steve_bright1

Alice: John's right - flatten does not discard channels. I already have a flatten step.

 

Alistair: I plan to get into scripting, but that's a little way down the road for me.

 

Sean: Unfortunately that's not really practical as I have a couple of hundred gigabytes of PSD files that I want to process. I really don't want extra copies of the PSDs being generated as that would involve more housekeeping :)

 

Thanks to you all for your help and advice. I think that the 'save for web' option might do the trick for me. I already have an explicit conversion to sRGB so it will hopefully be ok. That will also avoid the other trip-up I found today - where annotations also force a 'save as a copy'.<div></div>

I've set up a couple of actions to resize images, add frames,

copyright notices etc., then save them as jpegs for web use. The

actions work fine for almost all of my images, but I have a small

number where the PSD file that I'm working on has an additional

channel, or saved selection. This causes the action to pause

saying 'Hey!, this needs to be saved as a copy'.

 

Bearing in mind that my saved selections will all have different

names, is there a command in Photoshop that discards all channels

apart from red, green & blue? Then I could add that as a step to my

actions.

 

Thanks for you help, Steve

A magazine review of interpolation methods suggested that ACR uses a less sophisticated algorithm than PS itself. I would always resize up using PS rather than ACR. YMMV

Oops - last line isn't meant to be there - it was already absorbed into the first paragraph. You would think that a sophisticated proof reader would have spotted that :o)

The LCD display on my first 20D was significantly crooked. You wouldn't think that a supposedly sophisticated design and/or manufacturing process could allow that to happen. It's as if there's only one screw holding the display in place. It makes you wonder just how precisely the image and autofocus sensors are aligned.

 

The display on my third 20D is only very slightly out, which is not a problem for me, although the backlight leakage when I'm looking down at it is somewhat annoying.

 

Other people have mentioned crooked displays and backlight leakages before. Don't get me wrong, I think the 20D is a really good camera, but I can't help thinking that quality control is not as good as on the 10D (IMHO).

 

 

 

 

 

You would think that a sophisticated manufacturing and design process wouldn't

<a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk">photo-i</a> are starting an interactive review on Wednesday June 8th.

Doesn't exactly answer your question, but I read a review of a number of interpolation methods a while back and it said that resizing within ACR seemed to be using a simple bilinear algorithm judging by the results. The conclusion was that it would be better to resize once the image is brought into Photoshop rather than in ACR.

Another review/test for you: <a href="http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html">http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html</a>. I have the Sigma 50mm although I tend to use my Tamron 90mm macro much more because of its more usable distance.

Jeff, Thanks for your full and clear explanations. I'm sure I'm not alone in using a similar practice myself. A couple of days ago I was shooting a rather dramatic near-sunset. If left to the meter, huge areas of bright clouds would have been blown. -2 stops did the trick, just blowing the sun.

I own the Tamron and before I got it I was seriously considering the Sigma. As far as I can recall, the Tamron has good bokeh (bright centres, darkening outwards) and the Sigma has unattractive bokeh (dark centres, brightening outwards before darkening again).

<p>It was for the bokeh that I settled on the Tamron and I haven't regretted it at all. Here's a useful independent review of a variety of macro lenses: <a href="http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html">http://orchideen-kartierung.de/Macro100E.html</a> although I don't think it deals with the bokeh.

<p>I've had my LS-2000 for about 5 years and it's given me faultless service. Although it doesn't cut the mustard with the newer scanners it still is a very good scanner.</p>

<p>All the images on my website <a href="http://www.brightimaging.com">www.brightimaging.com</a> were scanned from Fuji slide film using it.</p>

<p>My only gripes with it are that it struggles a bit with under-exposed contrasty slides, e.g. with Velvia, and has a problem with very highly saturated predominantly red images. I don't know why, maybe I wasn't using it to the best of it's ability.</p>

Quick update in case anyone is still looking at this thread - sent my 20D off to Park Cameras yesterday (it cost a staggering 19.45 pounds for postage).

 

Just had a call from them and they're sending me a brand new replacement which I should get tomorrow. Fast, friendly, cheap and reliable service. What more could anyone ask for?

I'm in the UK. My 20D charger is the same model as my 10D charger, i.e. CB-5L. On the back it says 'input: 100V-240V AC50/60HZ'. I've had no problems using it in several European countries.

 

I'll bet yours says exactly the same in which case you'll only need a plug adapter so you can actually plug it into an outlet. You can pick one up at the airport for about $10.

After checking out a lot of prices in the UK I just bought my 20D from <a href="http://www.parkcameras.com">Park Cameras</a>. Cheaper than mifsuds etc and only about ?25 more expensive than 7dayshop. Plus it's a UK model, not a grey import, so it comes with the voucher book, free 256Mb card and a pucker warranty.

