Hello, Michael here, advice sought

[Michael Carrithers]

My introduction to photography was turning up in Sri Lanka with a Canon AE-1, 50mm lens, and the idea that I would document doing (anthropological) fieldwork there, taking color slides for lectures or, very occasionally, for printing. No preparation or education whatsoever, but did manage a few good shots in the few thousand I took. Then time passed and I did the same in India. And then I didn't touch a camera for a few years, and now I'm back, and have been trying (another few thousand) some arty shots of urban decay and postmodern contrasts. I've been using the Bessa R2 w. 35mm and 21mm lenses, and the Nikon D70 w. 18-70mm zoom, as well as the Ricoh GR.

All good fun. But now it's getting serious. I'm going to be doing some fieldwork in East Germany, and need to take

1. Outdoor shots of depopulating cities,
2. Indoor shots of people talking about same, and
3. More arty shots generally.

The budget runs to about £1000, I suppose about $1800, and I've been thinking that the image stabilisation, or whatever they call it, of the Pentax 10D, plus the 21mm and 40mm lenses.

Any advice very welcome.

Thanks

Michael

 

[Deleted member 55]

Hi Michael,

What is the intended use of the resulting photos? (print/slide show/other)

 

[Asher Kelman]

Welcome Michael,

Why dont you post some examples of your work in the appropriate Fora and then we can look at them and give feedback, The AE-1 is one of my cameras too! The Bessa is also a fine camera. I'd love to see your pictures anyway and we'd appreciate your contributions to the analog film forum. Yours would be really important to us.

Your digital cameras are no sluches either.

Before spending money, get each ofv them posted, just say 4 of each in the correct fora and then we'll reference them from here.

Just drag over the url's of each new thread to your new post here!

Glad you are with us,

Asher

 

[Michael Carrithers]

Will, thanks for the prompt answer. Main purpose: publication in scholarly context, some articles, a book or two, but probably publications where photographs are not much in the foreground. Though I'm going to try for some glossy-ish treatment when it comes to that. Probably B&W in any case. East Germany cries out for it. And then, eventually, to make some fine art prints, at least so far as my Epson R2400 can manage it and my poor photoshop abilities can produce them.

Asher, if I knew how to post something, I'd do it. I probably could use a university URL here, but have never given it a thought. I'd probably even scan a couple of slides. But I am way behind the curve here. Can just about manage to produce a jpeg to send to someone. Am willing to follow advice, however, so would happy to receive some.

Thanks

Michael

 

[Angela Weil]

East-Germany...

Michael, before you go to East Germany to take pictures with preconceived ideas (black & white?, depopulating cities? ), have a look at this site (http://www.ostkreuz.de/) and this one (http://www.ostkreuzschule.de/), two sites of a group of East German photographers who do documentary work as well as train journalists.
If you work as an ethnographer, you need to be open for what there is to see and to experience, not go for general assumptions. Quite a few regions in East Germany are doing better economically than regions in West Germany today.
Try to establish contacts with local people to show you around and keep in mind what their personal agenda might be in order to understand what they are telling you. Good place to start: The department of Journalism of the University of Leipzig. There you find a number of highly motivated and knowledgeable young people to supply information for locations. In addition, insights about locations are important, because you need to stay clear of Neo-Nazis. The existence of the latter, sadly, is not a cliche.
As for the camera: The cameras and lenses you mentioned should be just fine. You might find a need while working - but then you could pick up an extra lens or camera from a rental service for a particular shooting on a weekend or so and decide on a purchase later.
Have fun and good luck
Angela

 

[Asher Kelman]

Michael,

We are so lucky to have Angela here to give us this wonderful link to the work of East German photographers. I found myself lost for 30 minutes before I realized how much time had passed. I could spend many days with these photographers and still want more. I see a lot of creativity and simplicty that is powerful.

Let's see if we can help you post. first question, do you have an online site at Smugmug, pBase or .mac.com where you could upload your pictures. That as a start is what you need.

Then your pictures can be referenced fron here to theose sites.

