howard_owen

<p>Here's a little info from Adobe <a href="http://helpx.adobe.com/en/photoshop/using/duotones.html">http://helpx.adobe.com/en/photoshop/using/duotones.html</a></p>

<p>Another source: <a href="http://www.tipsquirrel.com/creating-a-duotone-image-in-photoshop/">http://www.tipsquirrel.com/creating-a-duotone-image-in-photoshop/</a></p>

<p>In order to blur the background you'll need to mask the machine, in which case you might as well swap out the background like you planned in the first place. If this is a money-making project and you don't have the patience or skill to do the work, maybe outsource it to one of those off-shore retouch operations for $5 a pop.</p>

<p>Google <em>Photoshop Masking Offshore</em>. Here's a nice one in Bangladesh. http://www.colorexpertsbd.com/</p>

<p>Probably a combination of methods. Use the pen tool for most of the machine since it excels at hard, geometric edges without the user knowing much about how the pen tool works. The other, curved features (hoses and feet) can be quick masked or layer masked using a hard edged brush at the pixel level.</p>

<p>Or, you could just reshoot without a cluttered background.</p>

<blockquote>The shot is a failure in this respect; the footwells are not lighted!</blockquote>

<p>It's not a failure if there was no intent to include them in the first place.</p>

<p>I made a blog post a few months ago about shooting a car in abysmal lighting conditions, using a single speedlight and multiple exposures/frames which are later combined in Photoshop. Maybe you'll find it useful.<br /> <a href="http://www.howardowen.net/blog/2013/5/single-light-interior-shot">http://www.howardowen.net/blog/2013/5/single-light-interior-shot</a></p>

<p>The shot displayed as the "finished" shot isn't the one that was published (more post was involved), but it's close enough for illustration purposes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I used USB drives, but later switched to "bare" SATA drives in a dock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use a dock too, but be aware that standard SATA connectors are rated for only <strong>50</strong> insertion/mating cycles. Compare that to 1,500 — 10,000 cycles for some other types of connectors and you can see that SATA is not the most robust thing. The connectors used in docks should and can be beefier for obvious reasons, but you may want to check with your dock's manufacturer to know for sure what was used in your particular unit.</p>

<p>The Effects section is at least functional for me and, although the screen updates a bit slowly (especially when changing zoom levels), it's nowhere near as slow as the Browser, which would make a slug look rocket-like by comparison.</p>

<p>I also discovered yesterday that, in Lightroom, <em>Edit In</em> (as invoked by a right click) will not launch Perfect Effects. I have to use File>Plug-in Extras>Perfect Effects 8. Not a huge inconvenience but I wonder why it doesn't work like everything else. I guess it's no better or worse than having to launch PE8 in Photoshop by going to the Automate menu instead of Filters...</p>

<p>Just installed Perfect Efects 8 yesterday, running it as a stand-alone for the first time right now. One thing's for sure, it has the slowest browser I've ever seen. I opened a folder of 25 D300 tiffs and after about 5+ minutes it's rendered exactly 6 previews. <em>And</em> it has my HDD maxed out at 100% according to Task Manager.</p>

<p>Seriously unacceptable and ultimately unusable. Even if it caches the previews, it would take the rest of my natural life for it to make its way through all my images.</p>

<p>Vuescan does not use the (Kodak) licensed Digital ICE, or at least it didn't back when I was still scanning ~2005. VS <em>does</em> attempt to clean via information gleaned from the infrared component of the scan, but nowhere nearly as effectively as Nikon Scan or, presumably, Epson Scan, both of which <em>do</em> use the licensed technology AFAIK. This generic vs. proprietary processing may account for the time differential, along with the quality settings selected in the scanning software (normal vs. fine). If Epson permits multiple scanning passes, this will of course add to the total scan time if that option is selected.</p>

<p>If the scans look equivalent to you, then using VS is a no-brainer. It never worked out that way for me. :)</p>

<p>Window>Workspace<br>

See if you inadvertently activated<em> New in CS5, Painting, Design or Photography</em>. This causes menu items specific to those choices to be highlighted in blue. <em>Essentials</em> is the default choice but selecting it will cause any customizations created by you to be overwritten. Hopefully at some point you saved your workspace if you spent much time tweaking it to your liking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On a related tack: I wonder how many people banging on about CC pay a regular periodic "rental" for their SmugMug or Zenfolio galleries, or their website hosting, without so much as batting an eyelid?<br /><br />It's exactly the same as CC: stop paying and the website goes away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Smugmug and Zen are like billboards where your advertisement (work) is displayed. When your rental term is up, your work comes down but you still possess the tools to create another ad. Or at least you did until now.</p>

<p>As I said early on, this model is not for me. The EULA alone, at least as originally written, is nothing I'd ever agree to. However, I'm not gnashing my teeth or wringing my hands. Adobe's machinations will have zero effect on me. Best of luck to the rest of you.</p>

<p>The temporary nature of my right to use the software and the land mines buried in the EULA were the deal breakers for me the first time around. Nothing has changed in regard to item one and my guess is that this will be true of item two as well.</p>

<p>No, not for me. Ever.</p>

<p>http://www.strobella.com/<br>

Shoot through. Only thing smaller comes in a Piña Colada.</p>

<p>I have a Kiron 105mm macro in FD mount with a sluggish aperture. The shop I used to use for service is no longer in business and I was wondering if anyone could recommend a facility in the Indianapolis area -- although I am not opposed to shipping the lens for repair if need be.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can also wear all the make-up you want and have green hair...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you've seen my facebook page? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find it useful to extend the dynamic range of an older sensor to something nearing what I used to expect when shooting film. I strive for it to be unnoticeable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's the goal, I'm more likely to use layer blending and omit HDR software altogether. Most of my HDR work involves layer blends too since I nearly always combine one or more frames from the bracketed set with the HDR render.<br /> I guess my thinking is that I <em>like</em> for there to be some surreal qualities in my HDR stuff, sometimes subtle, sometimes not.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/143918245/large.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="504" /><br>

Couldn't find this one when I posted earlier...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can tell it's been done, it's almost certainly overdone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you can't tell it's been done, what's the point? <br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/145203491/large.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/140862856/large.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/ho72/image/148805889/original.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>If I can't impart some sort of <em>look </em>(for lack of a better word) through HDR which is not otherwise normally obtainable, why would I bother with it?</p>