jammer_jammer

<p>Tom and Scott,<br>

Thanks again for your comments.<br>

I'm becoming obsessed now so this is my last attempt......................I SWEAR!</p><div></div>

<p>OK</p><div></div>

<p>OK, this is the best I could do today. Tomorrow's another day. I'm just not willin' to give up any more red or magenta than this. I'd rather lean warm than cool for the skin tones.</p>

<p>Thanks Scott,<br />Today, I definitely see that there is still too much magenta in my version. I've done some more experimenting and I'm finding it very difficult to find the right balance between magenta and cyan. If I move cyan enough to make the skin OK, the background goes WAY off. I think a selective approach might be the only way to go here. I know a lot of this is subjective but MY brain sees your versions as too yellow.<br />I've looked at everyone's attempts dozens of times now and although I don't think there is quite enough color in the brides skin, I agree with Patrick in that Bill's lightened CS3 version looks the most natural. I'm having one hell of a time trying to replicate what he did though. Most likely because I don't quite understand some of the steps he took. I also need more experience using "blend if".<br />Thanks for lending your eyes to my attempt. I appreciate it.</p>

<p>I just happened across this thread after not visiting this site for quite a while. I'm finding it quite interesting to see how differently everyone is correcting this image. To my eyes, a couple of the corrections here are really yellow or greenish. One or two seemed to have made the bride's skin almost ashen. This really scared me into thinking that my monitor calibrations were way off so I re-calibrated and this is what I came up with after about 10 minutes of eye ballin' it while doing color balance and hue saturation adjustments and increasing the contrast with a levels layer.<br />Does this look WAY off on your screens or am I in the ballpark?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone. Sorry I was a little late in getting back to my own party. I had several things going on at several different sites and had actually forgot about this question until just now.<br>

Thanks again!</p>

<p>If you've had both CS2 and CS4, please tell me what features are in CS4 that aren't in CS2, that you really just can't imagine doing without now that you have them.</p>

<p>Thank you very much Rodney! The reason for concern is that I have hundreds of these images ALREADY scanned and ALREADY at 8 bits. I'm kind of freaking out thinking that I wasted a year of my life scanning and any image that I have changed levels on will print with banding. I think I'd have to shoot myself!<br>

Whew! Thanks again.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

Thank you very much. May I be so bold to ask that you or someone else, please answer questions 1-4, so that I may be better informed about those things?<br>

Thanks again!</p>

<p>I'm doing some editing of scanned negatives. Even with what I would consider to be fairly minor levels tweaking, I'm ending up with histograms that concern me because of gaps that I'm seeing. These are most likely from the fact that I made the mistake of saving a lot of these scans at at compressed 8bits/channel. I do very little printing but I'm pretty sure that I've read where histograms with gaps in them could mean a problem of some sort in the prints. So, I'm turning to those of you familiar with editing and printing to share your expertise.<br>

Questions:<br>

1. Why do I see the gaps in the levels layer histogram but not in the actual histogram?<br>

2. Which histogram should I pay the most attention to?<br>

3. Based on the gaps in the levels layer histogram, would you think that there would end up being a problem with the print? If so, what would that problem be?<br>

4. If so, is there anything I can do, editing wise, to close these gaps?<br>

5. Or, is there really no reason to be concerned about this at all?<br>

Thanks for any help from those knowledgeable on this subject.</p>

<p>When I click to open up a levels layer, this is what I see:<br>

<img src="http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/7526/1levelsburntwindow.jpg" alt="" /><br>

But when I actually open up the expanded histogram, this is what I see:<br>

<img src="http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1844/1histogramburntwindow.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Here is a small jpg of this particular image:<br>

<img src="http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5513/1window.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks John.</p>

<p>Thank you Steve.</p>

<p>I've scanned around 2500 Kodachromes at 4000 DPI. I think about 300 or so are suitable for framing and might be worth trying to sell and I would like to prepare them for such.<br>

The majority have some noise is parts of the image so I'm doing my first real experiments with noise removal.<br>

The image here is one of my first experiments using Topaz Denoise 3. It is a 100% crop of and 5296 x 3531 pixel image, comparing the origin noise to the Denoised edit. It's pretty much what the software chose to do only I cranked the noise removal just a little bit more.<br>

I figure the best approach with this particular shot would be to copy the image, Denoise and then mask off the image so that only the sky is having the noise removal.<br>