Asher

 

[Michael Carrithers]

Angela, thanks for the super info. Unfortunately the project is about shrinking cities etc., but also about all the ways in which people re-interpret that situation into something better/different [e.g. Luxus der Leere, 'the luxury of emptiness', the 'space pioneers' etc.], but the real point is that it would be better to see what photographers there are looking at, and in general it would be more interesting for all concerned to see what they're seeing rather than what I suppose I'm seeing. So yes, definitely journalism at Leipzig, and thanks for that.

Makes me wonder, though, if there is actually any role for my own photos...though now that I think of it, I've been collecting shots here of people taking photos of things (needs a good wide angle lens), so may be I could transfer that project...hmmm...

As for the neo-Nazis: good advice. A while back I was walking through deepest Berlin Lichtenberg among the high-rise flats and came around a corner to meet a bunch of guys with suspiciously short haircuts and overly practical footwear standing on the street. One of them said 'halloechen' very sweetly as I passed, but it didn't really seem very genuine. I think thriller writers say, 'his smile didn't reach his eyes.'

Asher, I'll look into posting some shots somewhere. I did have some on rangefinder forum a while back, now that I think of it, but I haven't been active there since it went through a couple of reorganisations.

 

[Angela Weil]

"Luxury of Emptiness". That's nice. To have both space and time in abundance is considered to be the ultimate luxury of our times - as long as it is not the cupboard that's empty. ).
As to the role of your own photos: If you have a clearly described objective for your photos, go and hunt down the images that fit the description. Once you have them in the bag, take the opportunity to photograph any and everything that speaks to you personally. At least, that's how I would do it to get the most out of the project.
Your personal view certainly has an important role.

Angela

 

[Michael Carrithers]

Angela, thanks for the encouraging words. May I address a particular question to you, but also to anyone else who may be interested. I've visited your site a couple of times at http://www.awl-photo.com, and found it lovely, just the sort of thing I wish I could manage. But since I am an absolute beginner at putting things on the net, I'm only just beginning to realise that it must take quite a bit of effort to make these .jpg files look good on my computer here. Could you give me any hints concerning the sorts of things you need to do. Sharpening? Saturation? Any special processing?

Thanks.

 

[Angela Weil]

Hi Michael,
I might not be the best person to ask about preparing jpgs for the web. There are many others who do it much better.

Here is what I do: I process the images for printing (that's my primary interest) first using the raw converter (scanner for film) and then PS. I save unsharpened, as RGB files in the native size as tif.

For web use, I size down in PS (bicubic sharper), Resolution 72, sharpening either USM (A 100, R less than 1 - 0.5 should be plenty, T 0-10 depending on content - lots of detail less, little detail more) or Photokit Output Sharpener for Web and adjustments until I like it), convert to sRGB and save for Web with the ICC profile checked in the little box on the right hand corner (otherwise you lose the sRGB profile and with it the color information).

Frankly, I'm somewhat disappointed by the small web display, the loss of detail and the fact that not all images are 'webable'. Some images just need a certain size to have presence. For others, the web works fine.

I have a series in B/W with a set of three images next to each other, lots of detail and text. The pictures look so muddy and miserable on a web site, that I have given up on them for web use.

One other consideration is theft - there is a recent thread here concerning that. This concern leads some to display only very small images on web-sites and to use overlays about copyright. Personally, I'm not worried about that - let them steal - I sue them later ). Of course, the quality of the images displayed suffers from that - the overlay being the worst. But I can understand why some want to protect their work.

The topic of preparing images for the web is an interesting one and I would like to hear tricks and tips from others here to improve my moderate skills.

Angela

 

[David J. Eves]

Well I am no expert, & I don't use photoshop

But for photoshop users, here is my easy approach to preparing an image for the web.

TOP MAIN MENU: Image > image size: click

enter the size you want your image. that is finished

Now TOP MAIN MENU: File > Save for Web : click

here you have choices on how best to "compress" your image in *.jpg format

If you have color issues / contrast etc.

TOP MAIN MENU : Image > Image Adjustments > Auto color ; Auto Contrast

If don't like the results then Image > Image Adjustments > Brightness/Contrast- click

that should do the trick nicely for anything you want to present to your viewers!!

Hope that helps.

 

[Michael Carrithers]

Thanks, Angela and David. I'll try some of these and see how they look. But always looking for more ideas.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Thanks, Angela and David. I'll try some of these and see how they look. But always looking for more ideas.

