neil

Breeze's user guide says the lack of bulb mode via the software link is a limitation of the camera, and not the remote software, so it's probably impossible.

 

You might want to try taking several 30 second captures and combining the results with software. This should also give you less noise than single exposure.

You can buy a USB PCI adapter for about $40, I think. From the many scanner reviews I've read, USB 2.0 or Firewire does make a noticable difference, because high-resolution scanning uses a lot of bandwidth.

 

I was thinking of getting a Canon LIDE 30, but changed my mind when I learned it didn't support "High-Speed USB 2.0" (Canon's marketers are kind of misleading to tout that it supports "Full-Speed USB 2.0", which is actually the same speed as USB 1.1).

 

p.s. I sympathize with your pains in getting Dell tech support. I have spent many hours listening to their menus and music, and being sent to the back of some other queue after I finally speak to a human. E-mail fared me no better, unfortunately.

I assume the TIFF files are the 8-bits-per-pixel variety. The nice thing about raw files is they store more than 8 bits per pixel (12 bits on most Canons). This gives you more latitude for adjusting exposure and contrast. Since you mention taking pictures under bad conditions, I would strongly recommend a raw format over 8-bit TIFF.

 

I have a Canon Powershot S40, which does JPEG or RAW. I shot in JPEG early on, but now I use raw exclusively. I also have the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in, which is much better than the Canon software or other software that uses the Canon API (e.g. BreezeBrowser, Yarc plus).

I don't think the ratings are such a big deal. Every person who rates you will evaluate you on a different scale, anyway. Some people rate low, and some rate high.

 

The only way to use ratings is to look at each individual one in context of who rated it. Or if you get a whole lot of ratings, the average might start to mean something.

 

In the past, I have advocated a rating system that is much more descriptive. Why not have a bunch of possible attributes, and let the reviewer choose 2 or 3 strongest and 2 or 3 weakest. These could include lighting, composition, subject, color, mood, etc. This would provide a lot of useful feedback even when people choose not to comment.

 

In any case, if your mother wants to leave a comment, why not let her do so? She can sign "Mom" at the bottom to clear up any potential confusion.

Like most dye-based printers, the Epson 1280 has a very wide color gamut. Are you using appropriate color profiles for your original and for the printer? This should help to keep the saturation and contrast under control.

I've answered my own question, sort of. I purchased the Adobe Raw converter and tried it.

 

I've found the Adobe tool so useful and convenient, I haven't even wanted to open the old tools again. I love being able to tweak the white balance by number, slider, preset, or by saving and loading settings. And tweaking white balance is fast! With the Canon converters, I had to hope something in my image gave me a reasonable white. Then I'd usually have to hunt and peck, which took forever for each try. This tool, on the other hand, is very fast at showing you the results, and it updates them as you move the slider.

 

This has greatly sped up the process of color correction, and my images now come out better than they ever have. I also really like the many other settings provided by the Adobe tool. This is what a raw converter should be. It is worth every penny.

 

A quick review of the Jpeg2000 tool: It's somewhat useful, but quite slow (I fault the file format, not Adobe). I can now write a lossless 16-bit per pixel image with on a decrease in file size on the order of 1/2 to 1/3. And lossy images look great. I'm still not sure if this format is worth the computing time. When I save one for the first time, Adobe takes me to a preview screen similar to the JPEG one, where I choose the compression level, and it tells me how big the file will be. Getting to this screen takes 5+ seconds, as does any adjustment made here. When I finish, the file is actually saved, taking another 5+ seconds. This is on a 1.2 ghz PC. Image quality for Jpeg2000 is great. Byte for byte, it looks a lot better than JPEG. This tool is more a nice-to-have than a necessity. The Raw converter, on the other hand, is something any serious digital photographer should have.

Monaco's newest entry-level calibrator works for LCD and CRT. Monitors from Eizo have a reputation for being amazing, but they are very expensive. If you Google for LCD reviews, you'll find quite a few.

 

Of the other brands I know, Samsung, Sony, ViewSonic, Apple, and Mitsubishi seem to be among the best. Planar isn't bad, either. On the specs, some values you should pay attention to are:

Brightness (240+ seems good)

Contrast ratio (most fall between 250:1 and 600:1)

Viewing angle (the best I've seen are 160-170 degree viewing angles)

and possibly, Pixel response time (16-25 milliseconds is quite good)

 

One option that provides good bang for your buck is Dell. They have models from 15 to 20 inches. Their 18 inch is a rebranded Sony (though slightly dated). Their 19 inch is a very nice rebranded Samsung. You'll have to Google to find out what any others are. Dell discounts these to 15% off from time to time.

