What is Gary Fong talking about?

[Derrel]

Oh! I get it! Wedding photographers should listen to Gary Fong. I'm on board with that 100%.

Joe

Well, considering that the majority of them are probably going to have prints made on a Noritsu or Fuji machine printer, and the majority of them are going to upload 500 or more images that will be seen on Windows computers running God knows what browser, yes, shooting directly to sRGB makes a ton of sense. MANY computers are running browsers that are color-space-unaware, so there's a good chance that viewers would see images shot in AdobeRGB that would look like crap.

Again, I'm trying to explain what Gary Fong was trying to convey, not trying to puff myself up by calling him an idiot. I'm trying to put his suggested working method BASICS into the context in which they were actually made. And you two above??? Not so much....

Again...he's not talking about how the one lonely guy shoots images that he views alone on his single perfect monitor with black frame around each image in Photoshop in Wide Gamut RGB mode...smug in the knowledge that his images look GREAT (that is great--on his screen, with his software, in his light-controlled basement).

 

[hamlet]

I would think that you were arrogant, but i would also not ignore your pointers because you have the work to back you up. I would be a fool not to investigate.

My advice would be.... look into that method. But don't accept it as gospel (The Five Commandments? :mrgreen. Maybe it will work for you, maybe it won't. Maybe you can takes parts of it and create your own working method.

The ultimate goal is: Get the shots you want, using the method that works best for you.

Right now i'm fumbling in the dark without a clue of what i'm walking on or where the walls are. That about sums up my method as of 4d/11m/2013y. I see all these professional photographer with clean, otherworldly pictures that i don't recognize as something being terrestrial. Are pictures supposed to look so clean and polished? I don't know to be honest and it bothers me for reasons i cannot explain. But that could probably be because i'm ignorant.

 

[Ysarex]

Oh! I get it! Wedding photographers should listen to Gary Fong. I'm on board with that 100%.

Joe

Well, considering that the majority of them are probably going to have prints made on a Noritsu or Fuji machine printer, and the majority of them are going to upload 500 or more images that will be seen on Windows computers running God knows what browser, yes, shooting directly to sRGB makes a ton of sense. MANY computers are running browsers that are color-space-unaware, so there's a good chance that viewers would see images shot in AdobeRGB that would look like crap.

Again, I'm trying to explain what Gary Fong was trying to convey, not trying to puff myself up by calling him an idiot. I'm trying to put his suggested working method BASICS into the context in which they were actually made. And you two above??? Not so much....

Again...he's not talking about how the one lonely guy shoots images that he views alone on his single perfect monitor with black frame around each image in Photoshop in Wide Gamut RGB mode...smug in the knowledge that his images look GREAT (that is great--on his screen, with his software, in his light-controlled basement).

Hey, you're right and I agree that's a fair explanation of why he was saying what he was saying. But it does lead me to heave a big sigh and wish it could be better -- but I understand.

Joe

 

[hamlet]

Oh! I get it! Wedding photographers should listen to Gary Fong. I'm on board with that 100%.

Joe

Well, considering that the majority of them are probably going to have prints made on a Noritsu or Fuji machine printer, and the majority of them are going to upload 500 or more images that will be seen on Windows computers running God knows what browser, yes, shooting directly to sRGB makes a ton of sense. MANY computers are running browsers that are color-space-unaware, so there's a good chance that viewers would see images shot in AdobeRGB that would look like crap.

Again, I'm trying to explain what Gary Fong was trying to convey, not trying to puff myself up by calling him an idiot. I'm trying to put his suggested working method BASICS into the context in which they were actually made. And you two above??? Not so much....

Again...he's not talking about how the one lonely guy shoots images that he views alone on his single perfect monitor with black frame around each image in Photoshop in Wide Gamut RGB mode...smug in the knowledge that his images look GREAT (that is great--on his screen, with his software, in his light-controlled basement).

But you can always go back to sRGB and not the other way around. So Why not just shoot in ARGB and save it for later if you ever decide to print it on some expensive printer?

