marshall

<p>Their method totally makes sense, just as long as you are never going to do anything with your pictures but output them on that printer. Good for them, of course...</p>

<p>What Jeff said. Also, if it's only on part of her (as in the example above, where the shadow areas show the reflection, but it's not strong everywhere), you may have to do some selective adjustments. This gets you into the adjustment brush in Lightroom, or into Layers and Masks in Photoshop. Good luck.</p>

<p>IS/VR are not meaningful in attempting to freeze subject blur. As you note, if it's 1/160 to freeze the subject, IS/VR won't buy you anything lower than that for that picture. In theory, if it's really helping you three stops worth, you won't need 1/400th anymore, and that does help you with camera-shake blur.<br>

That all said, I would strongly encourage you to test and test some more. IS/VR are really impressive technologies, but the lensmakers' quote numbers are ideals. I have two VR lenses, and they buy me between 2 and 4 stops. Essentially, with non-moving subjects, I can combine techniques and sometimes get away with 4 stops - this works when I can squeeze off multiple pictures and usually get a good, sharp one. If I'm shooting anything moving at all, I can't count on 4 stops because I can't hold the button down and get a couple to play with - the shot's gone too fast. In those cases, I'll try not to count on more than 2ish stops. Your mileage may vary, of course. </p>

<p>Hard to say without seeing it. I may be misremembering CS3, but I think that was the introduction of the Healing Brush. If so, it may help you, because Healing is intended to retain texture. In some cases, that's not as good as content-aware fill, but that isn't available for a couple versions after CS3. Good luck!</p>

<p>Sounds about right. I'm hearing 1-2 weeks from my local toy store. They are still sending all of them out the door on arrival, but the time from order to first picture isn't all that long. Perhaps that will result in a reduction of the premium camera scalpers can request. </p>

<p>If the test target prints well, using the same settings, then it suggests that the cast is present in the source files instead of being a printer problem. Unfortunately, it will be harder to make adjustments to those files without a well set up monitor, yes. That they look fine on other computers presents a bit of a challenge, but I think your suspicions about your issues may have some basis.</p>

<p>Harry - With all due respect, I think you've done Framework photographers a disservice. There is some very fine photography in there. However, your choice to announce it as "beyond National Geographic" in addition to the "Framework vs. National Geo" title of your post, turn this into an unnecessary competition. What is your goal is in creating the post in that manner?<br>

<br />I don't think National Geographic photography needs our defense. Their long-established reputation doesn't (and shouldn't) protect them from criticism if the quality of work their declines. But I'm not sure that's the point you're making, either.<br>

<br />I will say this: I am very pleased to see photography featured well. The Boston Globe's "Big Picture" may have been early in this, but it's by no means unique in putting great photojournalism front and center, with Framework echoing the NY Times' solid "Lens" feature.</p>

<p>Don't we all win by having good photography presented well? Competition is fine, of course, but I don't get its application here.</p>

<p>Questioning the quality of the work is actually a bit of a red herring. The market sets the value of the work, and the argument is that Eggleston and his heirs violated some understood commitment about the number of the works available. Since scarcity contributes to the market value of the work, reducing scarcity reduces value, or so goes the argument. I am not a lawyer, but there seems to be some arguments on both sides.</p>

<p>As a practical matter, it may result in changes in the formality of agreements between artists and galleries, galleries and collectors, and artists and collectors. If Eggleston wins, collectors may be demanding more spelled-out contracts. If it goes the other way, photographers may be more careful about spelling out their rights. May see some of that happening anyway, but have to wait and see, I guess. </p>

<p>I take Scott's point that some collectors may consider this yet another reason - or an exacerbation of a reason - to take photography less seriously. The gallerist's role also changes, possibly, because they are motivated to preserve the value, and may also feel put out if the photographer later (through another seller) does things that call into question the galleriest's integrity or the effectiveness of their advice. </p>

 

<p><em>To my mind, "limited edition" means "only printing X copies at this time". It does not mean "there will never be another edition." </em><br>

<em></em>However, to many collectors and gallerists, that is <em>exactly</em> what it means. Obviously, that's how they attempt to protect (or increase) the value of the work. Absent a clear definition or a contract, both sides are assuming, and that's where a lot of lawyers make money. </p>

<p>Mike Johnston has some more info, with links to a lot more, here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/the-plot-thickens.html<br>

I haven't figured out where I stand on this, but there is some merit in the discussion.</p>

<p>Hi Josh - I'd like to add both kudos and critique, if I could.<br>

The good: cleaner. While I think three-column designs do work, it is difficult for photo.net given the large number of images, which can result in a cluttered appearance. This has a good look to it in the overall sense. It provides the sadly necessary ad space as well as a number of other items. With 2 instead of 3, more stuff rolls below the fold, but I think most people can deal with that. <br>