<p>Good purchase service from them. It turns out there's a manufacturing defect with the body in that the LCD screen is slightly twisted behind the window (weird). They've promised me a brand new replacement body by return. Provided they stick to that (and I've no reason to doubt it), I would definitely recommend them.

Just a philosophical, tongue-in-cheek, thought (I've glanced at the Wilhelm website but haven't checked the detail) - if you can estimate print ageing by accelerated use of artificial light, how can you estimate dark storage ageing? Do they have special *very* *very* dark cupboards?

Many thanks for all your comments and photos. I've now got the 20d and I've taken a few test shots at high ISO's and haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary with regard to banding.

 

I did a sensor dust check on my fifth shot and sure enough, just like another poster a couple of days ago, there is dust present right out of the box. I'll rearrange the dust later.

 

I ran a dead pixel test (www.starzen.com) and it seems fine. Amazing: the noise reduction dark exposure works really well.

 

The camera all seems fine - only a couple of minor things where I felt the 10D is better - the LCD screen and the shutter noise, but I'll get used to them. The 10D is the quietest SLR I've ever owned.

 

Despite all that, the camera's still going back for a replacement though: the LCD screen is not aligned with the body correctly. The image looks as if it's rotated slightly anticlockwise. Wierd.

 

Looks like my 10D will have been at least 5 weeks in the service department. I feel this is a major weakness with the massive popularity of digital cameras - the manufacturers (not just Canon) need to expand their service departments as they just can't keep up, but that's for another topic.

 

Thanks again.

I've been a user of a 10D for a couple of years and have been really

pleased with it. For me, the only weaknesses have been the noise at

higher ISO's and the fact that the 6MP resolution doesn't give me

much headroom for cropping with large prints.

 

I had intended to skip a generation and go for the 30D, or whatever

the next one is. However, my 10D sustained some damage recently and

is in for repair for a few weeks. This has really highlighted the

vulnerability of having only one digital body, so I've ordered a 20D

and hopefully I'll get it today. I'm off on holiday on Friday, so

I'll have about 24 hours to check out the camera to verify it's ok.

 

I've seen quite a few comments about noise banding with the 20D, even

with the latest firmware. Can someone let me know how to carry out a

simple test at home so I can see if my 20D suffers from the banding,

and if it does if I find it unacceptable. Obviously I'll check the

firmware is up to date first.

 

Thanks

I'm guessing that your problem is related to the time it takes for the Photoshop CS file browser to preview the files before you can use the file browser to do a rename.

<p>If so, why not take the approach I do:

<br>1) copy the files off the card onto the hard drive (I use a card reader, but you could use the USB cable just as well)

<br>2) Use a bulk renaming tool to rename them to suit (I just strip off the 'IMG_' or 'CRW_' and stick a numeric prefix on

<br>3) Burn them to CD/DVD

<br>4) Open them in photoshop

<p>I have been using the Bulk Rename Utility by Jim Willsher for about a year and it is *very* useful and versatile. You can find it <a href="http://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/">here</a>. When installed, you can just right-click on a folder in Windows Explorer and select the renamer tool from the context menu.

<p>Have you checked out 7dayshop's prices? They charge VAT but still work out loads cheaper than mainland UK prices.

<p>I bought a Canon 17-40 lens + a Sigma macro from B&H in NY. Service was great, but I got stung for the duty and VAT. Customs, courier firms and the Royal Mail are getting much better at charging duty, so to a large extent I think it comes down to what declaration the shipper puts on the parcel.

<p>A friend of mine bought a 17-40 lens from HK and they massively underdeclared its value. His duty and VAT bill was a lot less than mine. However, if his package had been opened, you can only guess at the consequences.

<p>Here's the URL for the <a href="http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/dds/cgi-bin/tarchap?Lang=EN">EU TARIC guide for import duties</a>. Click 'browse'. Photographic stuff is in section XVIII, chapter 90. I had a quick look at a couple of entries and it seems that lens have a 0% duty rate which is good news. However, there are many confusing TARIC codes and an object such as a zoom lens does not intuitively fit into just one category. I understand it is up to the courier to decide which category it fits in and if you were to disagree with them, you'd probably have a struggle getting any duty back.

<p>The total bill is worked out as:

<br>equipment cost + shipping cost = total(1): you pay to vendor

<br>import duty charged on total(1), giving you total(2)

<br>VAT charged on total(2)

<br>Courier duty collection fee, about 13.00 GBP added on top of that. The courier delivers the parcel and expects to be paid before handing it over.

<p>As an example, suppose you buy a widget from Acme supplies in the US. The widget is $200, the import duty on widgets is 10%, the shipping is $20, VAT is 17.5%, and the exhange rate is 1 GBP = $2 (that would be nice).

