HOME | DD

UnicornLovesCoffee In reply to Greybeard-CG [2018-01-01 00:40:22 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!

It's actually a scarf wrapped around my computer monitor. I love how the vase is reflecting green on it too!
I was about to delete it since I was just playing around with something new, but I liked it too much lol.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Greybeard-CG In reply to UnicornLovesCoffee [2018-01-01 17:20:20 +0000 UTC]

It sure is a vibrant scarf then It looks even more vibrant on my grading monitor haha, although I'm as yet unsure whether that's due to upscaling the colourspace of your photo...
(It's a rabbit-hole to ask, but did you fiddle with colour-spaces yet?)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UnicornLovesCoffee In reply to Greybeard-CG [2018-01-01 18:10:07 +0000 UTC]

I actually do have the vibrancy feature on the camera turned on, but the scarf is fairly vibrant to begin with, maybe only a step or two down from the image.
I like trying to keep the picture as close to the original as possible but I am certainly not innocent to adjusting the photo to my liking in Photoshop either.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Greybeard-CG In reply to UnicornLovesCoffee [2018-01-01 18:31:37 +0000 UTC]

Mhm, it's not a bad thing imo. I mean, everyone pursues pretty pictures and if a setting can do it why not? Lighting can emulate the same way, but nobody is gonna bother setting up complex lighting setups when a filter does the same haha.
I mainly meant the colour-space in which you shoot/edit the pictures. Usually you can pick between sRGB and adobeRGB. If you plan on printing your pictures you'll have to read into it a bit. If not and you wanna keep it web-based; stick with sRGB. There should be a setting in the A7R for it.
Simply put, there are different models to encode colours, some "larger" than others. The large, large majority of people have sRGB-based monitors/displays, but the printing/CGI industry uses colour-spaces with a larger range, e.g. adobeRGB. This is also one of the culprits why a print may look very different from the display. To add to the insanity, every display can also have a different internal colour-space and every program can have it's own interpretation of it too.
So yeah. If you're just gonna keep it on the web, shoot in adobeRGB and convert to sRGB in photoshop before editing it further. You can then see a representative image. Don't bother with the rest xD
If you want to offer prints somewhere, ask if they do the conversion for you or whether you have to arrange that yourself.

I don't think you'll have to bother with it too much for now; just work on expressing and building a portfolio. Lighting, subject, composition and then gear/tech are important in that order
But as you aspire to do more with your photography, I think it's an important aspect to be aware of, because it is easily overlooked with all the other exciting stuff hihi

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

UnicornLovesCoffee In reply to Greybeard-CG [2018-01-03 01:04:20 +0000 UTC]

Ah! I honestly haven't looked, but it is whatever default the camera has and whatever Photoshop set's it to.
I've read more about RAW into Jpeg's and Png's and etc. I keep my Raw's but convert to Jpeg's for internet.
I'll check out the colour-space next time I pull my camera out for a shoot.

And I'll do my best! I just want to keep it fun and interesting!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Greybeard-CG In reply to UnicornLovesCoffee [2018-01-04 11:38:46 +0000 UTC]

Sounds about right You only really start drowning in the hassle when you want to arrange printing professionally. For web it makes no sense to work above sRGB because...99% of your audience does not have colour-critical monitors anyway

That's the spirit! Fun rules a large part

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UnicornLovesCoffee In reply to Lycramosa [2018-01-01 00:40:55 +0000 UTC]

Awe thank you!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0