david_a_mccracken

<p>I have Monaco EZ Color 2 and the original Optix puck. This works fine on XP, but I recently got a laptop with Windows 7 x64 on it. I first tried installing EZ Color 2, but that couldn't find the puck, then I downloaded the updated version of EZ Color, but still have the problem. Drivers I find seem to only go as far back as the Optix XR (DTP-94, I believe).<br>

Does anyone have this puck working under Windows 7? I really don't want to invest in a new calibration system when this still works fine on my main PC. I wanted to calibrate the laptop for portable image evaluation and viewing more than real editing, so it probably isn't worth the cost, but I would like to get it working as pictures won't display correctly on the laptop.<br>

I appreciate any information anyone has that could help me find a good driver, as that seems to be the issue.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Dave</p>

<div></div>

As others have said,it depends on what you are working with (or plan to work with). I have a 3.0gh hyperthreading processor and did have 1 gb of ram in my machine. After I installed CS2 and started working with 16bit images, I had performance issues. CS2 was pushing my ram utilization over 900mb as soon as I opened a file.

 

Now Bridge was also open and the images were converted from raw by ACR which may have been part of the issue, but if your workflow is going to be similar (I have a EOS 10d, so 6mp images are what I deal with), then definitely invest in the ram before the processor. Also, 2 hard drives will aid performance more than processor speed once you reach the 3 gig and over point as well. (I say this without direct experience in dual-core, but can't imagine the equation changes that much).

 

I now have 3gb in the machine, can use CS2 and other apps concurently, and performance is good. Of course, as with anything YMMV.

 

Dave

Thanks for the replies! I will hopefully get to try iView Media Pro this weekend and see how it works for me.

But can any of these (Canon software, Rawshooter, Breezebrowser) be set to sweep through the pre-existing folders that contain raw files and do the extraction, or must I go 1 folder at a time?

I normally shoot Raw+JPEG with my Canon 10D. My problem is that I

don't have a lot of time to work on the raw files and produce prints.

I have decided a way around this might be to incorporate into my

workflow the extracting of the embedded JPEG from the raw file when I

first put it on the computer. Then I could quickly print the JPEGs

(either myself or by using an online service or local kiosk). This

way my family can see and enjoy the pictures in the short term, while

I still have all the flexibility I need to enhance those shots that

merit extra attention.

 

I want to do this on the images I have already on my computer though

and am looking for a software tool that could go through the

directories and extract the JPEG from the raw file and hopefully put

it either in the same directory as the raw file or a subdirectory of it.

 

I know Irfanview is supposed to be able to extract the JPEG from the

RAW file, but I havn't seen how to do this yet. Can this be done form

the command line as well? I think it would need some scripting around

it in order to do what I want. Is there a better tool for this? Has

anyone else done this?

 

Thanks,

Dave

I have the educational version of Photoshop 6 and had no issues upgrading to CS2. And yes, CS2 is the most current version and Image Ready is also included.

I agree with the advise not to get a Dell. I recently bought a laptop for my wife and it had a couple of serious problems right out of the box. One of which, a bent motherboard, was clearly a manufacturing defect and indicates shoddy quality control. They replaced the Motherboard, but gave a huge hassle before they did it.

 

Other assorted issues exist as well, though not very serious. I just have seen enough of them and would advise anyone to stay away.

 

Dave

Another thought is that you may want to check how fragmented your disk drive is. I find with XP that you need to defragment periodically in order to keep the system performance up. Is Imatch the only application that seems slow?

I tried re-scanning in both VueScan and Nikon Scan making sure Digital Ice is off and still have the noise. I also downloaded a settings file for Kodachrome from the Marginal Software site and it helped a lot with the blue cast, not with the noise though.

Hi,

 

I am hoping someone can give me a suggestion as to what is wrong.

 

I scanned this photo from a Kodachrome 64 slide using my Nikon LS2000

scanner. I actually tried the scan using both Nikon Scan and VueScan

and have the same problem. If you look at the man's shoulder, along

the edge there is a considerable amount of color noise.

 

I am not sure what could be causing this. I am thinking it might mean

that the scanner has dust in it. I don't see a particular problem

with the slide itself.

 

Does anyone have any ideas as to what could cause this?

 

Thanks,

Dave

Scratch my last comment. I looked again and did not see what I objected to! Sorry.

