onlooker

<p>Thank you Tim and Andrew. I believe you answered my question. </p>

<p>So, I'm printing on epson premium luster. I'm no expert here, but I did "select Photoshop manages colors," and chose the Epson provided paper profile and also used one of my own (created with my new ColorMunki, which also set my monitor colors), and in the advance printer properties, clicked ICM and no color adjustment. The workspace image (Adobe RGG 1998) matches the printout quite closely. But, the print preview image is very very magenta-ish. Any idea why? Thanks. </p>

<p>There are so many good ideas above. Thank you. I now look forward to taking these photos this afternoon. And, Brian, I'll read your post to the young man. </p>

<p>I'm trying to help a friend's son out. He's having no luck dating despite trying sites like Tindr and OKCupid. He showed me the selfie of himself he posted and he looks psychotic in it -- it's very distorted. But, also he is 21 and looks like he's 16. He's very young looking -- skinny (probably a size 36 jacket and a 28 inch waist), no facial hair, quite pale, soft skin in the face. He has thick dark hair, and I asked him to get a haircut because his hair overwhelms his face when its long. <br>

I'm going to take a few photos of him later today and am wondering if anyone has any suggestions as to how to make him look older. I could even do some work in Photoshop, but of course don't want to get carried away. </p>

<p>Hi, I just need to print a draft of some photos on my Epson r2400, but am out of one of the colors (light magenta). Is there any way to make the printer print even though that cartridge is empty? </p>

<p>I am giving my niece who's getting married one of the few photos that exist of her and her boyfriend when they first met. The problem was that the background was very ugly, so I made it solid. The photo looks great, except the left side of her long wispy hair looks like it was cut and pasted -- the edge is too hard. I tried blurring the edge, but that didn't really do the job. Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks. </p>

<p>Thank you all. You narrowed down my options to roughly 3. I knew about the nex 7 and it's awfully nice, but the choice of lenses isn't so hot. But, I never considered using manual lenses. So, that's something I'll research. Also both the Lumix and Olympus cameras are appealing because they are weather sealed, and I am the kind of person who often takes my camera for walks, with only a plastic bag in my pocket in case of unexpected rain! So, thanks again for simplifying my task. I'll focus on the three cameras you mentioned (GH3, OMD, and Nex 7). That makes my decision making so much easier.</p>

<p>I'm a serious amateur, and have been taking photos for 30 years, but now I'm faced with a big decision. A long time ago, I made Canon my brand of choice, and currently have the god-awful T2i (which replaced my Canon 20d). The T2i is a flimsy piece of crap that after only a few years doesn't work well. I work 90% with a 50mm macro, and sometimes use a wide angle. Both lenses are dirty, and my wide angle no longer auto focuses. (I also have an 85mm, but never use it.) I also have an Olympus SP-350 point and shoot, which is quite old and has problems of its own. <br>

What I want most from a camera are large enough files and sharp enough images that I can use a 50mm or similar lens and crop away a lot as needed and print up to 13x19 (or larger when I buy a new printer). So, given that I'm disappointed in Canon and my lenses are crap, I think maybe it's time to seriously consider changing brands.<br>

I'm not too concerned about flash or fast shutter speed, since I do not take action shots as a rule and only do flash photography at family events and the like. I do want a viewfinder, but could be persuaded otherwise. Of course I want manual and RAW, and a reasonably sophisticated feature set. I never shoot video (though did shoot lots of super 8 years ago!). I might consider two cameras--a point and shoot and a more serious one such as a DSLR or a mirrorless one. I have looked at a variety of DSLRs, mirrorless cameras, and point and shoots in the store, but the more I look the more confused I get. <br>

My budget is at most $2000, and I'll spend days hemming and hawing and obsessing over prices before spending that, but that said, I'm hoping someone here has been through what I'm going through and can give me some good advice on a camera or cameras to seriously consider. <br>

<br />Thank you. </p>

<p>I just upgraded my Silverfast 6.6 to Silverfast 8, hoping the documentation and interface would be better. While I can manage to use Silverfast, the reality is that I don't use many of its tools and can't get it to do what I want half the time.<br>

Silverfast seems to me to try to mask its interface deficiencies with it's automated workflow that seems to limit what you can do. For instance, it does not appear you can apply the workflow to multiple negative frames. The workflows seem to generate one big file. And it also appears that if you want to modify the workflow with multiscan or dust removal, you can't.<br>

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I don't understand it, or it's just a really poorly designed interface with even worse documentation.<br>

While Silverast does create excellent scans, the documentation seems to me to be so pathetic that I would never ever recommend this software to anyone. (Hamrick's is fare more user friendly.)<br>

But, now that I just spent $150 (upgrade discount) on this crap, I'd like to figure out how to use it. Basically, I have quite a few 35mm negatives I want to scan and have a number of old photos as well.<br>

Any suggestions?</p>

<p>I have the Canon T2i and a couple of good quality lenses. I'm going to Paris, where I've been before, and this time want to concentrate on black and white photography. I have not done much black and white photography with a digital camera (though in the era of film, I did a lot). Anything I need to keep in mind? What about white balance? Are there any features of the T2i that may be especially useful with black and white? (I normally use camera raw and take highest resolution photos, then process them in Photoshop.) <br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I took a photo of a large artwork where the lighting was not adequate. As a result, a couple of edges on one side are slightly darker than the main part of the photo, somewhat distorting the colors. Is there a good way in Photoshop CS5 to correct this? Thanks.</p>