Another thingy I just came across myself ....

http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/WPpro

 

[Klaus Esser]

Thanks, Angela and David. I'll try some of these and see how they look. But always looking for more ideas.

Hello Michael!

There´s a problem besides of the profiles: the displays. It´s nearly impossible to set a picture for web in a way which looks real good on CRTs AND TFTs of all kinds. The sRGB-profile isn´t good for more delicate tones and colours - though it´s a relative (!) "safe" way to display.
BUT: that´s the theory. In reality a very large amount of displays are not calibrated. And users tend to set them in a way they LIKE.

That´s a thing nobody can control. I run tests on my Apple Cinemadisplay, a prof. and calibrated CRT, my son´s game-pc´s TFT and my daughter´s 17" CRT before i go public with pictures on my site.
I actually test without ANY profiles - this way theoretically should match the individual settings of most displays . . . at least i hope to be.

If you - and all - would like to give me a note on what it´s looking like on your displays:
www.klausesser.de
Some times i hear "a bit dark", then "a bit bright", than "the colors seem to be dampend", or "a bit over-saturated" . . . - the site is in a test-phase. Structural and visual.

So my advice would be to check on different displays first. What´s important in my view is the background-color of the site. I used pure white for a time . . . but it´s a too hard contrast for some pictures - perfectly matched with others . . . . .

best, Klaus

 

[Michael Carrithers]

Well I now see how very easy it was to shoot slides! So even if I get that spiffy photoshop plug-in mentioned by Georg I'll still have to check out my efforts on every display in the house, a la Klaus. It is surely a sad thing to discover that I actually look forward to all this messing around.

Thanks.

 

[Angela Weil]

Conversion to sRGB....

Hi Klaus, you are right: The type and the (lack of) calibration of individual displays are a problem. Nevertheless, it is a 'relative' good choice to convert to sRGB for web use. I had several occasions to learn that the hard way, when I presented very slight sepia toned B/W images (not converted to sRGB) in several fora. The feedback on the color of the images was an amazing range from salmon to orange to baby pink. The conversion to sRGB solved that problem.
Angela

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Klaus, you are right: The type and the (lack of) calibration of individual displays are a problem. Nevertheless, it is a 'relative' good choice to convert to sRGB for web use. I had several occasions to learn that the hard way, when I presented very slight sepia toned B/W images (not converted to sRGB) in several fora. The feedback on the color of the images was an amazing range from salmon to orange to baby pink. The conversion to sRGB solved that problem.
Angela

Hi Angela!

Yes - sRGB solves such problems. Some websites show a grayscale, the visitor can roughly adjust his display with.

best, Klaus

 

[nicolas claris]

Like this, a simple one that I put now on all my slideshows online:
here
You may of course copy the code...

 

[nicolas claris]

Hi Klaus, you are right: The type and the (lack of) calibration of individual displays are a problem. Nevertheless, it is a 'relative' good choice to convert to sRGB for web use. I had several occasions to learn that the hard way, when I presented very slight sepia toned B/W images (not converted to sRGB) in several fora. The feedback on the color of the images was an amazing range from salmon to orange to baby pink. The conversion to sRGB solved that problem.
Angela

Hi Angela

the origin of sRGB is .... Microsoft who wanted all PCs monitors to share the same color space .

A very good idea in fact!

But they managed a color space that could be shared by the maximum of monitors around the world (if I remember well, they chose the NTSC TV color space as base, a space that is so old) and they did succeed! therefore the all world is spoiled with this so poor space that common users doesn't even want to know about.
However it is true to say that all common monitors cannot display the ARGB gamut, but they cannot display 16 bits either! It is still better to work in ARGB or Prophoto 16 bits (PS handle these very efficiently even if we don't see) and when finish convert to the desired color space and 8 bits

We're still waiting for rips that interpret/handle 16 bits! but will the printers be able to get the best of it...

AFAIK, only Mac web browsers are ICC (ICM...) aware. If you use Safari or Firefox they will adapt on the fly any embedded icc in an image.

Maybe Vista can now?

