john_houghton

<p><em>Jeff Owen wrote: "I am in my 70s and have been very reluctant to change from W7"</em><br>

Just for the record, I am coming up to 77 myself, and when I said I was running CS2 without problems on W10, I should have said I specifically checked all the things you said were not working, and they are ok here. I have W10 on 2 PCs and a laptop and they are all fine, though I use the two permitted copies of CS6 on two of the machines.<br>

If you have an up-to-date backup of your system, you could do a W10 update safe in the knowledge that you could easily revert to W7 if necessary. But if you really want to hang on to W7, then you might consider reinstalling that, since you have already tried reinstalling CS2.</p>

<p>I have CS2 working on a Win10 64bit PC without any problems. I suggest you upgrade while it's still free.</p>

<p>Here's my effort at correction:<br>

<img src="http://www.johnhpanos.com/temp/flare.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I suggest that you download DNG Converter 9.1 from the Adobe web site.</p>

<p>I tried the Hue/Saturation adjustment tool in CS6: the sliders were set to -56, +36, -58 and the colour range set to blue tones.</p><div></div>

<p>Tim, After specifying the screen resolution in Prefs, you can then use the View->Print Size option to display an image at its default print size, as shown on the Image Size dialog - i.e. the "Document Size".</p>

<p>There is one particular situation for which it is important to flatten before resizing and it really does matter. This concerns images covering a full 360 degrees when the left hand edge must exactly match the right hand edge at the wrap join when viewed in a spherical viewer (as in Google street view for example). If you resize before flattening, you will as often as not get a visible pale vertical line at the join where the images butt together. The line is formed from lighter versions of the edge pixels.</p>

<p>Q1. No<br>

Q2. No<br>

Q3. No<br>

The angle of view is the problem, and that is determined solely by the position of the camera. Moving the camera further away is the solution, if possible.</p>

<p>Q4. Linear panoramas only work for flat subjects. You could shoot the multiple images from inside the boundary fence, but that would give you a very boring image, and there's still the sticky out bit at the entrance to cope with.</p>

<p>In PTGui, you can choose the output projection in three ways:<br>

1. Switch into Advanced mode (button to the right of the Project Assistant) and select the Panorama Settings tab.<br>

2. On the Panorama Editor window, click on the Projection menu.<br>

3. On the Panorama Editor window, click one of the projection icons (sphere, cylinder etc).</p>

<p>However, in Photomerge, instead of selecting the Auto format, you should select the Perspective option - which shows the familiar bow tie thumbnail.<br>

Another stitcher you can try is the free Microsoft ICE, which will give you just the same result.</p>

<p>The distortion in your image is a consequence of the projection chosen for the output (cylindrical), and the large angle of view of the panorama. In that projection, the only straight line features that are preserved are verticals and the horizon. All other straight line features become curved. To get all straight line features straight, you need to select the rectilinear (planar) projection for the output. However, the angle of view is then limited to around 120 degrees, above which you get an unacceptable degree of stretching at the corners and edges. There's also a general "bow tie" effect on the general image outline. I converted the image to rectilinear format using PTGui and limited the angle of view somewhat to give a decent result (some cloning of the sky was necessary to counter the bow tie effect):<br>

<img src="http://www.johnhpanos.com/remap.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This post re. the same problem on CS2 may offer a solution:<br>

http://wetpixel.com/articles/adobe-photoshop-cs2s-bridge-and-camera-raw-defaults</p>

<p>Object2VR from http://ggnome.com/ will do what you want.</p>

<p>Steve, What do you mean by "... then moving straight from right to left"? Did you shift the camera and not stand in one place?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The main problem I'm having is that in one image I have a person, and when I load all the images into photomerge, the person dissapears. Is this because I also included an image of the same spot without the person in it?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The stitched image is generated in a layered format. Using the Blended option, there will be layer masks that determine the parts of each image that are visible. It is easy to edit the masks by painting on them with a white (reveal) or black (hide) brush to make the person visible. If you aren't familiar with Photoshop's masks, a web search will find lots of tutorials.</p>

