mark lucas

<p>Andrew, thanks very much for the help, I'm now clear on what routine I need to use.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

Thanks for the response. How would I know which of the sub-selections to make i.e. lpi?<br>

The printers have asked for 300dpi images so that bit's fine. I also assume that brochures will be printed on coated stock, so how does one know which lpi setting to choose? Are the ppi selections in PKS2 the same as dpi?<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Could anybody please advise which output sharpening routine to select for printing glossy 170gsm brochures on the following devices:<br>

Xerox iGen 4<br>

Xerox 700<br>

The printer's have asked for files at 300dpi but, although I have asked them, I am unsure about which process these machines use. I'm assuming some kind of halftone but am really not sure. Any advice much appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mark</p>

"Question: All of my current cards are SanDisk brand. eBay has some great looking deals for CF cards - the ones I saw were Toshiba Brand. Does the brand make a lot of difference??

 

Thanks, Val"

 

AVOID EBAY at all costs when it comes to buying memory cards - 95% of all cards sold on Ebay are fake ( this info comes from Ebay themselves )

I prefer the one from advertising possibilities.

 

Perhaps convert it to black and white?

Try Katya Lin/Yuri Bonder

Yongbo - you're wrong. You're looking at things from a present member's viewpoint.

 

I'm looking at the bigger picture - namely, browsers who may happen upon the site. As things are, the homepage does nothing to entice somebody to browse further.

 

An example from the homepage :

 

"The Latest Must Have - Ansel Adams at 100". That book was released four years ago!

Voting! Didn't we do that one before?

The Homepage is looking pretty poor. If I were surfing and happened

across Photo.net, I'd probably surf on by right now.

 

The POW thumbnail is appalling and in the modern age of the

internet, the homepage looks like something written in BASIC on an

old home computer.

 

Before anyone asks, no, I can't do better.

Until today, I haven't uploaded a pic in months that hasn't immediately been hit with 2's within minutes of uploading. The low raters always became members the same day - quite often, however, they are deleted by the automated system.

Jay, I agree with some of what you're saying. The current default view is a BIG step in the right direction, but I feel it does need some minor tweaking. You're right, of course, in your example about using the sum rather than the average - many highly ranking photo's are floundering on the lower pages due to not receiving as MANY rates.

There may have been some talk recently of freezing names as they are to prevent "abuse". Perhaps that's taken effect now.

Go to "My Workspace" - at the bottom under "you,you,you" click on "update". Here you can change your onscreen name and other details such as e-mail address.

Yes, the Rate Recent Queue. Just tried to do my bit, got hit by the dreaded "rating insert failed". No more for me today, I guess!

 

You know, I don't think I've ever seen one official response to that bug - what causes it? Is it when an image you've already rated appears?

Hmm. Couple of familiar names starting to appear already.

Those figures make for interesting reading, don't they. As I said above, I wonder how long it will be before these guys start requesting RFC or find a way to circumvent the new default?

 

However, the new view is great, but does it need some fine tuning? The view is pretty static and without some minor modifications or changes in rating practices, will the same images not fester there for too long? As the view is only based on ratings received in the RFC queue, when images get to 10 rates and fall to the back of the queue, is their place on the rank not more or less fixed from thereon? Or, have I misunderstood how this is going to work?

Walter, I just looked at the rate recent sum for the period "all". You're right - not ONE SINGLE picture wasn't a nude. It doesn't bother me at all - I'm sure that things will even up if this new default is left in place long enough. I think that if somebody only wanted to see nudes, then going to the critique forum and selecting nudes was probably their best way of achieving that.

 

I only hope the mate raters don't find a way around the new sort. The interesting thing will be to see if the familiar names start appearing. After all, they don't like the general masses rating their pics, so what are they to do? I think we'll see a sudden volte face on their part for sure.

What has been suggested above must be one of the simplest and least invasive ways of preventing some of the mate rating to date. I can see no justification for not implementing it and have never seen a valid argument against it to date.

How about the fact that 13 of the top 25 images of all time were taken in the last four months? I remember posting the same statistic at the beginning of March , that 13 of the top 25 of ALL TIME had been taken in the past eight weeks!

Out of the million or so pictures uploaded to P.net, that must tell us something about how things have changed.

"Perhaps these users need to be booted off, seems easy to tell who did the rigging"

 

Or, perhaps they'll be given the benefit of the doubt. Again and again and again.

"I am still assuming these people did not do this on purpose"

 

Ha!

Thanks. Here's the screenshot of the soft proofed hair at approx 100% mag.

Steve, no , I haven't tried that. What are the implications?

 

Also, I just tried using the original Euro single profile which, when soft proofed in Photoshop, looks great with none of the above smudging, and prints are horrendously dark and solarised.

 

How can I take a snapshot of the soft proofed hair area in Photoshop to post here? When I try to save for web it obviously reverts out of the soft proof view.

Frank, thanks for the response. However, I don't think what you're seeing is the same thing. I don't know how to take a snapshot of the soft proofed image from Photoshop to show you here, but if you look at this link you'll see that they have a similar problem :

 

http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi029/Epson_R800.html

 

It's under 2/16/2005 heading. They suggest a custom profile, which I can't afford, but I don't think offer an actual explanation. I'm just wondering if there's a conflict with still having the European profile loaded?

Has anybody else experienced a loss of detail in hair or fur when

printing using the profiles supplied with the US printer software?

(Only one profile was supplied with the European version).

 

When soft proofing in Photoshop, the problem is clearly visible in

hair areas as a blocking and lack of detail. When soft proofing with

the Euro supplied single profile, the problem isn't there.

 

I've seen references to the problem on a couple of websites but no

real answer as to why.