Have a nice Sunday

 

[Klaus Esser]

Like this, a simple one that I put now on all my slideshows online:
here
You may of course copy the code...

Hi Nicolas!

That´s great! Simple and very helpful.

best, Klaus

 

[Angela Weil]

Hi Nicolas,
it has not been my experience that Safari and /or Firefox change embedded ICC profiles on the fly in a satisfying fashion if the profile has not been converted to sRGB before.
A number of local friends have a range of monitors, browsers, and operating systems. There is a tendency among them to have rather high-end monitors and to take care of calibration, because they are photographers or in the graphic business themselves. We have a web-site where we upload images for discussion, meet sometimes to look at prints and visit on occasion - all that a good opportunity to check images on different monitors or in different browsers as well as in print.
Some type of images or some type of colors are particularly unforgiving when converted to a small jpg, others are much easier to handle: Content, color, luminosity, size and sharpness are the dimensions one has to deal with, not to mention intent. I'm sure you and Klaus have stories to tell when it comes to conversions to CMYK and a range of print media.

From this experience and for the time being, sRGB is not perfect but good enough for web-display and not useful for anything else. The original question concerned web-display, not image processing or printing.

Whether or not Vista will manage color space much better for all of us, I don't even want to know. I work on a PC, but I will hold out without it until I don't have a choice anymore. Or I might have to get a Mac after all. )

Angela

 

[Michael Carrithers]

OK. Following as much of your valuable advice as I could take on in the time available, I have managed to put a few pics here: http://web.mac.com/michael.carrithers

Compared to the accomplished professionalism of your sites, this is strictly a beginning. Yes, strictly, since I've never tried to put anything on the web before. But I would certainly appreciate any advice about anything you see here, from adjustments you might suggest to...well, who knows?

 

[Angela Weil]

Images....

Hi Michael, I had a look at your pictures at the link you provided A couple of spontaneous first impressions: The quality of the light in the images is very nice, composition is fine also. Sharpness seems good to me.
However, my overall impression is dark and heavy. This could be intended, it could be my monitor. It could be the black background (often a bit too dark for many images), or some parts of the images that seem to sink into deep darkness and the details are no longer visible.
Are these scans from slides or digital captured files? Something in the colors reminds me of film. I like that.
Angela

 

[Michael Carrithers]

Thanks for the kind and helpful words, Angela. One challenge is that I am doing much of this on a laptop, and if I shift the angle of view just a little one way it gets darker, and just a little the other way, it gets lighter, and I'm not sure what to do with that. All CRTs have been banished from my life, so I seem dependent on not very expensive LCD screens from here on in. So I think the lesson is to make them a bit lighter, but would like to hear any further sage advice on this monitor question.

As for the black background: I'm depending here on the choices which Apple IWeb makes possible, which is very limited, more in the line of cheery light blue wedding invitations. Or pink... I don't think my sense of irony reaches that far. Grey would probably be best, don't you think? And I have a suspicion that IWeb is not going to help too much. Any suggestions for the Web software? Am I unjustly maligning IWeb, or is it, as I suspect, pretty inflexible?

Are they slides? No, they're digital, but now that you mention it, the slides I've got here look very like these digital captures, or rather vice-versa, so my eye seems to be attuned to fairly saturated slide film. As far as I can remember, I always ended up shooting with Ektachrome because it was then the only thing available where I was, and then I got hooked on it. Couldn't live without it. The irony is that I envy people who are attuned to Tri-X...

Thanks

Michael

 

[Ray West]

Hi Michael,

The images look fine to me, they capture a mood, and the colours look as they should, to my mind. My monitor was calibrated, but I should do it again. There is not much detail in the blacks, which is as it should be, else the blacks are grey, bad enough on an lcd as it is. I'm not mac based, so I can't help with specifics re software.

If you have particular requests, can you put them in a new thread in the appropriate forum - we've got enough of them ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray


,

 

[Michael Carrithers]

Thanks, Ray, that is very helpful. I try not to look at these things on my work monitor, a standard lcd, but I've now joined the rest of the world and can report, for what it's worth, that they look a bit washed out here at work...unless I tip it back a bit, in which case I can make them quite murky. I'll take this thread elsewhere and seek more expertise.

Michael