<p>I have about 300 Photoshop images (many different proportions) in TIFF or PSD that I want to batch process to a sensible size for web publishing. I have rarely batched processed in Photoshop, and never in CS5. Is there a good tutorial on this somewhere? Or can someone tell me how to do it. Thanks.</p>

<p>I've been busy scanning in several hundred old family photos that I recently inherited. I want to put them online (without at most a few words of text per photo), but I do not want to fuss much with web development (even though I'm not bad at Dreamweaver). I will want the collection to be password protected. I've thought of putting them on photo.net, flickr, google blogs, facebook, but am not sure which is best. I'd prefer a free service, but as long as it's low cost (under around $25/year) I'm fine with it. Any suggestions? Thanks.</p>

<p>My EOS 20d is on the blink. I have to pry open the flash with my fingernail and the autofocus rarely works. It's probably not worth getting it repaired. (Is it?)<br>

I have two lenses I love: a Sigma 35-70 and a 50mm macro. My 85mm and a cheap zoom telephoto I never use.<br>

I do a lot of photography, and have switched from the b&w darkroom to Photoshop, and am above average with the program.<br>

So, what I need help with is:<br>

Should I buy the Canon Rebel T2i or 7d, which appeal to me because I've always used Canon. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two, except in terms of price.<br>

or should I consider one of the<br>

Pen Digitals (e.g., OlympusE-PL1) or other higher end small cameras, which appeal to me because of its portability.<br>

Your thoughts? Thanks.</p>

<p>I just inherited about a thousand old and older family photos and 35 mm slides. I also have several thousand 35mm negatives, many of which are b&w.<br>

I'm thinking of buying a good scanner, scanning in my stuff and then reselling the scanner on Ebay or Craigslist.<br>

Any opinions as to what scanner I should get (Epson or other)? Also, any idea how long it takes to scan in 12 slides at ~3000 dpi?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>What do you think are the optimal dimensions for an image printed on 13x19" paper and why? Do you know of any good discussions of this topic? Thanks.</p>

<p>I'm making a art book for a friend, using photos of his colorful acrylic paintings mostly taken with a Canon 20d under subpar lighting conditions. <br>

In some cases, the photos look best in Adobe RGB (1998); in others cases, they look best in sRGB IEC61966-2.1.<br>

Why is that?</p>

<p>I have about 40 photos of paintings, but they were taken with two different cameras and a couple were taken with flash. That said, the photos aren't bad. But, among them, some seem to have slightly different hues and tones. Is there an easy way, in Photoshop CS2, to make these photos more similar in terms of their color values? I hope I worded this question clearly! Thanks.</p>

I'm very happy with my 20d. Are enlargements clearly better with the 50d? Does it have any other advantages over

the 20d -- especially given that I shoot RAW and use Photoshop? Thanks.

I have several photos at 300 dpi that currently print at only 6 inches high.

Since they are of artwork, I want to copy them into a photo book template and

increase their height to 7.5 inches. In addition, I may want to take a few

cutouts to show some details of the image, and those details would end up with a

resolution of 150 dpi or less after enlargement.

 

In general, should I enlarge without resampling (and go for a lower resolution)

or should I use some form of resampling? Also, what happens when I simply

enlarge an image by using the transform > scale option? I am using Shutterfly to

print the books. The printed images will each be 8.5 x11 (which includes plenty

of white space around the image) and Shutterfy's only recommendation is

1600x1200 resolution, but not sure how that relates to dpi. Thanks.

Color calibrated my screen, scanned in an image (using Vuescan), used standard

settings in Photoshop CS2 (North Amer. Prepress 2, Adobe RGB 1998, ColorMatch

RGB, etc.), and the printouts on my r2400 are coming out too dark and with too

much blue. The image I'm trying to print is an extremely colorful pastel.

 

Things I tried, outside of the normal:

1. Instead of Adobe RGB, tried Dimage Elite (nega). This yielded the best

onscreen colors, but the printout was worst.

2. Instead of letting the printer choose the colors, I let Photoshop choose

them. This was better, but the colors were still off and the printout too dark.

 

If you can't give me a solution, what's the logical approach to trying to get

things right?

 

Thanks.

Photoshop CS2. Matt Laur's idea of the blank canvas is a good one, but I'm surprised Photoshop doesn't allow me to actually save a fixed size selection or crop box.

I want to crop about 25 images to the same dimensions. What I want to do is

create a crop box (or a selection box) that is, e.g., 2200 x 1800 pixels and

place that box on different images and crop. I thought I could do that with the

crop bar, but all it seems to do is maintain the proportions rather than keep

the size fixed. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about and can tell me what

to do. Thanks.

I have a few images of artwork taken under suboptimal conditions. The main

problem is that the image is brightest on one side and gets gradually darker as

you move towards the other side. Obviously, the original lighting source was

off-centered an inadequate. Is there a sensible way to even out the lighting?

Thanks.

I have Photoshop CS2 and an Epson 2400, and want to print a photo on crummy

13x19 paper (Staples brand). When I print on this stuff, the image comes out too

light and the colors are dull. What can I do in Photoshop to try and compensate

for the limitations of this paper? (I know I can buy other paper, but that's not

the question!) Thanks.