Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 23, 2005, 5:57 PM   #1
Moderator
 
Frank Doorhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,320
Default

Not really a session, we promised the studio to a photographer and Danielle came along for fun, we managed to squeeze some shoots in between .

More on www.doorhof.nl/models under Danielle 2.

Greetings,
Frank















Frank Doorhof is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 23, 2005, 6:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,724
Default

First one's a killer Frank!! Fabulous effect with the eyes. My cup of tea. Best regards,

Kennethd
KENNETHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 8:50 PM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I love 1 & 4 Frank!
  Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 10:39 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 287
Default

Frank, what can I say -- I've become a fan!!! 1, 4, and 6 are my faves! 6 especially -- love the facial expression!!!!!!!

Nice job!
smilez03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2005, 3:08 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Bache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 170
Default

Hi Frank! I love your pic's! Very professional qaulity. What gamma space do you use in your windows is it gamma 2.2 or gamma 2.5? I use gamma 2.5 and i feel some pictures do look too dark? keep up the good work!
Bache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 2:20 AM   #6
Moderator
 
Frank Doorhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,320
Default

Hi,
I use gamma 2.2 this is as far as I know the standard for PC's.
1.8 for Mac's but their monitors have the same curve.

Gamma is making your monitor perform a linear stage from black to white.
So 0-10IRE/% is indeed the same step as 80-90IRE/%.

In the old day's when we used only fosfor it was needed to boost the low signal (blacks) and give less on the higher signals (whites) this gave the gamma curve of 2.20.

Now with the new linear technologies we still need this curve because all material is stored as 2.20.

It can be that a whole system is based on another gamma like the mac, but when viewing a picture from another system it SHOULD look the same on a display based on 2.20 gamma because the end result should be linear.

Greetings,
Frank
Frank Doorhof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 4:35 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Bache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 170
Default

Thanks for your reply ;D I have read that all web browsers are normally set in gamma 2.5 if people haven't done any adjustment on theyr monitors etc . using adobe gamma? (default set in adobe gamma is 2.2).

Some pro's tell me that monitors should be in gamma 2.5 ?? are they wrong?

So if most people are seeying photos on theyr browsers in gamma 2.5, pictures are too dark in the black end ;(


Bache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 2:11 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Frank Doorhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,320
Default

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...g/Gamma_01.htm


http://photos.troughton.org/cal/


I would not bet my life on it however.
In my job (a calibrator) I work in video and there for CRT projectors the correct gamma is 2.2 for digital display's we use anything in between 2.2 and 2.55.

For photography I believe 2.2 is the norm for windows and 1.8 for Mac.
But again I would not bet my life on it.

Greetings,
Frank

Frank Doorhof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 2:36 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Bache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 170
Default

Hi again Frank! What I ment is that most people haven't adjusted their monitors correctly and are using 2.5 gamma...

"When unadjusted, most CRT monitors have a "gamma" of 2.5 (windows default) which means that pixels with average brightness of 0.5, will be displayed with a brightness of 0.5^2.5 or 0.18, much darker."

I think 99,99 % of people havent adjusted their monitors to gamma 2.2

That's why they see pictures too dark...

I hope you dont mind... i converted your photo to NATIVE pc 2.5 profile using photoshop...

If people look this photo in gamma 2,5 they see it like you wanted it to see.. now if people look this photo using gamma 2.2 this picture seems little too bright...




Attached Images
 
Bache is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.