The only issue I see with this fix is the catchlight is wrong. It is in the outside corner in both eyes! Of course, still better than I could do and I am watching this thread with interest to try to learn something.

You would look for Kodak to do something because it makes good business sense??? They abandoned that philosophy back in the 60's and 70's when instead of building on their successful products, they abandoned R&D on them and went in a totally new direction.

 

Tell me, is Ektachrome as successful as Fuji's offerings yet????

 

Kodachrome is distinctive and if improved over the years could have helped Kodak far more than spending the last several years trying to emulate Fujifilm. Alas, the die is cast, but please don't refer to the demise of Kodachrome as "good business sense". It is simply the end of a long line of very poor business decisions.

An interesting tale...

 

Once upon a time, a large film producing company had a flagship product. One could not open a magazine that published any pictures without seeing some photos shot on this particular film. Pro photographers the world over used this film and loved it.

 

So the management of the company said, "We need a new film! Different! Let's make a film and call it E...."

 

This new film had a brownish, yellowish cast and would fade after a short time. Instead of calling it a failure, however, the company decided to invest more in marketing and further development of this new type of film. Meanwhile, they ignore the flagship product. A big green monster comes along and produces a better E... like film than the Great "Y" Father could produce. "Invest more in E..." they cried "This is how we will regain ground" "Where should the money come from?" "Why, from that old K... product, of course! We need to look to the future!"

 

Well, to make a long story short (relatively). Trying to beat a green monster at its own game is a loosing battle. The former flagship product is near dead, but not quite because a few won't let it die. It may be suspected that itis a notable embarrassment to its manufacturer because it simply shows them how they lost the lock they had on the market. Of course, others may say that they are too blind to even see this, though

 

You be the judge...Fairy tale or actual history????

Based on other threads on this subject in Photo Net and elsewhere, I downloaded NeatImage. I have no complaints. I think it does an excellent job with my 10D images shot as high as ISO 1600.

 

Do I prefer the images shot at low ISO? Sure, but sometimes that just is not an option and in those cases, a program like this is indispensable.

 

Dave

Sorry, I should have spelled it out in my post. I posted it, then the next day I was looking and thought that a lot of people may not know. DRM is short for "Digital Rights Management".

 

If your running XP you've seen an example of it. XP needs to connect to Microsoft to register itself or it will stop working after I think, 30 days.

 

The Intuit example was similar but more insidious. Intuit installed something into the boot sector of the primary hard drive of the machine that Turbotax was installed on so you could not get rid of their 3rd party DRM software that was installed along with Turbotax.

 

What form Adobe's version of this takes, I do not know. Only that they saw fit to include it in the Windows version of Photoshop CS and not in the Mac version.

 

Some of the concerns surrounding this are in terms of what the software really sends when it connects to the servers (for the more suspicious of us), and what happens when you want to re-install the software on a new machine and the DRM software won't allow it. Another point is that a company using DRM in their software that goes out of business or chooses not to support the verion of software you have could mean that the software that you own could not be installed on the current or a new computer because the software needs to connect to the software manufacturer's computer and basically get permission to operate on your machine.

 

Sorry if the post is somewhat off topic, as this is a general computer concern, not just photo related. Since Adobe saw fit to include it in Photoshop though, I thought it pertinent to the discussion.

While CS has some advantages that I am drooling over, I am still trying to get by the fact that Adobe has included DRM in the Windows version. This raises the spectre of what Intuit did last year with Turbotax which in my book was tantamount to installing a virus on my computer that I could not get rid of even when I un-installed Turbotax. I am very concerned that Adobe's DRM might prove as intrusive and difficult to remove and so have not yet upgraded from Photoshop 6.

 

Am I the only one bothered by this?

 

Dave McCracken

I would except I don't have the G5 yet. I am trying to decide whether to buy that or the G3. If I can fix the noise easily then I'll get the G5 for the added resolution, if not then the G3 is probably the one that I'll get.

 

Dave

I have looked through the archives for information about the G5 and

have seen several posts noting a purple noise that can be seen in

pictures shot with Canon's Powershot G5. Does anyone have any

knowledge of whether Nik's Dfine plugin for Photoshop with their G5

profile would remove this noise with a minimum of fuss? Are there any

better solutions?

 

Thanks,

Dave