wayne_larmon

Don't use spaces in file names. Even though it is technically legal, it can cause problems down the road. Because spaces in file names is a special case, some programs forget to allow for this special case, and things fail.

Ditto with using special characters, like the double quote (") character in file names. This is apparently legal for Mac file names, but is blatently illegal for PCs and the various flavors of UNIX.

Normal operation for Monaco OPTIX (and GM Eye One, and the assorted Spyders) is that the final step after calibration and profiling is is offers to write the profile. You have to click on "OK" (and optionally rename it.) The profile will be written in the standard location where Windows stores profiles (which is different in different versions of Windows) and tell Windows to use it as the default profile. Which will withstand reboots.

You can see this by going to Control Panel/Display /Settings/Advanced/Color Management. The profile that you should have saved should show up here and be tagged as the default profile. If you somehow missed the saving the profile, then it won't be here.

I did find a bug with my copy of OPTIX pro, in that is can't overwrite and existing profile, so I need to rename the newly created profile so that it has a different name.

So go through the calibration and profiling again and make sure that the profile is written. Then immediatly check in Display Properties to see that the profile is there and is tagged to be the default profile.

Also, make sure that Adobe Gamma isn't in your Startup folder. I'm not sure if this can cause this problem, but Adobe Gamma shouldn't be running when you use a different calibrator.

I used to use an Eye One version 1 and I found its way of adjusting RGB levels to be excruciatingly maddening, compared to the Spyder Optical software I used before. I found that I the indicator tended to show one or more of the guns pegged, and it was very tricky to adjust them all to get them so they were in the center of the indicator. But I could get the indicators all centered-none of them were pegged permently. When I made prints from the Eye One calibration, the colors were off.

The reason I switched from a Spyder to an Eye One was because my neutrals always had a magenta tint with the Spyder calibration (even though prints made by Adorama came back looking decent.) I eventually got a x-rite Monaco OPTIX and this is much better. Doing the RGB adjustments is much more civilized than either the Spyder or GM software. My neutrals don't have a color tint. Prints (made by Adorama) look like my screen. Go x-rite!

I use a CRT, currently a Nec FE992. YMMV.

Wayne Larmon

<ul><um>....could you expand on Large radius USM, or perhaps a link to an explanation?</em></ul>

<p>USM (UnSharp Masking) is usually used to make images look sharper. But if you use a large radius setting (and a corresponding small amount setting), then the effect is more like contrast enhancement. I first learned this technique from Photo-Brush's help file and "Large Radius USM" is how they phrase the technique. Use a setting like amount=10%, radius=100%, thresheld=0.

<p>Some time later, Michael Reichman of Luminous Landascpe published an article on the technique. He calls it <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml"> Local Contract Enhancement</a>. I don't know who discovered the technique first--I just saw it first in Photo-Brush.

<ul><em>"The three devices are to form the prelude for further common color management solutions of Pantone and GretagMacbeth."</em></ul>

<p>That's interesting. Pantone sells also Spyders.<br>

<a href="http://www.pantone.com/products/products.asp?idSubArea=0&idArea=3&idProduct=507&ShowNav=29">Pantone Products</a>

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>....may i ask you what does it do better thna photoshop does?</em></ul>

<p>It has a very nifty B/W mixer to convert a color image to black and white. Converting to B/W is tricky, because you want to have the optimum mix of RG and B before desaturating. PhotoShop has a clumsy channel mixer where you need to explicitly calculate a mixture of RG and B that add up to 255. Yes, you need to have a calculator next to you to do the addition.

<p>Photo-Brush has a box that as the spectrum. You drag your mouse around the color box and it dynamicly does this channel mixing thing based on the color you have your mouse pointer in. It will auto-update the image while you are dragging the mouse around so you can see the results of the different amounts of RG and B. This is light years ahead of Photoshop's channel mixer.

<p>Photo-Brush's perspective correction feature is easier to use then Photoshop's. This is a much more minor difference than the B/W mixer.

