Hi Brian,
I switched to Photium after getting fed up with doing it myself
It is run by Will - who did the original programming for ePhotozine. It's very fast, well run and has a zillion options - especially for selling
Not that expensive either for a full hosting service!
Matt

John, the body of opinion is that it's your body
I have an *ist-D, *ist-DS, and K10D which all work 100% with the following Pentax lenses I have ever had and tried - SMC-F 50/1.4, SMC-F 50/1.7, SMC-F 100/2.8, SMC-FA 24-90, SMC-DA 12-24, SMC-DA 16-45, SMC-DA 50-200, SMC-FA 77 Ltd, SMC-FA 31 Ltd, SMC-FA 80-320, SMC-A 50/1.4, etc, etc
All from different sources, some new, some S/H.

I've also had Sigma, and Tokina lenses too...

The *ist-D and *ist-DS have always been bang on the button with centre focus. The K10D back focused a fair bit - but this was easily rectified.

If you were nearer you could pop by and cross compare lenses and bodies.

(The fact that a few lenses seem to work ok still doesn't prove that it's not the body. There's a number of factors going on.)

Did I say I reckon your *ist-DS body might need calibrating????!

(BTW - the cameras pre-K20D do have multiple lens focus adjustment ability... just not by an end user.)

Matt

Regular NiMH batteries will discharge on their own - even out of the camera.

For long term life, the best ones are the Hybrio or Eneloop. They hold charge for up to 12 months.

(I use them in my wife's *ist-DS)

Other types of battery - like Lithium AA or CRV3, and AA Alkaline should not run out when in the camera (but the alkalines will have a very poor life anyway compared to decent NiMH/Hybrio/Eneloop cells)

Matt

Thanks for the link Don.
However, that just loads the profile into the OSX... not do the transformation.

They do have a stand alone profile converter for TIFF images HERE - but looks like it's Windows only. (And doesn't do JPG)

But the article is a good one
Matt

BB2 - yes, PSE can handle sRGB and AdobeRGB. Only (All versions from v2 did this)
When a lab provides their output profile then you can't do this in PSE at all


Keith,

There is a conversion tool in the "LittleCMS" package that will map the colours here. However, it is available only in source code and Windows executable (though it may work under Wine with OSX).
There is also ArgyllCMS which is compiled for OS X, but I'm not sure what tools are included.

Unfortunately I rarely even see a Mac, let alone use one

The learning curve for CM is steep, but worth it if you can get your head around it

Matt

EDIT: The ArgyllCMS does appear to allow transformation of a TIFF file with this utility. Presumably this is available in the Mac environment. You may find that Apple's ColorSync utility will allow you to transform the colours and reassign a profile to existing JPG files... but you'll need to get a Mac-head to work it out for you

Malo,
If you are using their printer, and their paper - use their profile for the final output. They will print it "straight" without any need for colour mapping on their site.

If you are using their printer and your paper - you are not colour managed at all. The ICC profile is a combination of the individual printer PLUS the paper PLUS the ink (for inkjets that is). Likewise for photographic output - it's the combination that counts. Labs will get their equipment professionally profiled (which is not a quick job, and definitely not cheap).

If you are using your printer and your paper - you are on your own.

You seem to be confused about when and why you use ICC profiles.

I missed the fact that the OP had PSE. Ok - I can still do it on Windows with a little command line tool that is available free. But I don't know how it can be done on Windows.

So, yes, they are better off sticking with sRGB.

Think of colour spaces like you think of the histogram.
Trying to squish too much and you get posterisation.
Pushing too hard and you get clipping.

It's the same with colour - you can get colour posterisation or clipping (called "gamut clipping". That's where soft-proofing comes in too - even if your display can't hack it, the soft proof gives you a rendition with option to show out of gamut colours.


To be honest, most people don't need to worry too much and can just stick to AdobeRGB or sRGB. However, when you want to colour-match (company logo colours, specific product colours etc) then you have to start treading the colour management minefield for real

Matt

Yes, and no.
Choosing a colour space in the camera makes no difference to what you can extract from the RAW file.
However, the embedded JPG inside the RAW will be in the selected colour space. Additionally if you use RAW+ in the camera (RAW+JPG) then the attached JPG will be in the selected colour space.
So, it makes sense to select sRGB in the camera when shooting RAW+JPG (and to some extent RAW only) so you have access to a quick non-PP'd JPG file.

However, as pointed out, you should choose the widest appropriate colour space when outputting from RAW and working in Photoshop.

