saulzelan

<p>thank you all so much for your help! photo.net users rock! :)</p>

<p>hello group, quick techie question:</p>

<p>I’m looking to get a new dell box for running photoshop. need top end, because I work with image files that routinely run 300-800 mb each (sometimes larger…)<br>

dell has a box that can be loaded with 128 GB of RAM but NOT able to pair this with a 256GB solid state drive (don’t ask me why…). <br>

SO, I can either settle for “only” 64 GB of RAM and be able to get the SSD, or give up the SSD and get the 128 GB of RAM.<br>

which would you choose, for optimizing photoshop performance? <br>

either 64 GB RAM + 256 solid state boot drive<br>

or<br>

128 GB RAM and no SSD<br>

?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/24607253" alt="" /><img src="http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/29016400" alt="" />Hi Geoff yes i find myself doing just the same, exposing for just the barest amount of overload in the bright areas in hopefully an are of the image where it won't matter too much and then bracketing a little below this point as well if i can. seems like with this approach the camera can preserve an amazing amount of detail in the shadows which really is astonishing for a former film shooter! </p>

<p>thanks for the nudge in a different direction Curt. i have not been paying much attention up to now to the capabilities of the raw conversion process, probably because of my experience just transferring darkroom skills to PS. now i'm beginning to realize the added layer of complexity in digitial work. my workflow has been mainly to just accept the default on the raw converter and then do the work in PS. which seems to work fine, i'm used to lots of local control as someone who learned in the darkroom....i'll look into the approach you mentioned. thanks so much! </p>

<p>apologies if this is a total newbie question. i am a newbie! thus far in working with digitally captured files, i have imported the file to PS and then used a lot of burning and dodging to bring out shadow detail. i tend to underexpose a bit to prevent highlight detail from blowing out. i have tried working with HDR files but i don't like the look, so my approach has been my best way of coping with the fact that i tend to shoot in high contrast scenes.</p>

<p>now my question is: would i get higher quality results by doing multiple raw file conversions, e.g. one to preserve highlights, one for shadows and one for midtones as opposed to my current approach which is to do one conversion and then burn and doge a lot? would i end up with more detail in the end product by using a multiple raw conversion approach? </p>

<p>or is this something that would vary from image to image and there's no way to answer the question theoretically?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks so much to everyone for your input. I especially like the idea of the amazon server as an additional backup, paying someone else with the technical know-how to help preserve my data integrity seems like a very cost-efficient solution, and saves me a lot of potential headache! I was also thinking of using a compact flash card to archive the MOST favorite images in their final photoshopped format. This would allow me for example to store several hundred single file versions on one 16 gb card, which at say 100$ per card per year (my estimated need for top drawer images...) seems like a reasonable additional investment. Anyone know anything about the longevity of a compact flash card? </p>

<p>Hello photo.net community:<br>

Does anyone have an opinion on the best long term archival storage medium for archiving treasured digital images? I've heard that burned DVDs can have a (scary) short shelf life at times and I hesitate to trust my long term archiving to USB hard drives given that I've had some fail in the past and then poof there goes your image gone forever! </p>

<p>Here's a follow up for you all:<br>

What do you think of the option of having the AA filter removed from a canon 5dmii? It apparently can be done for $450 at maxmax.com and increases the resolution and color depth of your sensor at the expense of risking a higher frequency of moire patterns in your images which supposedly can be fixed in PS post exposure processing if not "too" extensive. Clearly, the question is whether you want to take the risk of moire spoiling some images in order to have higher res for perhaps most of them? Where do you stand on this trade off? Is it "worth the risk?" </p>

<p>Learning more every day, many thanks to everyone! :) </p>

<p>In the P&S arena, I've heard good things about the Panasonic Lx series, which has a Leica lens and I've seen comments that it is "as good" as the Leica d-lux and cheaper b/c not having the Leica logo...don't have any first hand experience to offer on that front though....</p>

<p>Wow, gorgeous shot Edward, I see what you mean about preservation of wide latitude, that will probably be important to me as I tend to shoot very contrasty situations, which is why, way back when, I switched from transparency film to negative film. Thanks also Dan for your contribution, I might try renting a 5dmii and making some 20 inch prints for test purposes...</p>

<p>btw, Edward, the CFV-50 body is very tempting, however the best price i could find was more like $17,000, do you know a cheaper source?</p>

<p>many thanks to everyone for your replies, your online articles (I found Sarah's very informative) and helpful links (I'd not heard of the betterlight large format digital backs!). You've given me a lot to think about. I'm beginning to think I should stay with the TLR for a few more years and watch the MF digital market...I also found some local stores renting the 5dmii, so might try that for a weekend as well...<br>

thanks to all! </p>

<p>Scott -- I tend to use kodak portra nc 160 medium format (120) film. I tend to shoot landscapes and city scapes, occasional portraits, no action or sports. I print full frame almost exclusively no post negative cropping. And yes, I've asked myself that question in one form or another many times! The lure of no negative processing and scanning still brings me back every couple of years to the digital question, and especially now that I can get a full frame digital body for less than a guh-gillion dollars! I tried uploading some samples, but it didn't work so here are some url links:</p>

<p>http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/20150643<br>

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/13081629<br>

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/7457800</p>

<p>Edward, I didn't realize that a 50 MP back is in the "afforable" range now, that would certainly draw my attention! Can you send along some info about the where, what, how and how much for such a back? (BTW, I got my Imacon used from a friend/photographer who gave me a great deal, so perhaps I'm "spoiled" by that experience...I think it was probably the chance of a lifetime, glad I took it. My walls are filled with 22 inch prints now thanks to him!...) </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello all, I am currently considering making the jump from medium format to digital! Big news I know... :)</p>