 

[480sparky]

Right now i'm fumbling in the dark without a clue of what i'm walking on or where the walls are. That about sums up my method as of 4d/11m/2013y. I see all these professional photographer with clean, otherworldly pictures that i don't recognize as something being terrestrial.

I'd like to see you shoot a wedding!

Are pictures supposed to look so clean and polished?

The end result should be what you want it to be, not 'just how it turned out'.

I don't know to be honest and it bothers me for reasons i cannot explain. But that could probably be because i'm ignorant.

It's quite normal to be baffled. It will take time for everything to fall into place and make sense. Don't worry, just keep pluggin' away.

 

[Ysarex]

Oh! I get it! Wedding photographers should listen to Gary Fong. I'm on board with that 100%.

Joe

Well, considering that the majority of them are probably going to have prints made on a Noritsu or Fuji machine printer, and the majority of them are going to upload 500 or more images that will be seen on Windows computers running God knows what browser, yes, shooting directly to sRGB makes a ton of sense. MANY computers are running browsers that are color-space-unaware, so there's a good chance that viewers would see images shot in AdobeRGB that would look like crap.

Again, I'm trying to explain what Gary Fong was trying to convey, not trying to puff myself up by calling him an idiot. I'm trying to put his suggested working method BASICS into the context in which they were actually made. And you two above??? Not so much....

Again...he's not talking about how the one lonely guy shoots images that he views alone on his single perfect monitor with black frame around each image in Photoshop in Wide Gamut RGB mode...smug in the knowledge that his images look GREAT (that is great--on his screen, with his software, in his light-controlled basement).

But you can always go back to sRGB and not the other way around. So Why not just shoot in ARGB and save it for later if you ever decide to print it on some expensive printer?

Hamlet, in your other thread currently running here (Overexposure, How can you tell?) you tell us you're through shooting JPEGs. And I quote, "I have no need for jpeg any more." Now you're talking about setting a colorspace in the camera which only has meaning if you're shooting JPEGs. Save your camera raw files and the camera's colorspace is meaningless.

Joe

 

[The_Traveler]

Right now i'm fumbling in the dark without a clue of what i'm walking on or where the walls are. That about sums up my method as of 4d/11m/2013y. I see all these professional photographer with clean, otherworldly pictures that i don't recognize as something being terrestrial. Are pictures supposed to look so clean and polished? I don't know to be honest and it bothers me for reasons i cannot explain. But that could probably be because i'm ignorant.

Stop reading and listening to stuff that is for people who have some idea of what they are doing already.
Learn the basic stuff and shoot a bunch of pictures.

You cannot shorten the time to get facile with the ideas and the camera by piling on more stuff.

 

[hamlet]

Well, considering that the majority of them are probably going to have prints made on a Noritsu or Fuji machine printer, and the majority of them are going to upload 500 or more images that will be seen on Windows computers running God knows what browser, yes, shooting directly to sRGB makes a ton of sense. MANY computers are running browsers that are color-space-unaware, so there's a good chance that viewers would see images shot in AdobeRGB that would look like crap.

Again, I'm trying to explain what Gary Fong was trying to convey, not trying to puff myself up by calling him an idiot. I'm trying to put his suggested working method BASICS into the context in which they were actually made. And you two above??? Not so much....

Again...he's not talking about how the one lonely guy shoots images that he views alone on his single perfect monitor with black frame around each image in Photoshop in Wide Gamut RGB mode...smug in the knowledge that his images look GREAT (that is great--on his screen, with his software, in his light-controlled basement).

But you can always go back to sRGB and not the other way around. So Why not just shoot in ARGB and save it for later if you ever decide to print it on some expensive printer?

Hamlet, in your other thread currently running here (Overexposure, How can you tell?) you tell us you're through shooting JPEGs. And I quote, "I have no need for jpeg any more." Now you're talking about setting a colorspace in the camera which only has meaning if you're shooting JPEGs. Save your camera raw files and the camera's colorspace is meaningless.

