sean de merchant httpw

You need to ensure it is searching in hidden files and folders. You can get the full path modulo your user name at: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HHiX

Take a look at the following article:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007

 

There are many fast brands out there. You can get a 4GB for about $95 USD including next day shipping online.

Faster shutter speeds. A higher ISO (celluloid or silicon) would do this. So would using a larger aperture (smaller f/number).

Scott,

 

With large amounts of RAM PS will use the OS'es disk caching mechanism if properly configured. Hence the scratch disk will write to those "unusable" GBs of RAM. In short, Adobe claims it will use it. It just may be at half RAM speed (like the 640 KB window of old into high memory) rather than at 1/100th or less of RAM speed like it does writing to disk.

 

In short, yes, PS can use that extra RAM. Perhaps not at optimal speeds, but still a damn sight faster than writing to disk directly. XP-64 also supports this.

 

enjoy,

 

Sean

I agree about not cropping. Do not crop the photo. Just print it as is and modify the matting.

There is also a reason many brands cost too much (lots of advertising and branding rather than no advertising and a quality product). Ritek/Ridata is a brand that is known for quality products and nearly generic packaging.

 

That said, the Ridata 8 GB can be found as low $164.99 USD today at a reputable online retailer. The price for two 4 GB Ridata cards is lower, but shipping may be more.

 

enjoy,

 

Sean

<p><i>Being able to set FEC in two places is confusing. Moreoever whenenever the flash is set to a non-zero setting it overrides the body. So if you habitually dial FEC on the flash you tend not to notice the body setting. I always dialed FEC on the body and was surprised to find that you can dial +/-3 stops of FEC on the flash.

<br><br>

NEVEC is a scourge. I don't mind the feature, it probably helps 90% of the time but for the other 10% of the time I want to be able to turn it off.</i></p>

 

I agree. I have moved to using FEC solely on the flash for the extend FEC range, but for about two weeks I once had horrible flash exposures with zero FEC on the flash. I then realized with no FEC on flash, the camera's setting overrode that. It would be very nice if they were cumulative (+- 5 EV total) rather than disjoint. I have since learned to always set on camera FEC back to zero on the the rare occasions I use the onboard blash on my XT (i.e., too lazy to get out the 550-EX or simply lacking time).<p>

 

As to NEVEC, I am aware of it, but have never run into issues with it. But I shoot RAW 99.995% of the time and a stops difference in exposure can be ignored. Add in that 98%+ of my flash work is done in M mode and I am unlikely to note NEVEC issues in practice anyway. Nonetheless, I agree that <b>consistent</b> metering is of far more value to serious shooters than having the camera tweak exposure in random fashion (i.e., undocumented).<p>

 

enjoy,<p>

 

Sean

Actually, MLU could be a solution to not scaring the birds. Why, lock up the mirror, wait 20 or 30 minutes for the subject, then fire. No mirror slap to scare the bird, just the shutter curtain moving (followed by a mirror slap ;o).

 

This is a logical approach. Sadly, it is not working. So I agree in the end that just forgetting MLU and shooting straight is the way to go.

 

my $0.02,

 

Sean

Remember that the 150 will not stop down to f/32 either. While f/32 guarantees an edge to edge soft shot if it is in focus, you may want the extra DoF at times.

At 300 DPI the effects of minimal JPEG compression are not going to be visible without a loupe. The general concensus on the net that I have seen is that a first generation JPEG from a TIFF or PSD working file is more than good enough for prints. And at the lab or uploading over the internet, file transfer is much faster with JPEGs. I just upload the JPEGs onto a CF card and take them to the lab (local drugstore with a Frontier). In short, using first generation high quality JPEG files is more expedient without a notable loss of quality in the print.

I keep seeing comments on using a Stof-Fen Omnibounce and that is non-sense advice. Theoretically you would get a 3% or so increase in diffusion (barely larger light source) but without walls to bounce off most of the light to the sides is lost.

 

Hence, in practice using an Omnibounce will simply wast a stop or two of flash power. In short, the Omnibounce will simply increase recycle times on your flash and drain the battery faster. This is a hindrence to getting the shot when shooting fast moving subjects.

 

If you want a diffuser for your flash for outdoor usage, then look at the Limiquest and Chimera soft boxes which will make your light source larger which will in turn soften both the specular highlights and the edges of shadows.