<p>Photo-Brush has a Large separate Radius USM control for Local Contrast Adjustment that is separate from the regular USM control that you use for normal sharpening. This is a convenience feature if you do large radius USM a lot (I do) With two seperate controls, each one will remember the setting you used. If you only have a single USM control, you wipe its memory each time you do large radius USM and then do small radius USM for sharpening. Again, a minor convenience, but Photo-Brush is still handier.

<p>The B/W channel mixer is the biggest feature, IMO. Photoshop's channel mixer makes you wish you were dead. IMO. But otherwise Photoshop is more powerful. If you need its features. I have both and do use PS CS most of the time. I only fire up Photo-Brush when I need one of the features that it does better. But if you don't want to spring for full Photoshop, it is worth giving Photo-Brush a try. Maybe it is all that you need. It is less than one tenth the cost of Photoshop.

<p>Wayne Larmon

Do you mean Media Chance Photo-Brush?<br>

<a href="http://www.mediachance.com/pbrush/">

http://www.mediachance.com/pbrush/</a>

<p>If so, it isn't a real competitor to PS CS, but it is neat and (IMO) is well worth the price. It does a few things that Photoshop doesn't do well, so it is worth having around even if you have Photoshop.

<p>It has a free 30 day trial, so why don't you try it yourself?

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>

Not aware of any warning, but you can display both the input and output histogram on top of each other, and it's obvious when you exceed the available range- it runs into the end of the graph, or it clips if you've set a higher-than-zero output range.</em></ul>

<p>This is not the same. This is not showing you the spots in your image that are clipping. The Photoshop Levels command shows you the exact spots in your image that clip when you hold down the Alt ket. Adobe Camera RAW does the same thing with its histogram when you set the exposure and shadow points, which is exceedingly handy when doing RAW file conversions.

<p>You need to be able to see what spots in your image are clipping. It is OK for some areas to clip, not so OK for others. The histogram by itself doesn't show this. The areas that are clipping needs to be displayed on the image itself.

<p>For me, a lack of this capability is pretty much a deal breaker.

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><ul>"not as lame as sites you can't see."

</ul>

<p><em>Mark, not sure of your point? There's plenty of flash sites that work in all browsers.</em></ul>

<p>Well, they don't work in my browser. I don't have Flash installed. Flash-only sites don't work at all in my browser. Which means "pause for three seconds, shrug, and then go to a different site."

If your developer can't provide a site that auto-degrades when a browser doesn't have Flash installed, I'd suggest that you find a different develper.

<p>Why are you <em>intentionally</em> preventing potential customers from viewing your site.

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>

My D70 gives me the choice of using the sRGB or Adobe RGB colour profiles. I have calibrated my monitor and have an ICC file as a result. My local lab has provided me with their printer ICC file also. In addition Photoshop Elements asks me whether I want to use sRGB or Adobe RGB colour space for editing.

<p>How do these 4 profiles fit together?? Would someone be kind enough to either point me to a step-by-step guide on the web, or please explain? </em></ul>

<p>I think the problem is that you need full Photoshop and not Elements. In full Photoshop you can soft proof using the printer profile. That is, you can tell PS to use a partiular printer profile and then temporarily modify the display so that the image will look like it would if it had been printed on that printer. Elements can't do this.

<p>Then after tweaking the image so it looks good while being soft proofed using the printer profile, you convert <em>a copy</em> of the image to that printer profile, and save the copy under a different name so as to not overwrite your original. (You can also only do this wirh full PhotoShop and not with Elements.) You bring the copy to the printing lab and tell them to print without doing any corrections.

<p>A more detailed explanation of this process it at Dry Creek Photo:<br>

<a href="http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printer_profiles.htm">Using Printer Profiles with Digital Labs</a>

<p>In my opinion, if you don't have full Photoshop, you are better off if you stay in sRGB throughout. Even Adobe RGB is problematic, because you need to be able to convert to at least sRGB if you want to put your images on the web. If you use Elements, then once an image is in Adobe RGB, then you can't ever convert it to any other color space. (At least not with the versions of Elements that I have used.)

