michael_mcblane

I was using Bridge but as I mentioned I'd retouched a number of files before this happened. Up until that point everything seemed to be working fine.

Michael

I've had the CS3 (basic) upgrade installed for a week or so (from CS2) and

today after retouching in photoshop and trying to save the file to my hard

drive I got a message " Fatal Application Exit-- the specified module could not

be found..C\Program files\common files\Adobe\Adobe Version Cue Cw3\Client\3.0.0

\VersionCue UI.DLL"

Then Photoshop.exe Application Error " The instruction at "0x5ad71531"

referenced memory at "0x000000014". The memory could not be "read" Click OK to

terminate program.

Needless to say I lost an hour or so of retouching. Previously in the day I had

worked on similar files and had no problem but now it consistantly crashes when

I try to save a file.

I'm running XP, 4 gigs of Ram, 80 Meg HD and 250 meg HD as scratch disk and

storage.

I should add that I never had the CS3 beta installed so I'm not involved in

that can of worms.

Any ideas?

Thanks.

Michael

Adobe CS3 Extended upgrade is $349. Not sure what extended give you but in most of their advertising "Basic" CS3 seems sort of absent.

Michael

Framing supply places used to have 1/4 inch strips that went between the print and the glass (print has to mounted to be rigid) along the edges of the print so that the print didn't touch the glass. They came in white and black.

Michael

I agree with most of what has been said here. What I think you are missing from the picture is that it wasn't shot with a short light. Meaning a light from the far side that creates a shadow side of the face closest to the camera.

If I was trying to work on this and I'm not sure it would help or not but I'd try two things:

"Burn" the close side of the face down a little and add catchlights at around 10 oclock that are not very bright but just add a small sparkle in the eyes.

Michael

The quirkiness has sort of a Norman Rockwell feel to it although for that it needs the woman interacting with someone else that's visible.

I think the manipulation is great for this image and it's sort of a fun picture. I'd pursue more in this vein.

Michael

With Seal/Bienfang Buffermount you can drymount at 170 degrees for about a minute.

I've never heard of anyone needing to leave a print in for 5 minutes.

I've drymounted tradition prints and inkjet prints for years and for 20x24 usually for one and a half minutes. Smaller prints for about a minute.

Michael

Thanks to everyone for your help. It turns out the problem was the placement of the negative on the FH 869GR glass holder. It seems that the right side of the film (the side that says Ilford or whatever) cannot have a gap on the black masking sheet. The side of the film with the negative numbers can have a gap.

When I placed my negs on the glass carrier I centered them on the mask and for some reason the right had side of the negative can't have light coming through.

Michael

Tweaking the settings doesn't work because it's not possible to tweak it to the point that it's a good scan. It's completely blown out.

Michael

Thanks for the replies.

ICE is off. I don't do much tweaking in the scanner software as I prefer to do it in photoshop. So the settings are 4000 resolution, unsharp mask is checked,analog gain is 0, Scan Image enhancer is checked, multi sample is normal, and bit depth is 16. They are also scanned mono and greyscale.

These negs are all portraits and all have been exposed the same. As I mentioned, I don't change the settings on the scanner after doing one neg and moving on to another. One scan will be perfect, then the next one will be blown out and contrasty. Sometimes after shutting it all down and restarting, that blown out neg will then scan perfect. Then I move on to the next one and it's all blown out and contrasty.

Michael

I have a Nikon 9000 scanner that I've just started using quite a bit to scan

6x6 black and white negatives. Often I'll get a perfect scan, save it and then

try to scan another neg. On this next one the preview will be very contrasty.

I've exited Nikon Scan, restarted and tried again, and the same thing. Very

contrasty. I've removed the neg and shut down the scanner and then started it

back up again, same thing again. Ocassionally after trying a few previews and

scans, miraculously the scan will be good. Then the next neg will go back to

the contrasty stuff again. These negs are all exposed the same at the same time

and are good quality negs. So it's not the negs.

For some reason it seems like the first neg scanned is fine then after that

they are extremely contrasty. Has anyone run into this and is there some

setting that needs changing.

Michael

Something to consider is that Fine Art Pearl has optical brighteners and has the pros and cons of that. Silver Rag does not.

I'm not sure if the Innova has brighteners or not.

Michael

In my opinion retouching should be approached the way women approach makeup. The goal is for it to look invisible. Most women would prefer someone to comment on how nice they look, not what nice makeup they have on.

The same goes for retouching.

As for your picture, nobody has blurred skin and sharp and retouched eyes. So yes, it is creepy.

What the trend is for better or worse, is to blur the skin SLIGHTLY, then sharpen anything with definite lines like eyes, lips and teeth, nostrils etc.

But remember whatever you do, it needs to be invisible. Nobody wants to look at a picture of themselves and see that they've been photoshopped.

Just an opinion.

Michael

My comments were that with the this new "tool" that the work didn't seem to get better but instead got lazy and worse.