If I were to pick one criticism, it is that the actual photography, while high up the page, is somewhat tertiary visually. The large banner ad (necessary, but in a very strong position visually), followed by the large pictures in the reviews section, are both stronger than the photography that is submitted or curated to be on the home page. My one suggestion thus would be to make the review pictures (which are good to have, but ultimately somewhat bland) smaller - large thumbs instead of mid-res. They would still serve their purpose, and within the review visitors know they will get larger pictures. Then, it might be possible to increase the other photography just a little bit if you could work it into the design.<br>

While I appreciate product photography, it is ultimately a little generic, while the other photos serve to differentiate photo.net.<br>

Keep up the good work. </p>

<p>Well, it's really impossible to say until someone actually KNOWS something and can say it publicly, at which point everyone will know it. <br>

If it's the rumoured 36MP/$4k, then sadly no. If it's more like 20 (+/- however much) and under $3k, then maybe yeah. So, I'm sure that helped...</p>

<p>Adobe Camera Raw does not alter the original raw file - it always stays the same as it was out of the camera. ACR keeps the adjustments in a separate file, and reapplies the adjustments when you open the file. If you export the file to another format, or open it in Photoshop and then save it, that file has the adjustments applied directly, but if you want to, you can always go back to the original raw file. <br>

The Save button enables you to save in different formats, but doesn't change the original raw file. <br>

The Done button keeps the changes (in a central Db or in a sidecar xml file) and closes the ACR window.<br>

Hope that helps a little.</p>

<p><em> I usually shoot in Aperture priority, AUTO WB, ISO 100 most of the time</em><br>

The D300's native ISO is 200. Shooting at ISO 100 is a negative trade-off, albeit a slight one. The D300 files, shot at native ISO and exposed well, are very malleable. While I agree with much of the advice above, I do think that it's hard to assess what the original comment means without seeing examples. </p>

<p>I'm taking liberties and casting three votes: 1 for the 20mm and 2 against artificial limits. (And a 4th vote for taking both.) </p>

<p>It stands alone. It doesn't do everything that Photoshop does, but it does a lot of things that photoshop doesn't, and it does a lot of what most people need. Excellent program.<br>

If you google "Lightroom vs. Photoshop", you will find many many comparisons. Just use the more recent ones that deal with the current versions of the software.</p>

Color management can be pretty complex, and a couple of the things said earlier here may be incorrect.

 

A couple thoughts that might help. As mentioned, Photoshop is color-aware. That is, it honors embedded profiles. Most browsers and

the standard windows viewer don't assume sRGB; rather, they just aren't color-aware at all. They simply throw the numbers at the

screen and you get what you get. sRGB works as a lowest common denominator in part because the space is similar to what most

monitors will display. That's a bit squishy, but the point is that the safest way to get somewhat consistent color display across

browsers and computers is to output your jpegs in sRGB.

 

You can actually edit in whatever you want to edit it, as long as the jpegs get output in sRGB. If you decide to use something like

Lightroom, some of the choices are easy to manage. In Photoshop, if you are not already in sRGB, you want to CONVERT (not

Assign) the image to sRGB. [Assign leaves the numbers intact and just interprets the file as the new space; Convert changes the

numbers in the file so that it should appear correct in the new space. Only use Assign if there is an incorrect profile in the first place.]

 

Short version: you can edit in whatever you like, but when you output for web display, Convert the file to sRGB. You can't guarantee

they'll look the same to everyone, but you're giving them their best shot.

 

 

[Tangent: a simple way to do this is to set the camera to sRGB and the Photoshop default workspace to sRGB, but the color profile

setting in the camera doesn't really matter if you're shooting raw. If you shoot raw (and I think people generally should), the color

profile is assigned when the file is converted, so it can be dealt with later.]

 

Onward...

<p>Monolights are great, though if you don't need to overpower the sun, you can do and learn a lot with a small flash in an Ezybox (or similar modifier). Good luck to you in your decisions...</p>

<p>(Tangent: true enough, Shun, and the little softboxes he uses may show off the capacity of small flash, though they aren't by Nikon. He's actually quick to point out - he just did this at the Flash Bus event in Boston - that he buys all his Nikon stuff from Adorama. Then again, he does shoot for them from time to time, his wife is a pro rep for Nikon, he is pretty publicly a Nikon shooter for years... But anyway...)<br>

I'm not sure which softbox you mean, actually. The small flash modifiers Joe uses are by <a href="http://www.lumiquest.com/products.htm">Lumiquest</a>. He prefers the LTP, which is a "bigger" model. They can give a pretty soft looking light source, but only pretty close in. Otherwise, it'll be a softer light-to-shadow transfer than a bare flash, but not the same as a larger box. Even close, it won't be a truly even light source across a half-body portrait. The stuff they demo'd at the recent talk using the LTP, they used it very close in. Often/usually <em>just </em>out of the frame.<br>

