daniel_moore

I've read that standard jpgs cannot be successfully tagged with anything other than sRGB, the result of trying is a file tagged with "uncalibrated". The exception to the rule is jpg2000, which allow for alternate tags to be embedded. Open a Adobe RGB embedded jpg in FastStone Viewer or the like to see this in action.

Download FastStone Image Viewer, resize a couple images with the default Lanczos interpolator as you like, overlay them in PS and compare. You'll be in and out of FastStone while PS is still loading. The right tool for the job.

If you're scanning software permits, multi-scanning (multipass as well as multiexposure) can average noise out and yields a better image than any noise reduction software could manage. For digital captures I too prefer Noiseware.

In the interest of flare reduction, I'm looking for a good solution

for extending the minimal lens hood built into the canon 15mm fisheye.

It seems a shame not to take further advantage of the crop factor

using an APS-c sensor. Has anyone come up with a more elegant

solution than my sliced up rubber slip on hood?

Another vote for Irfanview, but this time for resizing (Lanczos interpolation - better than photoshops bicubic), lossless jpg rotation, file conversion, and quick sharpening for web. Ultra useful and free. Optipix from Reindeer Graphics for when you need to expand your dynamic range, and lots more.

BTW, if you're not opposed to spending the other 200, you might want to wait and pick up the 3200's replacement which has been announced for release this month, I think. Norman Koren's site has a reference to this fact, as well as loads of reports on the 3200's performance.

Same scanner, different software bundle. Look closely at the software and decide if you need Silverfast Ai, etc. The Epson scanning interface is pretty decent, no bells and whistles, and will do a fine job. The Silverfast SE bundled with the non Pro kit will do more fine tuning for you, which may come in handy if you aren't importing into Photoshop for more tweaks. I personally picked up the scanner without the pro software additions since I Photoshop my images opting for the more delicate control of things like dust and scratch removal, sharpening, etc. that silverfast will enable.

... and where's the fun in taking a picture if you can't see a person's veins??? : )

I've used colorvisions Doctor Pro to remove obvious metamerism from prints with acceptable results. It' troubling to know though that one's profiles are deficient in the first place. How do you know what your printer is capable of? The persistence of that question finally swayed me from the route I was on, creating my own profiles with different software and expensive gadgets. After six months of fooling around, I gave in to the idea of letting some place like Dry Creek give it a shot. I printed out their target, sent if off, and a week later I finally knew what my printer was capable of. Radical improvement over my best efforts. I wish someone could have knocked it into my thick skull before shelling out all those other dollars. I did learn an extensive amount of color management theory, but now I run off a print in a few minutes and move on. Hope I've helped.

Any model will perform well if you average 4 or more exposures. Noise will become a non-issue, far superior to dark frame subtraction. This method is well suited to architectural shooting.

Here's an example using PanoTools and Max Lyons PTAssembler interface. More pixel info will yield a better result, but this gives the general idea of how it's possible to correct for all desired verticals. Panotools interpolation algorithm is superior to Photoshops bicubic as well.<div></div>

If you plan to do this sort of correction routinely, I strongly suggest investing in one of the many software interfaces designed to employ Helmut Dersch's 'PanoTools", and spend some time getting familiar with it. With it you will correct for lens distortion (barrel and pincussion) and horizontal or vertical convergence, in one fell swoop. Once your on the far edge of the learning curve, you'll be in heaven. As a rule of thumb, in any wide angle situation, all circles will project as elongated the closer they get to the edge. Some wide angle lenses fare better than others, to be sure, but it's better to avoid the problem if at all possible. Check out this

<a href="http://philohome.com/barrelpers/barrelpers.htm">panotools tutorial</a> for help on just how it's done. On a related note: getting familiar with Panotools will also enable you to stitch multiple images to get around the loss of resolution if you find a scene that begs for more resolution. A case in point: <a href="http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?showFileName=DC_IMG_6256-IMG_6318_National_Building_Museum_Interior.jpg&gallery=0">stunning example by Max Lyons</a>

Photoshop's healing brush and patch tool have proven themselves as in the previous examples. As for the dark patterns and spots in the skin, which I treated as noise, I suggest the best tool for that job is a median filter. Photoshops median can handle selections of images well, but will quickly ruin an image with lots of defined edges. Noise reduction software will do a decent job of smoothing out the tones, but usually softens edges undesireably. Reindeer Graphics produced a PS plugin called Optipix, one of whose many useful filters is called 'safe median'. This is what I ran on the image. I think you'll agree it does a fantastic job of retaining edge details while minimizing noise characteristics. Optipix does many other powerful tricks and is well worth looking into.<div></div>

If you go with PhotoRescue, first thing to do is to make an 'image' of the drive with the software! It's a way around not being able to actually read the info, yet be able to copy what's hiding there. Even when files are corrupted PhotoRescue can often rebuild them, but it will take patience.

If possible, you will do well to guesstimate your boyfriends 'need' for the fisheye. If you anticipate it being used infrequently, definitely go Zenitar, bearing in mind the manual operation it necessitates. Many have done this, and been satisfied. If however you are ready to lay down close to 600.00 (not the 400.00 you made mention of... sorry!!!) then do so because it will be used regularly as the 10D's version of a wide angle. If he already owns something close to the 16mm focal length, then it may not see as much use as otherwise. A point in favor of the Canon specifically when used with the 10D is autofocus. The viewfinder of the 10D is poorly suited to manual focus and relies on the users acuity and available light. For landscape photography, this is less of an issue, but for interiors, should be factored in. Best of luck with this difficult decision, either way, it's going to be a merry christmas for him!