<p>Wayne Larmon

Dry Creek Photo says this about PWP:

<p><ul>"....The profile conversion routines in Picture Window Pro (as of version 3.5.0.9) give mediocre results. Shadow details in particular are plugged up. Also, the match between soft proof and print is not as good as with the products listed above." ("above" means Photoshop, QImage and Corel Draw)<br>

<a href="http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printer_profiles.htm">Dry Creek Photo</a>

</ul>

<p>Wayne Larmon

<p>Try another photo processor. I have had good luck with (Photo.net supporter) Adoramapix. They have Dry Creek Photo profiles and use the Dry Creek Photo workflow.

<p>Download the Adorama profile from <a href="http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/Profiles/NewYork_frontier_profiles.htm#NY">Dry Creek's site</a>. Scroll down to "New York City, Adorama Pro-Lab, Inc." Then follow the workflow at Dry Creek Photo's <a href="http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printer_profiles.htm">Using Printer Profiles with Digital Labs</a>

<p>After you have edited your pics and converted them to Adorama's profile, upload your pictures to <a href="http://www.adoramapix.com/">http://www.adoramapix.com/</a> Make sure to "specify that your profiled prints run on the Noritsu 31-Pro" in the comments. Also tell them to turn off auto-correction.

<p>If your prints come back from Adorama looking good but prints from your your local lab still are wrong, then....

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>

This last is probably also true of Photoshop Elements. You will have to make sure it's using the same color space as the camera, again by going into the color management settings.

</em></ul>

<p>Elements 2.0 is coy about what color spaces it uses. <b>Edit/Color Settings...</b> only gives you a choice of:

<ul>

<li>No color management

<li>Limited color management - optimized for web graphics

<li>Full color management - optimized for Print

</ul>

I <em>think</em> that "Limited color management" means "sRGB" and "Full color management" means "Adobe RGB (1998). You can tell what color space it being used by clicking in the little black triangle at the bottom of the screen and choosing "Document Profile". Then it will display the current working space for the image that is active, at the bottom of the screen.

<ul><em>

As far as which color space to use, as a practical matter right now, you can shoot in Adobe (which is a "wider" color space "gamut"), work in that color space through final edit, and save your final edited images in sRBG for right now because that's what most printers and print services use for hardcopy output. Later you will learn when and why you want to preseve the basic images in the widest space available, and when you need to use a narrower color space for final output.

</em></ul>

<p>Except that Elements 2.0 doesn't have any way to convert profiles! So once an image is in Adobe 1998, it stays in Adobe 1998. Hope you don't want to put the image on the web, because you can't change it to sRGB. (With the possible exception for printing to a printer that is connected to your computer. You might be able to convert the document's profile to the printer's profile at print time. I don't do this so I don't know. But you can't convert an image from one profile (Adobe 1998) to another (sRGB) and then save it to disk. And you can't soft proof using a printer profile.)

<p>For this reason, Adobe Elements users probably should stick to sRGB from the git go. Full Photoshop lets you convert profiles. But not Elements.

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>

<p>With a Canon lens the answer would be yes. With a Sigma lens the answer is somewhere between probably and maybe.

</em></ul>

<p>This is the first time I've heard this about Sigma lenses. What is the basis for this comment?

<p>In response to references to the Photozone review of the Canon 55-200mm, was it for version I or for version II of this lens? Because version I is generally regarded as being sucky, but version II (released at the same time as the original DRebel 300D) is considered by a lot of DPreviewers to be excellent (for this class of lens.) Search the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/</a> Canon SLR lens forum for more.

<p>Wayne Larmon

<p>Yep, you're on the Internet. You ask for reccomentations of Canon primes and then get reccomendations for a Nikon, Fuji, and Kodak bodies. And for Canon zooms. And then get questioned for restating what you originally requested.

<p>Here is a review of the <a href="http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/100_Sigma_14_f2.8_EX/100_Sigma_14_f2.8_EX.html">

Sigma 14mm f/2.8 EX</a>. And the <a href="http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_20_f1-8/a_Sigma_20_mm_f-1.8.html">

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX</a>. There are links to reviews of other primes he has used. (He likes primes.)

