kenneth_seidman

After shutting down Photoshop CS (Windows XP) and bringing it up again

a short time later I discovered that all my presets, preferences,

history, etc is gone! It's like starting from scratch after an

intitial PS install. I've been using CS for about 18 months and this

never happened before.

I have recent harddrive images (Norton Ghost) and also Retrospect

backups of my entire computer including

C:\ProgramFIles\Adobe\Photoshop CS\... on external drives so...

is there a single file, or folder (or set of folders) somewhere that I

can use from my backups to write-over (or replace) what I guess is a

corrupted (or missing?) set of Photoshop files? Or, any other

suggestions how to get back to working condition with my orignal

set-up fast?

Thanks in advance,

Ken

You may want to check out the following DGRIN website for A LOT of worked examples and discussions:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203

Ken

I had an 4000 and was going to buy the 4800. But one day it dawned on me that I have always wanted to print at least a few of my 6x7 transparencies and B/W negs really big. (I could never print bigger than 16x20 in my traditional 'wet' darkroom.) Well, I bought the 7800 about two months ago and now have a 24 x 32 inch landscape hanging in my living room. It literally brings a smile to my face everytime I look at it under the floodlights... takes me right back to that mountain landscape I photographed in a way a 16 x 20 could never do.

Ken

"Stan: Believe Eric and check out his website. And buy one of his scanhancers. I use one on my MultiPro"

I agree and use it too.

Ken

Thanks for the info. I have had this problem (posted here in October). No problems since, but my Pentax will be receiving heavy use again next week and it will be 'interesting' to see if the problem reoccurs.

In looking at the 'pin' it would seem relatively easy to build up the little raised contact ledge in the door (just to the right of the film plate) with a small piece of tape or glue. This could provide a firmer more positive contact for the pin. As long as one was careful to avoid using material that flaked off mid-roll and got into the camera body I don't see a downside?

Ken

"Very good example. I have also experienced this kind of increase in grain in trying to increase constrast in sky areas using levels and curves.

But is there no way to filter this kind of scene, i.e. distance mountain scape, when schooting color negative film? Just wondering? "

Sandy,

A few suggestions:

1 - First, you may want to check out the Scanhancer site at:

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=17&men=17

The pdf at the site provides an example using negative film. I don't know if there is any way for you to modify your scanners to include the Scanhancer but this may get you thinking. It works very well with

B/W TMAX and Velvia.

2 - I've been pleasantly surprised the with the capabilities of several noise reduction applications when applied to 100 TMAX, 400 TMAX, and Velvia 50, but I have no experience with neg color film. I've been experimenting for the last few weeks with Noise Ninja, NeatImage and Noiseware. So far I find I can get pretty similar results with each (reduced noise and retained sharpness, no artifacts). In particular, I found using an IT-8 Velvia 50 target for noise calibration worked very well with Noise Ninja. If you try any of these demos I would suggest you also experiment with noise calibration targets. BTW, if you try Noise Ninja take note of two nice features: the noise brush, and the Preferences option to expand the view window.

3 - You might want to experiment with LAB color. Before you convert your color scan to B/W, convert it to LAB color and try blurring the A,B channels (where you may find more noise than in the Luminosity channel). This is described in Dan Margulis' "Photoshop LAB Color", p 85. In very limited testing with Velvia scans I did not find this as effective as the noise reduction apps. Again, I didn't try it on neg color film images.

4 - When shooting color film consider using a split neutral density filter to compress the scenes dynamic range and keep the highlights away from the film curve shoulder. I suspect that if the highlights get flattened by being near the shoulders then the corrective action one must take in Photoshop to expand them will lead to increased noise. Similar comments apply to the film toe.

Ken

"1)Do you not think it possible to achieve the same level of contrast control with medium format color negative film as you get with B&W Zone by scanning and adjustment in Photoshop? Assuming, of course, that there is good shadow density? I have certainly found this to be the case.

2) I also use filters extensively in LF B&W work, but am curiouis what effects you can get there that you can not also replicate with manipulation of the color negative scan?"