So here are my questions:<br>

1. As far as the original noise is concerned, how large of an image size would I have to go to before that amount of noise would be quite noticeable at a normal standing distance?<br>

2. Although Denoise obviously removed quite a bit of noise, what's left behind is sort of blurred patterns that are still noticeable. Is this to be expected considering the amount of noise that I'm starting with?<br>

3. If this were your image and you wanted to get it ready for framing or sending to a stock agency, what would be your approach?</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

<img src="http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8632/1noisecompare.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Mike and Dan,<br>

Thank you very much for your help. This is a B&W so at least I won't have to do that conversion.<br>

Happy Holidays to you both!</p>

<p>Thanks Mike. I will only be delivering the image file. The client will be using the printer/duplicator of his choice. I would prefer to do the upres myself. Given those circumstances, what res should I go up to and what interpolation method should I use.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>I have the job of doing some major editing to a photo that will eventually be used as the back insert on a music CD. I found on line the the correct dimensions are 5.4 x 4.63. So, I dialed those figures into the cropping tool and have cropped the image.<br>

This gives me an image that is 690 x 592 pixels which works out to be a resolution of 128.<br>

I don't do much printing so I have some questions:<br>

1. Is 128 a high enough resolution to print an acceptable image?<br>

2. If not, what resolution should I up-res to?<br>

3. What method should I use? Bicubic smoother?<br>

When answering, please keep in mind that the original image is already a very grainy, black and white so this by no means has to be a pristine print but I WOULD like to do my best with what I was given.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any help on this issue.</p>

<p>Thanks Dan.</p>

<p>Also thought that I'd mention that I am NOT trying to export the converted batch to the same folder. I know from the past, that can cause this probelm but I'm trying to export the batch to the SUNDAY folder.</p>

<p>I have two folders of files. All of the files in the first folder are named as such:<br>

091114-Dog Show Sat-001.CR2<br>

All of the files in the second folder are named:<br>

091114-Dog Show Sun-001.CR2</p>

<p>I used DPP to edit and convert the first folder of files with no problem but now that I'm trying to batch convert the second folder of CR2 files, I'm getting a message saying, "Identically named file exists. Cannot execute batch!<br>

I don't understand. Since the files in the first folder have Sat for Saturday and the files in the second folder have Sun for Sunday, why is DPP recognizing these files as being identical when they are not? <br>

Thanks in advance for your educated help.</p>

<p>There are certain trigger words in advertising that catch the eye of the regular Joe. "Trick" would be one of them. It makes the prospective reader feel as if he or she will be finding out something special that other people don't know. It's almost like using the word "secret". For actual products there is the good old "new and improved". : -)</p>

<p>Histogram</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks again to everyone for your help. I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>Roger,<br>

That's really good to know. No sense doing a bunch of unneeded work. As several have mentioned, I guess test shots would be the way to go.</p>

<p>Brett,<br>

You can't really get a good idea about the tonality with such a tiny portion of the image. Here is the entire shot and it's histogram. It's not the best shot in the world but it holds a great place in my heart because it was taken across from where I grew up. If anyone were to have taken a shot from this same angle in the last 25 years, the image would be of a very busy highway and a steak restaurant. : -( <br>

"They paved paradise and put up a parkin' lot."<br>

Actually, the reason I picked this image is because it is a very good representation of the film grain that I was concerned about. </p>

<p>Thanks again for all of your help! : -)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>In PS I just put the original, the Neat Image version and Noiseware version all in seperate layers so that I could toggle between them and get a little bit better idea of what's going on. I now see that although Noiseware cleaned up the sky much better, it was at the expense of detail in the roof and the cloud edges. I guess there is always going to be a tradeoff and one has to find there own balancing act.<br>

<br /><br />My initial thought here is that I could use the default on the sky but selectively cut back on the level of denoising in the roof. Not sure what I would do the the cloud edges. I guess you can't get quite THAT precise.<br>

<br /><br /><br />Thanks again. This is very helpful.</p>

<p>Brett, Howard, Don and Brad,<br>

Thank you all very much. In particular, thank you for the examples. It appears that in this particular image that noiseware did a better clean up without loosing too much detail. I'm sure it all depends on what settings you use in any particular software but this gives me a good idea of what to try.<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Any additional opinions, experiences welcome also.</p>

<p>Crop</p><div></div>