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>I was about to buy a D70. Then 350D appeared and i got excited about it, especially the size of the camera. But then suddenly, everybody is talking about the artificial overprocessed in-camera files from canon.</em></ul>

<p>Who is this "everybody"? They wouldn't by any chance be Nikon owners, would they?

<p>Wayne Larmon

Here is where to get sensor cleaning stuff:

<ul>

<p><li><a href="http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning">The Copperhill method</a> Pec-Pads wrapped around a reusable swab, wetted with Eclipse fluid.

<p><li><a href="http://www.visibledust.com/">Visible Dust Sensor Brush</a>

<p><li><a href="http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/a_Brush_Your_Sensor/a_Brush_Your_Sensor.html">Tutorial on how make a cheap sensor brush</a> Visible Dust brushes are on the expensive side. This page shows you how to find an inexpensive brush that works the same way. And how to use it to clean your sensor.

</ul>

<p>Battles rage over which approach is best: Sensor Brushing or wet swabbing. I don't know which method is best. I've been using the Copperhill method with no problems so I haven't felt the need to try anything else.

Wayne Larmon

<ul><i>but I must warn you that one night I got a 00 error message (no lens attached) despite having a 24-70 L attached!</i></ul>

<p>I don't believe that anybody else has reported this problem. At least with the Wasia hack. It is possible that your lens contacts were dirty and eventually self-cleaned. I've been running the Wasia hack since last summer and I never had that error message.

<p>The most important features for me are

<ul>

<li>Being able set the size of the embedded JPEG in RAW files. Because I shoot 100% RAW, setting the size of the JPEG to the smallest size lets me get more images on my CF cards.

<li>Mirror lockup.

<li>Being able to select "One Shot" focus mode, in addition to "AI Servo."

</ul>

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><i>Teleconverters and cheap telephoto zoom lenses do not mix well, as shown by <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html">this article</a>

</i></ul>

<p>Thanks for the review. I liked the part about the 50mm f/1.8 Mk II and the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter. I've got this combination and I thought it was working well, but I didn't know how well. As you said, it is a nice combination.

<p>The 1.5 ft. closest focusing distance is especially handy for this focal length. The main reason I never got the Canon 85mm f/1.8 was because its closest focusing distance is 2.8 feet.

<p>Wayne Larmon

<a href="http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A10101/trepan/">Here is the DIY brain surgery</a>. (No joke.)

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>For more info on the 55-200 I and II, the sigme 55-200, and the canon 80-200 you might want to look up Adam_t's posts on dpreview.com.</em></ul>

<p>In particular, see <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=10967028">his review of the 55-200</a>. And look at these <a href="http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/lens_tests/Can55_200_1DS_Crops.jpg?0.7306087910060958">100% crops</a>

<p>I've got one and I agree with Adam-T. It is great. Yeah, I imagine that the 70-200L F4 lens is better, but it costs over twice as much. And is a lot heavier and more likely to trigger "Hey! No pro photography here."

<p>Wayne Larmon

<ul><em>Is there any way NOT to capture JPG's with the RAW files using this hack? I don't want the JPG's imbedded in my RAW images.</em></ul>

<p>No. The best you can do is to set the size of the embeddd JPEG to be as small as possible. This is still a considerable savings over the stock RAW file size.

Wayne Larmon

There are several threads on the DPreview 20D forum reporting cameras that lock up after attempting to load the firmware update. Locked up to the point that the only thing to do is send it in for Canon service.

<p>See <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10548815">20d death by firmware thread</a> and <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10543590">WARNING ! Loaded 1.0.4 Camera now dead.</a> And other similar threads on the <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1019">DPreview 20D forum</a>

<p>If cleaning the contacts doesn't help, then check the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/">http://www.dpreview.com/</a> 300D forum. Threads abut Err 99 problems crop up a lot there. I haven't paid close attention because I've never had it with my DRebel. Yet.

<p>Wayne Larmon