your
> first picture is daunting challenge for many people buying their first
> digital camera.

Which is why they should be looking for good reading material explaining how
the correct way to do it. Wasting a bunch of paper and ink isn't going to
make them enjoy this anymore. Like I said it's easy to waste WAY more paper
and ink than just buying the right color managment tools to start with.

>
> And then their are the Photographers (one of whome I once thought you
> were) who are only interested in the craft, not the technology. I guess
> that counts you out of the former eh?
>


So now instead of contributing any real content, you're going to move into
the "personal insult" arena? I guess this is where I should insert an image
to look at.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/towerweb2....

BTW it's kinda hard to be very good at a craft if you don't understand how
the technology you're using works isn't it?


--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:32:49 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Stacey wrote:
>> Ryadia@home wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The problem with someone offering a very simple method to get a usable
>>>print in the period before you actually get to have much of a clue and be
>>>able to (wrongly) pass comments about people you know nothing about... Is
>>>digital flack from idiots who think because they know it all (knowalls)
>>>then everyone else ought to.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So the "idiots" are the people who understand color managment and suggest a
>> simple to read book so they can also understand it and the smart people are
>> the ones who argue that these other people coudn't possibly be able to
>> understand this information so should learn to live with "guess color
>> managment" aproaches?
>>
>> And your contribution to the OP was, Flaming me?

As the OP, perhaps I should have said that I'm hardly a novice, my
first camera being a hand-me-down Kodak Signet 35, and that I have
processed perhaps over a hundred rolls of black and white, and done
(too little) black and white darkroom printing. I even used a
primitive darkroom meter, Heathkit if I remember correctly, to
establish the correct exposure for printing and pager # or
Polycontrast Filter number.

I never did get to do color processing, because I standardized on
Kodachrome and no-way-Jose can anyone at home do K-14.

And although I have never owned a medium format or large format
camera, I have experimented a bit with Ansel Adams' Zone System. I
even once heard him speak, great guy.

So, probably, I can handle the necessary technical detail in the book
that Stacey has recommended to me. Stacey, thank you.

Father Kodak

>>
>Have you got balls Stacey or do you just go around looking for trouble?
>It might surprise you to discover that just being able to print your
>first picture is daunting challenge for many people buying their first
>digital camera.
>
>And then their are the Photographers (one of whome I once thought you
>were) who are only interested in the craft, not the technology. I guess
>that counts you out of the former eh?

And what is wrong anyway, with being interested in the craft more than
the technology?


>
>Douglas
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 1:02:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3hcaarFge2rcU1@individual.net...

>
> So now instead of contributing any real content, you're going to move into
> the "personal insult" arena? I guess this is where I should insert an
> image
> to look at.
>
> http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/towerweb2....
>
> BTW it's kinda hard to be very good at a craft if you don't understand how
> the technology you're using works isn't it?
>
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Yeah... Ask any race car driver if his differencial has hypoid gears.
Horses for courses Stacey. You don't need to know how a car works to be a
good driver, why should you need to be a computer scientist to make good
photographs? I've seen your work before Stacey.

Douglas
June 17, 2005 1:29:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Ryadia@home wrote:


>>
>> BTW it's kinda hard to be very good at a craft if you don't understand
>> how
>> the technology you're using works isn't it?
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stacey
>
> Yeah... Ask any race car driver if his differencial has hypoid gears.

I'd hope he would at least understand what a -gear ratio- does..

> Horses for courses Stacey. You don't need to know how a car works to be a
> good driver,

Why do you think Michael Shumaker is such a great driver? He understands the
technical aspects of the car and can tell the team what the car needs.
Ignorant drivers don't get very far in the sport.

> why should you need to be a computer scientist to make good
> photographs?

Who said anything about computer science? It's simply understanding how the
software is SUPPOSED to work rather than trying to figure out a way to not
have to read the instructions!

> I've seen your work before Stacey.