Joe

That's because you are running under the assumption that i knew any of this to begin with. I didn't know that it didn't matter in raw.

 

[tecboy]

I set the saturation, contrast, and sharpening other than 0 on my dslr setting. I shoot ARGB and not sRGB. That is my way, and not Gary Fong way.

 

[Ysarex]

But you can always go back to sRGB and not the other way around. So Why not just shoot in ARGB and save it for later if you ever decide to print it on some expensive printer?

Hamlet, in your other thread currently running here (Overexposure, How can you tell?) you tell us you're through shooting JPEGs. And I quote, "I have no need for jpeg any more." Now you're talking about setting a colorspace in the camera which only has meaning if you're shooting JPEGs. Save your camera raw files and the camera's colorspace is meaningless.

Joe

That's because you are running under the assumption that i knew any of this to begin with. I didn't know that it didn't matter in raw.

I told you that in my 2nd response back on page 1. If you save a camera raw file, all of the settings available on the camera that are used to influence the camera's JPEG processing software are meaningless -- they don't apply to the raw file. So you can't make a contrast change to a raw file or set a colorspace etc. The raw file records the exposure and that's it. All that other stuff is there to allow you to alter the behavior of the camera's JPEG engine.

Joe

 

[hamlet]

Right now i'm fumbling in the dark without a clue of what i'm walking on or where the walls are. That about sums up my method as of 4d/11m/2013y. I see all these professional photographer with clean, otherworldly pictures that i don't recognize as something being terrestrial. Are pictures supposed to look so clean and polished? I don't know to be honest and it bothers me for reasons i cannot explain. But that could probably be because i'm ignorant.

Stop reading and listening to stuff that is for people who have some idea of what they are doing already.
Learn the basic stuff and shoot a bunch of pictures.

You cannot shorten the time to get facile with the ideas and the camera by piling on more stuff.

I was just curious because it bugged me that i didn't understand what Gary was saying.

 

[hamlet]

Hamlet, in your other thread currently running here (Overexposure, How can you tell?) you tell us you're through shooting JPEGs. And I quote, "I have no need for jpeg any more." Now you're talking about setting a colorspace in the camera which only has meaning if you're shooting JPEGs. Save your camera raw files and the camera's colorspace is meaningless.

Joe

That's because you are running under the assumption that i knew any of this to begin with. I didn't know that it didn't matter in raw.

I told you that in my 2nd response back on page 1. If you save a camera raw file, all of the settings available on the camera that are used to influence the camera's JPEG processing software are meaningless -- they don't apply to the raw file. So you can't make a contrast change to a raw file or set a colorspace etc. The raw file records the exposure and that's it. All that other stuff is there to allow you to alter the behavior of the camera's JPEG engine.

Joe

That's what i was referring to.

 

[hamlet]

Right now i'm fumbling in the dark without a clue of what i'm walking on or where the walls are. That about sums up my method as of 4d/11m/2013y. I see all these professional photographer with clean, otherworldly pictures that i don't recognize as something being terrestrial.

I'd like to see you shoot a wedding!

Are pictures supposed to look so clean and polished?

The end result should be what you want it to be, not 'just how it turned out'.

I don't know to be honest and it bothers me for reasons i cannot explain. But that could probably be because i'm ignorant.

It's quite normal to be baffled. It will take time for everything to fall into place and make sense. Don't worry, just keep pluggin' away.

A month ago photography was nothing but a passing thought. Just like an idea you entertained in the hot tub. i'm burning through all of this information, trying to catch up with my own curiosity.

 

[480sparky]

......... Just like an idea you entertained in the hot tub..........

Wait. What?!?! Hot tub? What hot tub?

Did I pass out or something?

 

[robbins.photo]

I set the saturation, contrast, and sharpening other than 0 on my dslr setting. I shoot ARGB and not sRGB. That is my way, and not Gary Fong way.

This message not approved by the Gary Fong for absolute ruler of the known universe campaign
.