<p>Acme charge you $220 ($200 + $20)

<br>Import duty is $22 (10% of $220)

<br>VAT is $42.35 (17.5% of $220 + $22)

<br>Courier fee is 13 GBP.

<br>So you pay the vendor $220 (= 110 GBP)

<br>You pay the courier 45.17 GBP ($22 + $42.35 + 13 GBP)

<br>Total cost to you is 155.17 GBP

<br>...now, how much is that widget in the UK. Hmmm, 160 GBP with UK warranty...

<p>Sorry this is a rambling post. Although my calculations and example are not as clear as I'd like, I've not seen it explained in these fora before.

Try this page for technical support on this scanner:

<p><a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?goingto=dtc_options&cat=1&grp=2&productNr=9191">http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?goingto=dtc_options&cat=1&grp=2&productNr=9191</a>

<p>and more specifically for the latest version of Nikon Scan:

<p><a href="http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=203">http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=203</a>

<p>Nikon say that they do not support the scanner on anything newer than Windows NT, but 'users have reported that it works on newer versions of Windows'.

<p>Good luck

Thanks Emre for the pointer, and thanks also to Anil Mungal for writing the original script. It works like a charm. That is going to save me so much time - I am over the moon. I really must get into this scripting stuff. Thanks again!

I have about 500 images which I need to print out as proofs for a

client. I would like to incorporate the filename or part of the

filename as a text layer within the image to be printed. How can I

automate the generation of the text layer with the right text in it?

I'd preferably like to only include the part of the filename before

the dot - I don't really want the '.psd/.jpg' in the text.

 

Thanks for your help... I really don't fancy having to type in 500

labels!

I burn my images onto a CD-RW and take that along. About six months back my CostCo introduced the self-service selection system, so I put the CD in the drawer and make the selections on the touch-screen of how many prints of what size I want. When I'm done it prints a ticket which I hand to the assistant. They recognise me now - I think I'm the only one who asks for no color corrections.

 

The quality is fine and the price and speed of service are superb. I just wish they did a lustre finish instead of just glossy.

 

Oh, it's a bit of a pain if I want mixed sizes as I have to create and order for each size.

With your image open in Photoshop, make all the adjustments you need to get the desired appearance on your (calibrated) screen, e.g. color corrections, spotting, dodging, burning, levels, curves etc. etc.

<p>Crop your image so it has the correct aspect ratio for the print size that you want from CostCo, e.g. 6x4", 7x5" etc.

<p>Resize the image to the correct print dimensions. Make sure that the resultant resolution does not exceed the capabilities of the Noritsu machine. CostCo should have a leaflet for this, but you should be fine if the resolution is no more than 300dpi.

<p>If you resampled when you resized, you may want to apply a touch of sharpening (unsharp mask).

<p>Convert the image to the profile you downloaded for the printer - I think this is image->mode->convert-to-profile. You will have previously copied the ICC profile file to the correct location on your hard drive - this is OS dependent. When you do the profile conversion, you'll have the option to select rendering intent. I usually choose 'perceptual', YMMV.

<p>I then save the file as a quality-12 JPEG, rather than a TIFF. I don't know if my CostCo can handle TIFF files and I'm sure they'd take a long time to display on their selection screen and I really doubt you'd see a difference. Incidentally, if you want say, 6x4" prints, and you did the correct aspect ratio cropping and resizing in Photoshop, you need to select the option '6x4" prints' rather than '6x4" prints with borders' on the CostCo selection screen.

<p>Having said all this, I've used the Dry Creek profile for my local CostCo store and I found the greens were a bit overblown for my taste. For non-absolutely-critical work I find that giving them an image in the sRGB colorspace looks great.

<p>Oh, and don't forget to ask for 'no color correction' when you hand them the ticket, otherwise all bets are off!

<p>There's a very useful article on the Dry Creek website which gives you this and more info. It's here: <a href="http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printer_profiles.htm">http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/using_printer_profiles.htm</a>. Hopefully it doesn't contradict too much of what I've said.

 

Good luck

I got a pack of inkjet printable magnetic sheets, made by <a href="http://www.bisbellmagnets.com/shop/">Bisbell</a> and also sold by <a href="http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?Product=BISIJMPGA45">Jessops</a>. Both these companies are UK-based and I don't know if they ship overseas.</p>

<p>The paper is sturdy enough and magnetic enough to act as a good fridge magnet. I had an A4 sheet (approx 11.5" x 8.25") stuck to my fridge for a year. The finish is fairly similar to Epson photo paper and as far as I can remember I selected that as the media type with the other settings set to 'automatic' when I printed it using my Epson 1270 dye printer. There were problems feeding the paper through.

 

The print did fade a little, but with no dramatic colour shift and probably no more than an Epson print that is exposed to kitchen air for a year!