I think photoshop is an incredible tool, but somehow it changed a lot of portrait work into an over-retouched mushy sort of mess.

I do think that a lot of commercial/advertising work was helped with photoshop though.

Everyone knows that people have been retouching negs and prints for years but the proliferation of tricks and enhancements with photoshop seems to have set back the standards in some cases and not improved them.

Michael

As someone coming from the "downtown portrait studio" background and after recently resubscribing to THE PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER magazine I'm completely amazed at how the portraits have gone into the toilet. Everyone featured in the magazine seems to have "gone digital" and been swept away into the nether world of photoshop.

Most look like they've been dipped into a tank of gaussian blur for a few hours, yanked out and dragged into the eye and teeth whitening room where they are "enhanced" to look like they glow in the dark. Next on to plastic surgery where every pore is removed and a mannequin face is glued on until they're ready for prime time.

The photojournalism type weddings are equally "enhanced" so they look out of focus on purpose.

Sadly one of the pioneers in the portrait field, Monte Zucker, is terminally ill and some of his latest work is shown. My God, I took a workshop with him 25 years ago and his work was stunning. Today it's photoshopped to death. If a person like Monte Zucker can be sucked into the photoshop rat race, what chance does the average joe have.

Michael

I've recently set up my Epson 7800 and have been using Crane Museo Silver Rag

paper on a roll (24"). I print mostly black and white and I have a few

questions that a 7800 owner may be able to answer.

Do you print 1440 or 2880 or can you tell the difference?

Do you print High Speed?

I notice that I'm getting dented prints on the right side and is that from the

paper thickness (3gsm)?

Do you use the cutter with Silver Rag?

Thanks in advance

Michael

Could someone comment on this scenario if a person were printing black and white instead of color.(epson 7800).

Michael

For portraits, the "acceptable" catchlights are generally at 10 or 2 oclock on the eye. Really anal people say they should be round as well, but who really needs to be that anal.

The "fill" catchlight is usually in the center of the eye and is often removed.

The problem comes when people use large umbrellas behind the photographer or large rectangular softboxes directly beside the subject which creates a large long catchlight.

In recent years almost all catchlights have become "acceptable", unless they become a distraction.

Michael

I've been scouring the sites reading about Epson, Hahnemuhle, Crane, Innova et

all and everybody has their own opinion and stories.

My problem is that what their stories don't say is what the end result of the

print is.

I'm a portrait photographer who has printed exclusively black and white by

traditional methods on Ilford Warm Tone Black and White 20x24 Fiber Glossy

paper for a long time. I will be picking up my Epson 7800 in a couple of weeks

and would like to smooth the transition to digital by picking perhaps one paper

to start with. I fully expect to try different papers in the next while but

would like recommendation on a great paper to begin with.

I've heard of the outgassing issues with a number of papers, which is a concern

because I usually frame under plexiglas within a couple of days. I have always

prefered traditional glossy (fiber) which is not very glossy, to any matte type

of paper however I'm not totally sure if under glass it makes too much

difference.

So my criteria is, 24 inch roll paper, portrait subject matter, quick framing

(archivally), and of course very importantly, archival.

Thanks in advance.

Michael

I'd be interested in knowing where you're getting this information from. I've been drymounting "traditional" prints both color and black and white for 30 years and displaying them on walls and see NO negative affects at all.

As for inkjet, I don't know.

Michael

I'm not sure how they canvas mount inkjet prints but I've mounted hundreds or RC color photographs on canvas usually 16x20,20x24 and higher.

It's done by stripping off just the emulsion layer from the print which leaves a tissue paper thin print. Then that is placed on canvas that has the adhesive already on it, or by using dry mount tissue, and then placed into a dry mount press and done much like drymounting a normal print.

Then the canvas is stretched over a stretcher frame or mounted on masonite.

Sorry, I don't know who does this in LA.

Michael

Not to overstate my previous post but this comes back to the old saying, "buy a camera and you're a photographer, buy a piano and you own a piano"

To continue the analogy, you have the piano, can play Chopsticks on it and want to know how you can turn that into Rhapsody in Blue. The answer is YOU CAN'T. You need to learn to play the piano.

Back to my previous answer. Learn photography. It's all about lighting.

Michael

Max, the answer to your question is: learn photography.

What you are doing now are snapshots. The art and craft of photography is not something that you buy like photoshop. Get some books on portrait/commercial lighting. Learn what does what.

You've made a great start, you own a camera. Now learn photography.

Michael

I looked at the picture of probably your wife that you posted on this site. Since you have the portrait lighting setup you mentioned, your problem us that you don't know how to use it. This can't be corrected by photoshop or different labs.

Your portraits are probably lacking a "professional" look because they are not lit correctly.

If you're interested, email me at blansky@aol.com and I'll teach you.

Michael

Perhaps you issue isn't with the printing or the camera it's with your ability to do good portrait lighting. This can make portraits look 3 dimensional, have "snap" and appear lifelike.

Post some pictures.

Michael