Sandy,

1) I think if the captured film image does not have blown hightlights or lost shadow detail, then yes, you can use Photoshop to equal (or exceed) the contrast one can achieve with development variations. My concern is with the image capture process and that the dynamic range of color neg film is not as great as B/W developed to say N-1 or N-2. I seem to recall reading this somewhere and perhaps someone else can verify this as I have no direct experience.

2) As one example, sometimes I use a deep red filter to cut through haze (distant mountains, etc). I'm not sure you can compensate for this with color film adequatetly in Photoshop. An attempt to boost contrast (via a curves adjustment or a USM haze cutter (e.g. 20,50,0)) will increase grain which you then have to deal with (e.g. Noise Reduction software), whereas the original red filtered B/W film scan would not need as much (or any) Photoshop contrast boost.

Ken

>Since I shoot medium format primarily for scanning, and use mostly 220 >size, there appear to be many advantages in using only color negative >film. Would appreciate any thoughts others may have on this.

I shoot shoot medium format 6x7 100 TMax B/W film and develop it in my darkroom. I have never seriously considered color neg film because:

1) I can control the contrast of the individual film rolls using the Zone System (anywhere from N-1 to N+2). This provides great flexibility for variations in scene contrast that I suspect you can't achieve with color negative film.

2) I use colored filters, typically yellow, orange or red as a scene needs them (I do landscapes)... can't do that with color film!

3) The resolution and grain I get from my workflow allow me to print 24 x 32+ inch prints (Epson 7800) which, in my opinion are very sharp and very grainless (I'm very finicky).

I use a Minolta MultPro scanner, 8x multisampling, with the Scanhancer (diffuser) to reduce grain. Also use Photokit or The Lights Right capture and output sharpeners, and have recently started using Noise Ninja which really does work to reduce grain even more (without sharpness degradation if done carefully).

>...but getting a good profile and thus better accuracy of values and colors is giving me headaches - any suggestions for color workflow with K3, Kodak PG and 7800 ?

Thanks anyone ! - with little hope of an answer I may add - RIP is calling me :> ...

Ed,

I've been happy with the two profiles done for me by Cathy's profiles:

www.cathysprofiles.com.

Ken

You might want to try Kodak Pro Glossy:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/papers/inkjet/main.jhtml

I've been using it with my Epson 4000 and it does the best job of any of the three other glossy papers I've tried in reducing gloss differential and bronzing. I will be getting an Epson 7800 and expect it will be even better with those K3 inks. I've seen a dozen B/W prints using an Epson 4800 made on this Kodak Pro Inkjet paper and there was no GD or bronzing at all... very impressive.

As far as Pictorico glossy film goes, I'm planning on trying this myself very soon and was wondering if Joseph W. (or someone else) could tell me what icc profile they use with this product (and any other printer setting). Pictorico does not provide generic profiles.

Ken

Okay, here's the answer. The profile installed correctly, but the name it appears as is "Epson4000 Micro Ceramic Luster..." Either I failed to see it the first time I looked, or (as indicated in an Epson document) sometimes it doesn't show up until you reboot your computer. As for renaming one of my older working profiles that changes nothing I think because the listed profile name apparently is embedded in the profile itself.

Ken in reply to myself :-)

I just downloaded a profile from InkjetArt for my Windows XP Photoshop

CS/Epson 4000 system. As I usually do, I right-clicked on the profile

(4000 MC Luster.icc) to install it. After installation I checked to

see that it was in the same folder I have placed all my other paper

(and other profiles)... C:\Windows\System32\Spool\Drivers\Color... it

was there okay. However, when I open a file in Photoshop CS, go to

Print with Preview and scroll through the list of profiles (in the

Print Space Profile: box) the profile name does not show up as one of

the options (i.e. I don't see it listed)

I have tried renaming the profile (so it does not start with a

number), I restarted Photoshop several times, I rebooted my computer,

and used a utility called ICC Profile Inspector (which seemed to

indicate the profile was good). I then tried renaming one of my

existing working custom paper profiles (in the same ...\Color folder

AND the newly named profile does not show up either in the scroll box,

however the old name still shows. What is going on?

