Shotsy wrote:
Wow I can't believe that I actually got to see a couple pics from Petkals "vintage" gears before they were removed within a matter of minutes.
Peter's 1DsMkII has a lower frame rate than his 1DMkIIn, so the ducks stay in view a little longer.
Will: Nice style you've got going there...how is your engineering work going?
Another winter shot from Death Valley (Badwater Saltflat), with the EOS 3, 17-40L, on Tri-x, scanned with CanoScan 2710, processed with VueScan and CS6.
(some of these really need wide gamut format, I didn't even bother with the two that really need it, flickr uploads seem to be down so I don't have those versions up yet (zenfolio, as smugmug, have banned wide gamut!?!!!))
skibum5 wrote:
(some of these really need wide gamut format, I didn't even bother with the two that really need it, flickr uploads seem to be down so I don't have those versions up yet (zenfolio, as smugmug, have banned wide gamut!?!!!))
Mainly because no browser other than Safari can display those correctly, maybe Chrome got it right in the meantime...
stanj wrote:
Mainly because no browser other than Safari can display those correctly, maybe Chrome got it right in the meantime...
Firefox handles them fine too, not just Safari. Firefox actually has the best color management of all since it even manages text and background colors and what not so they don't look radioactive if you browse while your monitor is set to wide gamut mode. (Obviously you won't want all galleries to be wide gamut, but it is bad to ban users from having the option to knowingly and willingly put up some images in wide gamut format, as photo hosting sites they should be pushing things forward, instead they keep things held back).
(also sRGB doesn't use Gamma 2.2 and many monitors are tuned to Gamma 2.2 so even sRGB images don't actually display correctly in IE or whatnot, set monitor to gamma 2.2 and then view in Firefox and then view in IE and you'll notice a shift in contrast and shadow detail and, to a lesser degree, highlight roll-off, although it's obviously a less severe error than messing up sRGB vs ProphotoRGB)
But that's not to say that everyone else's works are any worse; these two just grabbed me the most. Must refrain from posting my own for a while until I get anything comparable.
Number 2 rather takes the romance and mystique out of those Yosemite Valley shots. Where's the adventure, the thrill, the achievement, if you can drive up, park and basically shoot the classic shot out of the car window?
Is there a booking system for tripod spots, or do you have to camp out in the layby to get a decent spot early in the morning?
Really like the Yosemite pics. A lovely place to visit and photograph. Un paysage vraiment photogénique, would I say in French. Hope the hanta virus scare is now over.
eskimochaos wrote:
Todd, awesome series. How did you achieve the sky in #4 - particularly the upper left dark portion?
I believe the only thing I did there to achieve that sky was use a polarizer filter. In Photoshop I may have used Selective Color and then increased the blacks in the blues and cyans, too. It's hard to remember. It was -49 degrees Fahrenheit when I took that photograph. Literally. I still feel some of the frostbite in the tip of my right ring finger.