<p>David, Does this screenshot look like the sort of thing you are remembering? If so, it is the Graduated Filter in ACR that you were using.<br>

<a href="http://www.johnhpanos.com/grad.jpg">http://www.johnhpanos.com/grad.jpg</a><br>

John</p>

<p>Windows 8 is certainly not crap, and is virtually indistinguishable from Windows 7 when used in desktop mode and with a Start button add-on. Age is no excuse for avoiding Win 8: I'm 74 and have used it on a PC for a year without any trouble. I can't offer an informed opinion on high-end laptops, though. Maybe this article might be helpful:<br>

<a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Best-Laptop-for-Photo-Editing">http://hubpages.com/hub/Best-Laptop-for-Photo-Editing</a></p>

<p>Anis, Any degradation in the image quality may or may not be noticeable in the final printed image. It all depends on the nature of the image and the processing that the image has been subjected to. Smooth areas like blue skies are particularly vulnerable, as these reveal any banding or blocking artifacts mercilessly. You will find many discussions in this forum concerning the value of 16-bit v 8-bit processing and tiff v jpeg. Mostly, you may well get perfectly satisfactory prints without taking any special precautions, but adopting a best practice workflow should result in fewer disappointments.</p>

 

<p>Anis, your file size changed from 7 to 14MB because it was saved to JPEG format at a different level of compression (Quality setting). Ideally, for best quality you should be working throughout processing with TIFF files rather than JPEG. Convert to JPEG once only as the final step before passing the image on for printing. This is because each save to JPEG introduces small changes in the image data as a result of the compression, and these are cumulative. Best practice is to shoot RAW images with your 7D and convert to TIFF for processing.</p>

<p>I suppose you have tried copying the file with the errant Subject Distance field into the folder where the field is being correctly displayed in order to establish whether the problem is with the file or its location? However, there are indeed issues with the display of exif information that are discussed here:<br>

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1134084?tstart=0</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marco Landini wrote:"For stitching technique : I don' t like "panoramic" pics. Cause of the necessary rotation of the tripod head, they result rounded, and I don' t like the effect."<br>

Any rounded effects are nothing to do with the stitching or rotation of the camera on the tripod head. The general appearance of the result is the same regardless of what camera or lens is used or how many images were shot. If you want a standard rectilinear result in which all straight line features in the subject are rendered straight in the stitched output, then that is straightforwardly possible, but only up to moderate angles of view - say 100 to 120 degrees. Beyond that, nasty stretching effects at the edges become unacceptable. For wider angles of view, alternative projections must be used to render the image satisfactorily on a flat sheet of paper. However, you must then accept that certain straight lines become curved - as in cylindrical and equirectangular projections. This is the same whether you shoot one image with a super wide angle fisheye lens or cover the same angle of view with a large number of shots taken with a long focus rectilinear lens. See this illustration:<br>

http://www.johnhpanos.com/comp-8-105s.jpg<br>

Rotation of the camera using a properly setup panoramic head simply ensures that the images can be aligned accurately with each other without stitching errors caused by parallax effects. Note that the camera must be rotated about the entrance pupil of the lens - not the rear or front nodal points as was once commonly believed.</p>

<p>I just downloaded PhotoByte from cnet.com and it works fine on my 64bit Windows 8 PC. The version is 1.0.1.</p>

 

<p>It might be worth considering getting prints made on canvas.</p>

<p>For Windows, Irfanview is a very useful utility and is freeware. It has a negative option along with lots of others to crop, resize, sharpen, adjust colour, print etc.</p>

<p>You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear! The image you snipped has already been damaged by jpeg compression and an 8bit format. You need to start with an image generated in 16bit mode from a RAW camera image to have the best chance of avoiding banding. Convert to 8bit when all editing gas been completed.</p>

<p>Another solution is to have a custom profile made. Some companies will produce one at no charge if you use their papers. E.g. Permajet. See: http://www.permajet.com/Products/PermaJet-ICC-Profiling-Services-for-Inkjet-Papers</p>

 

<p>Assuming you are using Photoshop, use the move tool to drag the image from one window into the window displaying the other file. You may need to increase the canvas size to accommodate the merged image.</p>