 

Another option for increasing the size of your light source to have more diffuse light is to move your light closer to the subject. You can do this using a flash bracket.

 

You can learn the basics of the relationship between your lightsource and the character of the light on the subject in the following thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007tNJ&tag=

 

Remember, the Omnibounce creates diffusion by bouncing light off your surroundings to make the light come from many directions. This simply wastes flash power out of doors. Why use an Omnibounce when you could drop from ISO 200 to ISO 100 or stop down for mor DoF.

 

If you want to know more, then look in the Administration section of the lighting forum:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1824&category=Administration

 

There you will find many articles on the basics of lighting plus discussion with good solid examples. Studio techniques may not sound helpful in nature, but the same lighting techniques apply as light is simply light and how it affects your image does not change from indoors to outdoors.

 

enjoy,

 

Sean

Is your battery charge low? I have zero issues doing this with the XT.

The 550EX with the 100/2.8 USM Macro works fine without the hood as a light for 1:1 macro work on the 350D/XT with the flash zoom set at 80 mm and tilted downwards by the one notch/click possible (likely the crop factor is an issue here).

 

That said, at 1:2 to 1:1, the 550EX is large compared to the subject. It is like using a 1 m high by 2 m wide softbox to light a dog (golden retriever size). The light is plenty diffuse and I do not find shadows harsh.

 

Albeit, with the loss of light due to bellows extension (effective aperture) even the 550EX lacks power to fully light a 1:1.5 shot at f/22 and ISO 100 on a cloudy day. Albeit, diffraction is an issue at f/16 with the 100/2.8 so f/22 is rarely called for.

 

With the use of a bracket and the off camera shoe cord getting the flash head closer to the subject the 430EX should exhibit comparable power (if not more) to the 550EX on the hotshoe. And shifting the flash head closer to the subject will greatly increase the size of the light source which will soften the light even more.

 

As an aside, Jerry, your common garden spider is highly likely to not be a spider at all. It looks like a harvestman and harvestmen are arachnids. Spiders are also arachnids. Harvestment are not spiders. It is a completely non-venomous arthropod ( http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/daddyvenom.html ). The following is a worthwhile read on spiders and their ilk: http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/index.html

 

As to lens hoods, they are next to useless at 1:1 or close to it. They either block the ambient light, block your flash, or spook the insect.

 

some thoughts,

 

Sean<div></div>

With very saturated colors on some flowers can render them very difficult to capture with a small gamut sensor. i.e., nearly impossible to capture with JPEG as not blowing the red channel will underexpose the green and blue channels.

 

One such species is rose campion, Lychnis coronaria. I find to get accurate color on it I must shoot RAW and then underexpose the shot in the RAW converter and then brighten the shadows into midtones in Photoshop (this essentially compresses the highlights rather than clipping them). This is the only way to get this species to look real on my monitor.

 

Using negative film would ameliorate the problem most of the time. Slide film (not super saturated) would be better than JPEG and worse than RAW in most instances.

 

some thoughts,

 

Sean

Ensure you do not have any layer masks interfering with things. Does this fail on every image? Is your image RGB? CMYK? LAB? 8-bit or 16-bit color?

 

As to values, the discussion so far is rather immature and very magical. This is not meant as an insult, but instead to point out the question about values is highly dependent upon both the image at hand (landscape, cityscape, insect macro, portrait, ... and the texture of the content) and on the intended output(JPEG for the web/email, 200 DPI print, 300 DPI print, ...).

 

If you want it simple, then take a look at http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRProfessionalSharpeningToolkit.htm and use the scripts. Please be aware sharpening is non-trivial activity and there is no magic bullet/formula for all images.

 

enjoy,

 

Sean

Zoom in on the photo to see the result as you will not see much change at less than 100% with those settings and you should not be emailing full resolution shots. As to your chosen settings, they sound very aggressive to my eye. But I do not care for oversharpened shots. And other settings would be more appropriate for prints.

 

some thoughts,

 

Sean

Justin,

 

I am glad to hear that copying "Actions Palette.psp" did it. I have had this problem in the past and lost my Actions so I have saved them for years and not had this issue. But it was Don's suggestion and a little searching on the system plus your testing it that yielded the solution.