Andy, I'm intrigued by your use of gaussian noise to fill the gaps in a histogram. I've been using the sharpening technique to do the same (adding a small amount), but while rescuing sky areas that suffered from banding due to strong manipulation, CCD noise was accentuated. Have you found that adding gaussian noise to sky areas did them any detriment?

There's a real opportunity to be inundated with options with your question, so I feel it's important to add my support to Ellis' recommendation. It was positively indispensible in my own transition to digital.

...And that's why I ask here first : )

 

George, did you effect that repair yourself? I'd be interested to know how to decide the correct setting, without expensive trial and error.

 

Arnold, I've seen that incompatible paper mess on another printer, not pretty, but I'm using the familiar old premium luster.

 

Mark, in a word, jackpot! I used your technique substituting lint free paper towels from work, and that seems to have done it. Fortunately, the inside of the printer has not suffered any spray or spread, rollers clean, Steven, so I'm back up and running. I'd like to add a word of advice to any who attempt 'Thomasizing' their printer - don't drink any coffee beforehand, running this proceedure (at least the first time) is equivalent to drinking a pot of espresso. Thanks so much everyone!

The title pretty much says it all... my 2200, two weeks out of

warranty, began leaving Magenta puddles on my prints. Single drips,

random spacing, but concentrated nearer to the edge where the print

head rests. First problem with it. No warning signs. Heads are

clean and nozzles checked (once, with no symptoms) Regular moderate

use, half full cartridges. Epson technical support claimed it was

news to them. They gave me a 'local' repair facility, which I will

probably avail myself of in time, but of course I thought I'd ask

for help here first. Similar experiences anyone? Probable

outcome? Advice for home remedy? Thanks everyone.

The G2 is well suited to the task. First I'd recommend custom white balance, color problem solved. In macro focusing mode even without the optional accessory lens (250D) you can focus at the wide angle zone down to less than 3 inches (use manual focus, if auto has any trouble). If camera position and lighting conflict, use the tele range and plan to crop. Use a small amount of in camera sharpening, to bypass another computer operation. Definitely use the wireless remote, and lastly, the G2 comes with software for tethered shooting, you'll never have to touch the camera setup, just replace the coins). Considering all these options at your disposal, and without buying anything new (except perhaps a 10' USB ext. cable) it doesn't get much better than that.

I notice that the pixel width, contrast and frequency are set to the defaults, which suggests you aren't employing them to your advantage. The magnetic lasso tool is excellent for creating selections which do not easily conform to brush shaped edges. But you need to control its behavior using the tool options. For very subtle selections, where the desired and undesired areas closely match each other, try setting the pixel width to 1, the contrast to 1 and the frequency to 20 or so. For higher contrast separations you'll get the best results by increasing those settings. A little trial and error will get you up to speed with these adjustments. Also, to restate a previous suggestion, make large area selections with the marquee selection tool, change to the magnetic lasso (press the letter 'L' three times to choose it), hold down the shift key to preserve the previous selection(s), and click to make the additional selection. Repeat as necessary. To undo one anchor point, simply press the backspace key. That should get you going. Don't forget you have the F1 key to access the help menu.

In order to support two monitors each with their own profiles, you must have two separate graphics cards. Not one graphics card with dual output, as most cards with support for a default + plug n play monitor will be. Short of individual cards, you can profile both monitors, save the results with easily identified names, but select only one as the default profile, opting for it during critical work, and resetting the default profile (to your laptops profile) when the better quality monitor is not in use. In reality, the difference will not be objectionable when cross profiled, so to speak. It will matter even less if the lesser monitor is used for tools, etc. so you probably won't be too disappointed. If you're using an nVidia graphics card, check out their website for a new all purpose driver which is loaded with features and claims to be compatible with all their newer cards. Matrox has a driver which may allow a workaround for the whole dual profile, single card snafu, however they clearly state that it has not been tested with any portable computer graphics cards, and therefore make no claim as to it's viabiliity with them. If you try it, let us know. Personally, I'm not that adventurous. I am using the new nVidia driver though, with success.

I read recently on Rob Galbraith's site about the phenomenal speed of the 32bit Delkin card used in conjunction with Lexar's 1Gig. 40X card. I'm using Lexar 512 40X cards and can report that on my Dell 8200 laptop, I can download a full 512 card (files totaling 476Mb, in actuality) in 1 minute and 40 seconds. Not too shabby, as I think this required over 8 minutes with my previous card. Another thing I'd like to pass along is that when I installed the card, I did so in the slot I usually keep a wireless card. The wireless card driver was snafued, I juggled the cards, reinstalled the wireless whence it came, reinstalled the 32 bit reader card driver, with the card in the open slot and everything runs fine now. Seems these cards like to establish a fixed port, counter to the plug n' play notion. Delkins directions for the reader say to load the CF card into the reader and insert the reader. I have always left the reader installed and merely insert the CF card. This practice doesn't seem to matter to the 32 bit card.

TestPath 1.3 is about the easiest software I have ever had the pleasure to use. I'm also on XP home and it's author, Ojars Krumins, has verified it's accuracy with it. If more things in life were that simple...

Perhaps grasping at straws here, but having owned an E-20 I have found the sensor is very sensitive to light spilled in through the viewfinder, are your peering through the camera when exposing? Have you shot with the eyepiece shutter closed?