Let's see your's if your going to insult mine..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 9:15:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3henc7FgkrooU5@individual.net...
> Ryadia@home wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> BTW it's kinda hard to be very good at a craft if you don't understand
>>> how
>>> the technology you're using works isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Stacey
>>
>> Yeah... Ask any race car driver if his differencial has hypoid gears.
>
> I'd hope he would at least understand what a -gear ratio- does..
>
>> Horses for courses Stacey. You don't need to know how a car works to be a
>> good driver,
>
> Why do you think Michael Shumaker is such a great driver? He understands
> the
> technical aspects of the car and can tell the team what the car needs.
> Ignorant drivers don't get very far in the sport.

you seem to be overlooking the fact that he is a blatant cheater. He will
ram a competitor off the road to stop them scoring points if he has to.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 9:15:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
news:p yDse.11585$Vo6.10229@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>
> you seem to be overlooking the fact that he is a blatant cheater. He will
> ram a competitor off the road to stop them scoring points if he has to.
>
He's the only driver who does, or ever did this? Think Alesi/Senna,
Senna/Mansell or even JP Montoya/Schumacher.
It does seem to more a trait of modern era drivers in F1, but not unheard of
in the old days in sports cars or Indy/dirt tracks.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:47:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fXEse.330$SF5.104@fed1read07...
> "ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
> news:p yDse.11585$Vo6.10229@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> you seem to be overlooking the fact that he is a blatant cheater. He
>> will ram a competitor off the road to stop them scoring points if he has
>> to.
>>
> He's the only driver who does, or ever did this? Think Alesi/Senna,
> Senna/Mansell or even JP Montoya/Schumacher.
> It does seem to more a trait of modern era drivers in F1, but not unheard
> of in the old days in sports cars or Indy/dirt tracks.

well he does it more blatantly and gets away with it. Its why damon hill
retired. Shumacher was outside the points and hill was winning the race and
on course for the championship. but passed it off as an accident. He has
done it again since.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:47:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

Jean Alessi and Ayrton Senna traded punts for half a season, with Alessi
finally punting them both off at the Japanese GP, IIRC and the championship
going to Senna.
D. Hill was a driver of moderate talent in an excellent car that had a habit
of getting very, very wide when someone threatened to pass. It's no wonder
Schuey (no favorite of mine, by the way) shouldered him aside on occasion.
M. Schumacher may have done it since, but it has been done to him, too.
He's done it to Raikonen, who has returned the favor, as has Montoya.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
June 18, 2005 7:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>
>>> Horses for courses Stacey. You don't need to know how a car works to be
>>> a good driver,
>>
>> Why do you think Michael Shumaker is such a great driver? He understands
>> the
>> technical aspects of the car and can tell the team what the car needs.
>> Ignorant drivers don't get very far in the sport.
>
> you seem to be overlooking the fact that he is a blatant cheater.

Irregardless of his "style", he knows a LOT about what is going on with the
car as do most good drivers.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 12:58:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
news:p yDse.11585$Vo6.10229@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3henc7FgkrooU5@individual.net...
> > Ryadia@home wrote:
> >
>
> you seem to be overlooking the fact that he is a blatant cheater. He will
> ram a competitor off the road to stop them scoring points if he has to.

"Cheating" is a outdated moral concept which has been superceded by the new
three R's: Real-time Rule Reinterpretation. And RRR is always caused by an
"irresistible impulse", which handily relieves the affected person from any
legal or moral responsibility for his or her actions, as any good defense
attorney will tell you.

You guys need to join the 21st century.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 4:53:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WpNse.377$SF5.67@fed1read07...
> Jean Alessi and Ayrton Senna traded punts for half a season, with Alessi
> finally punting them both off at the Japanese GP, IIRC and the
> championship going to Senna.
> D. Hill was a driver of moderate talent in an excellent car that had a
> habit of getting very, very wide when someone threatened to pass. It's no
> wonder Schuey (no favorite of mine, by the way) shouldered him aside on
> occasion.
> M. Schumacher may have done it since, but it has been done to him, too.
> He's done it to Raikonen, who has returned the favor, as has Montoya.

it wasn't an attempt to pass it was a ram to disable the car and he
succeeded. Schuey was to far behind even to get in the points but damon
had he finished would be in contention to win the whole tournament.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:31:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:58:54 -0700, Paul H. <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>
> "Cheating" is a outdated moral concept which has been superceded by the new
> three R's: Real-time Rule Reinterpretation.

Which phrase brings to mind a fourth 'R'.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
!