Thanks in advance,

Ken

You will probably find this info at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages

Search for "Dmax".

Last week I was shooting Velvia 220 format in my 1 1/2 year old Pentax

67II in Colorado (cold temperatures 30-40 deg F). After shooting a

few frames on a new roll I put the camera away, drove to a new

location, hauled out the camera and found that the LCD film counter

was blank (ISO indicator still worked and low battery indicator symbol

was NOT present). I wound the film lever two or three times (as if

loading a new roll of film) and it finally registered, ready to shoot,

but the film indicator now read 1 (although I was on frame 12 out of

21). The roll finished okay in that I had no further film counter

resets, but I could not tell at what point I stopped exposing film and

started exposing the film paper trailer.

The same problem occured the next day on the next roll of 220 film (at

a different frame). I did not change the battery, but for subsequent

rolls I shot 120 format film, no problems. After getting home I ran a

220 format test roll through the camera 6 times, no problems. I am

unable to duplicate the film counter reset problem.

I just checked the batteries and found that the voltage output without

any load on them (i.e. just a voltmeter across them) is 2.85v. The

two new batteries I have show 3.25v, a substantial difference.

I found a previous pretty old message about this problem:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003jCr

I am wondering if anyone else has had this counter reset problem or

has any recommendations. I am hoping it was the result of old

batteries (even though the low battery indicator never showed)?

Thanks,

Ken

I had the same problem with my 15 year old Pentax 6x7 a few months ago. Unfortunately in my case putting a new battery in did not help (tried several new batteries in fact). Finally sent my camera to the Pentax repair facility in Colorado. It is working fine now but it cost a lot more than a battery!

Good luck,

Ken

For landscapes (which is all I do) my order of preference would be the following:

1) 75 mm 2) 200 mm 3) 55 mm 4) 300 mm 5) 105 mm

That's all I have or need (except for a 1.4x teleconverter). Some people really like the 45 mm verfy wide angle, but I just can't fit any more in my camera bag!

On backpacking trips I've typically carried 1,2, and 3 ... and perhaps the teleconverter.

Horsepacking into the mountains... I (okay, the mules haul it) take it all, plus two tripods and an extra body, plus several different Galen Rowell ND Grads and a polarizer for Velvia shots, and colored filters for B/W work.

Ken

I've been printing B/W in a traditional darkroom for 20 years but recently have branched out into digital B/W using Roy Harrington's QuadTone Rip (very inexpensive) with an Epson 4000 (also available for many other printers). You may want to consider this B/W RIP:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP

I also suggest you check out the Epson 2400 printer that uses the new K3 inks. Great toning control, very little/no bronzing, gloss differential minimized or eliminated, permanence... A good site is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Epson-R2400/message/136

Also you might want to read some reviews and BLOGS:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R2400/page-4.htm

http://www.petewalsh.com.au/epson4800blog/archive/2005_05_29_index.cfm

Good luck,

Ken

Another set of useful links...

http://www.magicpixel.com.au/epson4800blog/index.cfm

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1013&thread=14437360

Stephen,

Thanks for input on rating Velvia at 125. It gives me more confidence in my own observations.

Ken

I got back two more rolls of film, Velvia 50 and Velvia 100. As mentioned in my previous post, this time I switched the film/camera combinations, i.e. for my first comparisons Velvia 50 (Velvia 100) was in camera 1 (camera 2) and for this test Velvia 50 (Velvia 100) was in camera 2 (camera 1). Same lenses used for all pairwise comparisons. Light was constant for all pairwise exposures. I also bracketed several exposures by +/- 1/2 stop.

This allowed me to shoot a wide variety of naturally lit scenes throughout the day at various shutter speeds (1/125 to 1/2 sec). As with the first tests I compared images side by side on a light table.

Results: Same as with the first film/camera combination test, ALL the Velvia 100 images (regardless of scene or shutter speed) were slightly but noticeably lighter than the Velvia 50 images. The most reasonable explanation is that any differences between shutter speeds on both cameras is smaller than the more than 1-stop film speed differences.