<br />He also uses the Lastolite Ezybox and others of their modifiers. Those are much larger, and they would potentially be very good for half-body portraits. (He didn't happen to show these at Boston's Flash Bus stop, but they were selling a Joe-named <a href="http://www.lastolite.com/joe-mcnally-strobist-products.php">model</a>.)<br>

A lot of the time for a larger view while still using small flash, Joe pushes the flash through something like a Tri-grip diffuser (or multiple tri-grips, potentially). Then again, he also uses big strobes and modifiers.<br /> Hope that helps a bit. There is a lot of stuff on his blog that uses some of these modifiers, and even more in his books. Worth a look.</p>

<p>Keep an eye out as we get closer to time; someone will likely have to bail for one reason or another, and the ticket might show up in one of the flashbus-related forums (flickr?) or on Craigslist. Hope to see you there and congrats on the new daughter.</p>

<p>D4? The Era speaker? The Alesis drum module? The Suunto Dive Watch?<br>

Those D4s actually exist, at least.<br>

I think it's interesting to talk about and even fun to speculate, but it would be impossible to answer whether or not to buy one. (For me, I can say no, because I'm more in the market for the also-non-existent D400 or D800.)</p>

<p>That's a lot of discussion of a topic with no single answer. Some people can really benefit from having some of the discipline of film enforced upon them, while others benefit far more from the instant feedback and low-marginal-cost encouragement to experiment from digital.<br>

I will say that absolute statements probably don't advance the discussion. Not to pick on Ross, but "...if you go into any of the many photo galleries in Carmel or Monterey Calif the fine art pictues will all be film based and most of them B/W" -- well, when you say that *all* of anything will be from one side, it begs people to undermine the whole argument. (The cover image on the Weston Gallery site is one of William Neill's digital creations, and it doesn't make his older 4x5 work any less beautiful.)</p>

<p>Crapcrapcrap. Shouldn't write messages before I'm fully awake.<br>

Thanks to erroneously mislabeling the files, I described them exactly backwards. It is the 16-bit file that appears gray (mostly) and the 32-bit file that appears striped, though unevenly. I still believe either could be argued to "appear" correct, since logically the fully-reduced file would be gray, and since the original file did have stripes, so having some stripes is arguably a closer representation.<br>

It does make me glad that I don't actually reduce my photos to the point of illegibility, though I'm sure some folks would suggest that it might be an improvement to do so on any given day.</p>

 

<p>Not that it matters, but I just made myself a file with horizontal black and white stripes. Cut it in half, resolution-wise, a bunch of times. (All working in CS5.) The 32-bit file (well, converted to 32-bit) in super-small size (the file is now 30 pixels) look pretty much even gray at 100%. The file in 16-bit looks like a couple stripes, though uneven. When you enlarge (just display) the 30-pixel files, the 32-bit one still looks mostly gray, though with darker bars at the top and bottom. The 16-bit one looks like stripes still, though they aren't uniformly black and white.<br>

As near as I can tell, this doesn't really prove anything, I'm afraid. The original file was stripes, so it could easily be argued that having stripes at all makes the 16-bit version more "right". The even gray display may be logically correct, but the original file did have stripes. (I'm passing on the squint test, since I wasn't allowed to do that for my driving test.)</p>

<p>Appropos of nothing, there was a free Velvia action developed by Paul Bleicher some years back that did a reasonable job approximating a roughly velvia-like look. It operated based on the idea that DS has started with: instead of just a curve and saturation adjustment, it used Selective Color to work the colors independently. In concept, pretty sound.<br>

That said, there are a few problems with creating a generic version of a Velvia emulator. First, it has to be based on a specific starting point. In the case of Paul's action, it was based on the color response of the original digital Rebel, with pretty neutral capture settings. Second, that specific starting point varies with the light in the scene (I guess technically this is the Spectral Power Distribution or some such). I think Mauro noted above that Velvia's response shifts significantly with the color temperature of the light hitting it. (Shoot Velvia in the shade and you don't just get darker, you get bluer. Shoot your digital camera in the shade and, well, the camera will often auto-"correct" back towards neutral.)<br>

Anyway, if you wanted to build an emulator (and I have no experience with the emulators that cost money), you could do worse than start with comparing as people have said, and adjusting each color range directly through Selective Color or specific hue/sat adjustments.</p>

<p>A lot of the debate here comes down to "is it worth it" to do this instead of just shooting Velvia. Personally, I think if someone wants to spend some time on it, that it's worth doing for that person, and that's good enough for me as long as s/he recognizes the limits of the exercise...</p>