 

The big problem with desktop LCD monitors today is the stingy resolution. My 14-inch Dell notebook screen has 1600x1200 pixels. I really like viewing and editing photos with that much visible detail. Unfortunately, the market seems to only make desktop LCDs in the .26-.29 dot pitch range. 17-19 inch monitors virtually all have 1280x1024. 20+ inch monitors are usually 1600x1200, unless they're wide-screen, when they have 1920x1200. There is one bittersweet exception: if you have 5-10 thousand dollars to spare, Eizo has some very high resolution monitors to drool over.

I've been tossing this question around recently. I have a Canon digital camera, and I have been using raw mode whenever possible. For the most possible, control, Canon's converter lets you do a "linear" conversion, which leaves the image quite dark and completely unsharpened.

 

After I changed the brightness, it took an unsharp mask of almost 300% to get from this point to where the image looked "normal." I'm sure all this sharpening being done by the camera or Raw converter has side effects. I would like to try out some different sharping tools and see which ones yield the most natural-looking results.

The Epson 2200 printer driver features "edge enhancement". Has anyone done a side-by-side between this and the other three options?

By the way, most of the current devices use USB 1.1. This means that transfer between it and your computer will be very slow. However, Tripper and a new version of the X-Drive are supposed to support "High Speed" USB 2.0. These models should transfer about 10 times faster.

 

However, this will not affect transfer speed from the flash card to the device.

Bill,

 

I ran across this explanation a couple of days ago:

"Tim Grey (associated with George Lepp) had some excellent profiles for the Epson 2200, but removed them when he discovered restrictions in the MonacoPROOF license. . ." (http://www.normankoren.com/color_management_3.html)

Does it mean "all" of the above things, or "one or more" of the above things would have taken place?

Kamur,

 

Intuitively speaking, I would guess the answer is "no". 8-bit (* 3) printing gives you a total of 16 million colors. I'm pretty sure the shade differences are smaller than your eye can detect.

 

The real advantage of 16-bit is the "elbow room" it gives you for changing brightness and contrast during the editing phase.

A lot of retailers sell "sampler packs" that generally include 2 sheets each of various kinds of paper. This might be a good, economical way to try a lot of papers.

 

Also, when you finish testing, would you mind posting the results here?

Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of ACR vs. the supplied camera software in terms of algorithms and output quality?

 

For example, my Canon software has a "false color filter" that it uses by default. Is this the same as the "moire filter" in Adobe's plugin?

If matte ink is being used with glossy paper, this could indeed be a problem. Most of the 2200's inks have a polymer coating around each ink particle, which gives them better performance on glossy papers. However, the matte black is able to produce deeper blacks by using uncoated particles. You can read about this here:

http://www.inkjetart.com/pro/7600_9600/black_mode.html

In Europe, the Epson 2200 is the 2100 and comes with a "Gray Scale Balancer" utility used to tune the gray tones of your specific printer. There is an interesting article about it here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/making-beer.shtml

Also visit: http://www.insidecomputer.com/digital_storage_comparison_chart.htm

Here's a retailer that claims to sell ImageTank, X-Drive, and Digibin brands of the product:

http://www.insidecomputer.com/store/imagetank/buy.html

 

Like Peter, I can't vouch for this retailer or any of the products, since I haven't tried them.

If you're really going for archival, then you ought to get some 3rd-party archival inks. <a href="http://www.inkjetmall.com">InkJetMall</a> is one of several dealers that carry them.

 

Alternatively, if you can afford it, a superb option is to purchase the US$700 Epson 2200 photo printer, whose OEM inks look amazing and are predicted to last around 75 years.

 

And naturally, be sure your paper is of archival quality.

Back when I tried out the predecessor to Elements, I noticed it was missing multiple levels of undo. I don't know if this is true in E2.

 

Adobe should have a 30-day fully functional version of Elements available to download. Also, there should be a full version of Photoshop with printing and saving disabled.

 

It might be worth spending a little time to see which one "feels" right.

My suggestion:

 

Get rid of number ratings. Each person rates on a different scale anyway.

 

Ratings seem to have two intended purposes:

1) Provide a way to find the most liked photos on photo.net.

2) Provide feedback to the photographer.

 

So why not address these separately. For 1, here's a suggested system: let each user nominate a photo as an audience favorite. Someone can nominate a photo once per week. Also each week, all the photos with 2 nominations are displayed in the gallery for everyone to see. Of these, let everyone select 1 (maybe 2) favorites. The 3 with the most votes will receive commendation. There could also be 5 runner-up photos selected.

 

Now for the other part. Numbers don't help much anyway. Often, a photo has a critical flaw that lowers the rating. Other times, something wonderful about it raises the rating. So, why not expand the feedback system. Written comments are great, but perhaps more people would comment if there was the option of a short "questionnaire."

 

A couple of ideas for fields:

 

Strongest point: tone/composition/emotion/originality/color/interesting - have choices, and then a line to explain "other".

Weakest point: similar

 

Have radio buttons or maybe even check boxes for multiple selection. There could be other fields.

 

This could provide much more interesting feedback to people who really are interested in feedback.