 

Nonetheless, save your Actions set (select the Actions folder and click the right pointing triangle/arrow head in a circle and save). This will let you easily back up your Actions or share them with others.

 

And there is always the chance that one's "Actions Palette.psp" will get corrupted which means having that and a backup copy will protect you better.

 

all the best,

 

Sean

 

repeated to have it in my email backup:

 

C:\Documents and Settings\Username\Application Data\Adobe\Photoshop\9.0\Adobe Photoshop CS2 Settings\Actions Palette.psp

In general Andrew knows what he is talking about when talking color and how to get it right/consistent. If you want the best solution, then his guidance will be helpful and relevant.

 

That said, take a look at:

 

C:\Documents and Settings\Username\Application Data\Adobe\Photoshop\9.0\Adobe Photoshop CS2 Settings\Actions Palette.psp

 

replacing Username with your login. Note psp is likely PhotoShopPreference and not Paint Shop Pro. ;o)

 

Then copy this file from your old install to your new one. It may work and it may not. But it is worth a try. And there are other useful files in that directory that you may wish to recover.

 

all the best,

 

Sean

Rewrite:

 

For maximum darkening of the sky point your shoulder to the sun so you are shooting at 90 degrees to the light. Otherwise, compose to meet your needs. Then rotate the polarizer (right or left it dosen't matter) until you like what you see best. If you have a UV filter on your lens, remove it before mounting the polarizer.

 

The important part is the final image should rule your choice and not where the sun is. After all, if you are East of a mountain at sunrise it will do you no good to point 90 degrees to the side as you will not get the mountain in the shot (excluding with a fish-eye ;o).

 

enjoy,

 

Sean

A polarizer will do absolutely nothing to cut glare off metal (period). But it will cut glare off enamel paints, non-metallic chrome substitute, non-metallic finishes on metal (read as polish and other non-metallic finishes).

 

Reflections off non-metallic materials are polarized whereas reflections of metals are _not_ polarized.

 

all the best,

 

Sean

Change 3 to:

 

3) Rotate the polarizer until you like what you see best.

 

And then you have it. Polarizers can be used to cut haze, increase haze, cut glare off water, cut glare of vegetation, ...

 

Blue skies are just a start.

 

enjoy,

 

Sean

Is your monitor calibrated? How are you creating prints? Where are you seeing the pink?

 

That said, if you have a truly white background, then use that to created a custom white balance and shoot with that. Or use a grey card to create a custom white balance. Or simply adjust exposure in your RAW converter.

 

As to overexposure, check your exposure in the image review histogram. For mild overexposure, simply do another RAW conversion and dial back the exposure compensation a touch.

 

If you care enough about the images but are not good enough to get it right every time, then shoot RAW. If you truly care about the final image, then shoot RAW.

 

If all you ever want is a 4x6 inch prints and the rare 8x12 inch prints, then shoot JPEG and learn to use Levels:

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=photoshop+levels+tutorial

 

some thoughts,

 

Sean

My apologies, the command/target of the shortcut should be:<p>

 

<b>"C:\Program Files\Pro Imaging Powertoys\Microsoft Color Control Panel Applet for Windows XP\WinColor.exe" /L</b><p>

 

rather than the value noted above. Note the quotes handle the spaces in the directory names and they are hence important.

<i>You can profile one monitor video card combination but not two mnitors using the same video card so you'll need a second video card.</i><p>

 

This is not true for XP, but perhaps so for a OS-X. You will need to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e33dca0-7721-43ca-9174-7f8d429fbb9e&DisplayLang=en"> download the Microsoft Color Control Panel Applet for Windows XP</a> and install it. Then uninstall the Pantone/Gretag Macbeth calibration loader. Then you will need to calibrate each display and then set the ICC profile for each display in the color control panel. You will also need to create shortcut in your Startup folder that runs the following command:<p>

 

<b>"C:\Program Files\Pro Imaging Powertoys\Microsoft Color Control Panel Applet for Windows XP"</b><p>

 

Please note this is fully detailed in the readme file and more discussion about this can be found by searching the archives of this forum.<p>

 

hope this helps,<p>

 

Sean

Yes. But using your left hand in PS on the keyboard is way faster than not using it.<div></div>