* If you understand colour management, then AdobeRGB would be a good choice.
* If you don't understand colour management, then sRGB is a better choice (because you don't have to think and most printers and labs assume sRGB)
* If you want critical control then use ProPhoto - but you must use 16-bit TIFF for this colour space.

Does that help?!
Matt

HUH?
Malo - you are very much mistaken in your understanding of colour management, and by doing what you are doing you are actually losing control over the image! Please read on

Ok, let me try and explain this and clear up the matter...


You are already using a Huey, so your monitor on the iMac is already profiled (and actually using an ICC profile of its own - even though you might not know it).

However, you raise the question of a printer ICC profile (as provided by a lab). You need to know and do these things:

1) Install the ICC profile into your system (I know where this is on Windows - not so sure about Mac) It needs to be installed so Photoshop can find it (you can't load an arbitrary ICC profile from anywhere on the disk). See this page: http://www.proamimaging.com/profile.html

2) You work on your image ignoring that ICC profile. In other words, work in AdobeRGB (or sRGB if you have to). Use AdobeRGB because it can handle more colours (basically). So, in Silkypix and Photoshop you just work in AdobeRGB.

3) Now, the work... when you have the final image you need to map your image into the final colour profile of your target. This is done with Photoshop (normally). Unfortunately Elements doesn't have the full interface to the colour management (at least it didn't).

Why you map to the printer's ICC
When transforming from one colour space to another something has to give - the target may not be able to render the vibrant red that you want, for example.

So the transformation will "squish" your colours into the target colours. However, what if you needed an absolute colour match (because you have a company logo that needs to be exact, for example)? A process of linear transformation may shift the colour of that exact colour.

There are many decisions in this transformation process - and this is what the "Intent" is within Photoshop when mapping between ICC profiles. The most commonly used intents are "Perceptual" and "Relative Colormetric". However, you are probably best using Relative Colormetric (because Perceptual can still produce some colour shifts).

Think of it a bit like currency - your system works in dollars and theirs works in euros. To have complete control, you do the conversion. If you let them do the conversion from your profile then you stand the risk of having a variance of exchange rate

Another reason why you do the conversion yourself is because Photoshop can show you what colours will have a problem on the target device. You may have an all red image where one intent will clip the reds and leave you with little colour detail. The "Soft Proof" option in Photoshop will allow you to do this.

How you transform into the target ICC
On Photoshop you use the "Edit / Convert to Profile" (on CS2). Older versions had the convert to profile under the Image menu IIRC.

Normally you:
* Select the target profile (which will be the printer profile)
* Select the engine "Adobe (ACE)"
* Set the intent to "Relative Colormetric"
* Tick the "Black Point Compression"
and click ok.

Inside Photoshop the image should look exactly the same
Now, save the file as a JPG under a different directory (I use the name of the lab). DO NOT OVERWRITE YOUR ORIGINAL FILE!!!

Depending on the lab and their workflow, when you save using "File / Save As" you have the option of embedding the ICC profile in the image. It is probably best to tick the box to embed the profile (although it will increase the size of each JPG by the size of the ICC profile - which can be large).

Now you send those converted files off to the lab for printing - and you will get absolutely, and exactly what you saw on Photoshop (assuming you've followed the process properly!).


There are ways to do this without Photoshop... let me know if that is your situation and I'll try and help out!


Hope that's helped clarify some things!!
Matt

Just to add to John's comment...

Both the *ist-D and *ist-DS are superbly capable cameras. I have prints up to 30x20" which are (even if I say so myself) stunning

They both use AA batteries - so a set of NiMH batteries is essential.
The *ist-DS is probably preferable out of the two as it uses the SD card format (the *ist-D uses CF). Both have the same processing speed, CCD, and general functionality (multi point AF, spot metering, evaluative metering etc). However, you can get SD-to-CF adapters that will fit inside the *ist-D allowing SD cards to be used up to 2Gb).

The only other camera I would recommend is the K10D - again a pentaprism (not pentamirror), and a superb camera.

The *ist-D still has a special place - I can't bring myself to get rid of mine! I regularly see the *ist-D with the 18-55 kit lens going for £200 in the UK - which is a snip!

There is a reasonable learning curve when moving from film to digital. I'd say go for it - you'll be amazed what you can get out of the *ist-D cameras!

Hope that helps!
Matt

Not being a kill-HDR... did this really need HDR? Or was it just tonemapping that was required?

If you have more than about 5 stops of difference in the contrast and need both the shadows and highlights then yes, HDR with multiple exposures is very helpful.

However, probably 75% of the "HDR" shots I've seen look as though they could have easily been a single, well exposed, shot.

Just my thought!

But the result is still good
Matt