I am ruling out secondary effects such as possible roll to roll variations or processing differences between these two tests (processing done by a professional lab, Calypso). I also had some independent observers compare the two sets... same conclusion. Sure, it would be useful to use the same camera and do more tests against gray cards (which I did include in many of my images) but what I am interested in is the relative film speeds under actual shooting conditions important to me.

My conclusion, Velvia 100 is approx 4/3 stop faster than Velvia 50. I'm going backpacking with the stuff next week, if all my shots are underexposed by 1/3 stop I'll let you know !

Ken

>Bottom line for me is that I like the reduced grain and high saturation of Velvia 100 and don't plan on stocking up on Velvia 50.

Comparisons of film grain made with a 20x (?) magnifier directly on the film instead of a scan (as mentioned in my last post) do show somewhat reduced grain in Velvia 100 also... However, when using a 10x or 8x loupe the differences are very subtle. My earlier remark that the grain is 'much' reduced is too strong a conclusion.

BTW, in making comparisons with the same high power magnifier and the standard Air Force Test Targets indicate to my eyes that there is no difference in resolution.

Ken

>Kenneth, I haven't had a chance to use the new Velvia 100 yet. How do >you (and others) find the colour and saturation in comparison with >Velvia 50?

Saturation is high, similar to Velvia 50 (and not like Velvia 100F). Velvia 100 grain is definitely less. Yesterday I scanned the same images from Velvia 50 and 100: 6x7 image at 3200 dpi, 8x MultiSampling, ICE on - Minolta Multi Pro scanner. Screen comparisons in Photoshop at 100% showed much less grain in the highlights of the Velvia 100 scan (vs 50).

As best I can tell so far I agree with Ken Rockwell's color assesment:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/velvia100.htm

He says Velvia 50 is warmer in the tans, yellow, oranges. The few shots I have compared so far show this effect. I don't think there would be any problem changing the hue or saturation a bit in Photoshop if one wanted to mimic Velvia 50.

I shot another set of images today. I should get results back from lab on Tuesday.

Bottom line for me is that I like the reduced grain and high saturation of Velvia 100 and don't plan on stocking up on Velvia 50.

Ken

Thanks for your responses.

I like Keith Laban's explanation (and the photos on his website!):

"The true ISO of Velvia 50 is more like ISO 40. If Velvia 100 is truly an ISO 100 film I would expect the difference between the two films to be more than one stop."

If I did not have a direct comparison with both Velvias on the light table I would not have suspected there was anything 'wrong' with the exposures on either roll (Velvia 50 or 100). It is likely that over the last 10+ years I have learned to meter my landscape shots using Velvia 50 (with a Pentax digital spotmeter) to adjust for my 'personal' ISO setting of 50 instead of 40.

This weekend I will re-do my tests by switching the film/camera combination. If the Velvia 100 roll is still a bit more than one stop faster than the Velvia 50 roll I will have my answer. I expect to have results to post by mid week.

I just finished a preliminary comparison of Velvia 50 vs 100 (non-F)

by shooting the same scenes using two different Pentax 67 bodies. One

body was loaded with Velvia 100, the other Velvia 50. I used a tripod

for all shots and switched camera bodies as quickly as possible to

minimize changes in outdoor lighting conditions.

Based on a comparison of 8 images at various shutter speeds it seems

to me that Velvia 100 is slightly more than 1 stop faster than Velvia

50 (perhaps ISO 125 instead of ISO 100)... BUT, I cannot be sure since

this difference may be due to the fact that I used different camera

bodies and there may be a bias in the shutter speeds. More testing

e.g. switching the film/camera combination for another round of

testing could answer this, but I am running out of time before a long

trip.

Has anyone else noticed a difference of more than one stop between

Velvia 50 and 100?

Ken

Bruce Fraser (one of the creators of PK Sharpener) responded to a similar question about a month ago on the Pixelgenius website:

http://forums.pixelgenius.com/showthread.php?t=787

There is also a more recent follow-up message (same poster) you may want to read.

You will need a password, which should have been provided when you bought PK Sharpener.

Bruce's answer was to apply noise reduction first, then apply Capture Sharpener.

Ken