<p>So this is my current set up to give you a sense of where I'm coming from:</p>

<p>Rollei TLR 2.8 GX camera (usually) shooting iso 160 film (6x6 negs of course) in available light, then scanned on imacon drum scanner at 3200 dpi to print up to 22 inches square on epson 7600. </p>

<p>Main question--what maximum size "exhibition quality" (with the above experience in mind) prints could I expect to obtain from the following 2 cameras (I plan to shoot exclusively in highest res RAW mode):</p>

<p>canon rebel T2i or</p>

<p>canon 5d mark 2</p>

<p>2nd question -- i reviewed the reviews on the kit lens for the 5dm2 (24-105 zoom f/4 L with IS) and they seemed to favor this over a faster 28-70 f/2.8 lens. Any opinions on the 24-105 lens? (i'm asking because of my traditional aversion to "kit" lenses, however this one appears quite versatile so I'm tempted...).</p>

<p>Thanks so much! Photo.net rocks!</p>

<p>thanks everyone, for your help and advice... Photo.net users rock! :)</p>

<p>I love my rolleiflex TLRs (2.8F and 2.8GX). Great for handheld work especially if you fit them with a prism finder (IMO - I don't like waist-level finders for walk-around in the world work). </p><div></div>

<p>Hi Dave -- I'm a medium format Rolleiflex nut...I love both my 2.8 F and 2.8 GX (TLR models). These might be out of your budget range, however. You might consider a 3.5 F or earlier model. I have mine fitted with a prism finder as well, which increases price and weight, though I have no problem using mine day after day for weeks on end of travel and photography. I find that not having to carry and worry about multiple lenses works better for me as well. You do have to get used to a hand held light meter, but when shooting negative film, it's really no big deal, just meter for open sun, open shadow, and dark shadow and get used to thinking about light as well as composition, pretty soon you don't have to consult your meter very often--makes you a better photographer in the end, you pay more attention to the quality of light rather than thinking about numbers so much. Good luck and have fun. :)</p><div></div>

<p>Hello everyone, it is time for my latest upgrade to CS5 and corresponding computer upgrade. I will be running Windows 7 64bit version on whatever new box I purchase. <br>

Here's what I use it for:</p>

<p>processing and printing scanned medium format negs, scanned to file sizes of 300-500 MB each on an Imacon scanner and printed usually at 22 inches square. I value maximum CS5 performance processing speed, though I do not typically use any "fancy" effects like 3-D, etc. Just processing large files and I often end up with copious adjustment layers that I like to keep preserved from version to version (i.e. I don't flatten down the file ever, because I often go back to tweek things in printing...too much perfectionism, I know.) <br>

I am considering upgrading to a <strong>Dell Studio XPS 8100</strong>. The questions are:</p>

<p><strong>1. </strong>Which <strong>processor </strong>would you recommend of these two:</p>

<p>Intel core i5-650 (4mb cache, 3.2 GHZ) or Intel i7-860 (8mb cache, 2.8 GHZ)</p>

<p><strong>2.</strong> How much <strong>RAM </strong>should I invest in of dual channel, DDR3, SDRAM at 1333 MHz, I can choose from 8 to 16 GB, and the cost of upgrading is substantial, though I'm willing to pay for it to max my CS5 performance. </p>

<p>If you have any suggestions or alternatives I didn't mention, please feel free to leave your advice as well. </p>

<p><strong>Many thanks in advance</strong></p>

<p>many thanks to everyone for your input, that is very helpful! :)</p>

<p>Hello forum:</p>

<p>My question is about upgrading to photoshop CS4 from CS3. I currently run CS3 on a dell optiplex with windows xp 64 bit accessing almost 4 gb of RAM. The performance is good, not stellar given the size of my files (see below). I am thinking of upgrading my computer to allow additional RAM useage (perhaps up to 8gb). Two questions:</p>

<p>Will CS3 allow me to access more than 4gb of RAM, thereby improving performance or do I need to upgrade to CS4?</p>

<p>Is CS4 still very buggy? My concern is that some have reported problems opening large files in CS4 and I routinely work with 300 MB+ image files scanned at 3200 dpi from medium format negs on my Imacon. Do you think I should wait until CS5 releases? (and when is it expected?)</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

 

I scan medium format for printing using an Imacon flextight precision III and love it. If you want to get a quick online comparison, check out my other website postings here:

 

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/867449

 

most of the images were prepared from imacon scanned files from 6x6cm negs, the exception being the latest upload from istanbul. i think you can really see the difference even in the online images. I print up to 22 inches square on an epson 7600 from these scans.

Thanks Allen!

?:

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4603710-lg.jpg"></center>

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3616649-lg.jpg"></center>

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4603964-lg.jpg"></center>

 

 

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4437421-lg.jpg"></center>

great website Jonathan! I also would be interested in the book and could not locate the info on your website, could you send me the info as well? Thx!

I use selections and adjustment layers to achieve local control in my images

(instead of burning and dodging). In a typical image, I'll end up with 2-7

adjustment layers that are being applied via layer masks to a specific part of

the image (for example the sky if it needs selective darkening).

 

The problem I run into is that sometimes I create a visible line at the border

of the selection, even with the feather option set to 2. I'm usually pretty

careful to draw the selection in such a way that it naturally "hides" but

sometimes it's impossible to hide it completely. I've tried using the history

brush to paint back to an earlier state but it seems to have no effect unless I

flatten the image down completely.

 

What I'd like to do is be able to soften this selection border without

completely flattening the image down, as I often have more editing to do and I

usually only like to flatten right before printing. Can anyone see how to

accomplish this? Thanks in advance!