john_markanich

<p>Yes, the problem is the folders or, more correctly, the file system under which they were created. Whereas both PC and MAC can read JPEG's, TIFF's, PSD's and a variety of RAW formats on a disc, burning them in folders will only allow them to be read with a compatible file system. I'm guessing a PC's FAT or NTFS file system is not compatible with MAC's HFS or HPFS system. There are however programs that overcome this compatibility issue. You could, of course, simply burn the images to disc but NOT in folders of any kind.</p>

 

<p>It's like a layer of gauze being removed from your eyes isn't it?</p>

<p>Ditto on what Ian said. I routinely do the pencil eraser job on the flash shoe and flash head contacts especially before an assignment. I also do the same for the electronic lens contacts (both lens and camera side) and all batteries and the contact points within the flash head and camera body. You may need an actual pencil eraser (Staples or art supply store) that can be sharpened to a point. These simple steps keep all of my small electronic gizmo's (wireless mice, keyboard, cell phones, pen lights, etc.) humming along. </p>

<p>I don't own a 4880 (wish I did) but I've read numerous posts about similar problems. First, I hope you're only using genuine Epson Inks and not promised "same as" refills. Secondly, with all inkjet systems, they need a print through periodically. By that I mean something more then a b&w printed page per week. A full color print of some sort weekly would be more preferable. Thirdly, humidity seems to be the issue with this type of printer. Other Epaon users have reported that placing a small, water-soaked sponge in a plastic cup IN the printer during down periods helps to avoid clogs, ALWAYS remembering to remove it prior to printing of course (dah..)</p>

 

<p>I like Scott Kelby's books. To the point, not too, too deep, illustrated, plenty of helpful hints, a bit of humor, indexed to help you locate the information you seek. He gets the job of educating you done.</p>

<p>If you suspect nozzle clogging due to the ink drying out during periods of non-use I recall a remedy that involved leaving a small plastic cup with a water soaked sponge IN the printer, always, of course, remembering to remove it prior to printing. This kept the humidity level elevated within the printer and seemed to answer the OP's problem. I don't own a 3880 and as you've already read YMMV. A call to Epson may be a good bet too.</p>

<p>If you suspect nozzle clogging due to the ink drying out during periods of non-use I recall a remedy that involved leaving a small plastic cup with a water soaked sponge IN the printer, always, of course, remembering to remove it prior to printing. This kept the humidity level elevated within the printer and seemed to answer the OP's problem. I don't own a 3880 and as you've already read YMMV. A call to Epson may be a good bet too.</p>

<p>Well, all of what the other posters are telling you is true. You can no more remove the glare from the glasses in post-processing expecting to find the eyes than you could remove someone's hat and expect to find a full head of hair. <br>

A polarizer at capture or the careful placement of non-reflective flags outside the image area would have helped.</p>

<p>Steve, Andrew, thanks for your input. Yes, I have watched many NIK webinars but either missed or misunderstood the answer to this question. In this case the old adage "read the manual" may hold sway. Straight from the NIK Sharpener Pro User Guide ...<br>

- <strong>Continuous Tone </strong>– Sharpens for continuous tone printers such as prints found at photographic labs using silver-halide based papers and dye-sublimation printers.<br>

This seems to match the description of the kind of output Mpix gives me so I'll go with this solution and see what results I get. If I'm pleased, I'm pleased.<br>

thanks again</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What output device type should I choose when sharpening for a print service like (specifically) Mpix.<br>

Display (obviously not)<br>

Inkjet (probably not)<br>

Continuous Tone, Halftone or Hybrid (maybe)</p>

 

<p>Go the Apple menu (far upper left)>System Preferences>Desktop & Screen Saver>Apple (if not already open)>Solid Colors. There will be a few shades of grey there to choose from. Hope this is what you need.</p>

<p>My 2 cents: I've shot weddings, full-hall birthdays, christenings, rubber-chicken award ceremonies, grand openings and 4X6-foot check presentations with a CANON G9 attached to a 580EXII on an articulated arm. No complaints. Enlargements up to poster size if they want them.<br>

The only minor annoyance is the auto-focus acquisition and slight shutter lag, BUT, if you can anticipate and pre-focus these are not insurmountable problems. <br>

Of course a 7D, 5DMkII or a 1Ds would seal the deal easier but I can get by without to much trouble.<br>

This is no testimony to myself but to the capabilities of even now past generation gear. After that it all comes down to the eye and the shutter finger, one of each I hope we all have. </p>

<p>First of all, Flash would be useless at that distance. The wired fence isn't the subject so why illuminated it?<br>

A one or two aperture stop-down may have helped resolution, maybe.<br>

At this distance the focus point is infinity anyway, you're only left with the close focus point to consider.<br>

Otherwise, great photo.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just a thought, but make sure your 'computer sleep' >Energy Saver>System Preferences isn't set to just a few minutes. That may be why you're getting locked out. Mine is set at 15 minutes. </p>

<p>I've done the research and still can't decide. I see some advantages/disadvantages to each of these three programs but nothing definitive that would exclude one or the other. I already have CS5 so that would be a $$ advantage, it already works and will get seamlessly updated in the future I'm sure but the controls are not extensive. Please help me route out the deal-breaker between:<br>

Photomatix Pro<br>

NIK HDR Efex Pro<br>

CS5's Merge to HDR Pro </p>

 

<p>When you select the photo's (JPEG'S I assume) don't transfer them in a folder. Select All of the photo's in the folder (not the folder and it's contents), Copy, then go to File>burn to disc. You have to have a blank disc inserted in your iMac first of course. I do this all the time with no compatablility issues. Both OS's will read JPEG'S, no problem.</p>

<p>When you select the photo's (JPEG'S I assume) don't transfer them in a folder. Select All of the photo's in the folder (not the folder and it's contents), Copy, then go to File>burn to disc. You have to have a blank disc inserted in your iMac first of course. I do this all the time with no compatablility issues. Both OS's will read JPEG'S, no problem.</p>

<p>Well, I use Nik Sharpener Pro. Not that it sharpens better than any other program/method but the interface is so user friendly that it makes clicking and seeing different sharpening strengths a breeze. Plus, with their U-Point technology I can apply different sharpening looks to specific areas of the image without having to make selections or masks. There are a few things on my wish-list about the program but they are minor and relate only to the way I work with the interface not the quality of the sharpening.</p>

<p>Easy (and even easier, cheaper and faster with digital capture compared to film capture). First, you have to understand that any "auto" exposure measurement of all that white is going to cause under-exposure of both subject and background as the metering systems of all cameras will try to bring what it sees down to 18% grey (quibbles' aside as to the exact % but you get the idea).<br>

In manual mode you could either meter the light falling on a Kodak 18% grey card -or- if you have a handheld incident meter take a reading under the scene lighting aiming the white sphere back to the camera position and transfer the results to the camera in manual mode.<br>

The easier, cheaper, faster part is that you can immediately view the results on the camera screen or, for a larger view, make a bracketed series of shots in 1/3 stop incriments and view them on your computers monitor. <br>

Now, you must be mindful of two other things. First, if the white of both subject and background ARE the same then they will photograph the same. No mystery there. To avoid this you will have to carefully manage the modeling of the light to give the subject its own perception of depth. After all it is a 3-dimensional object. Secondly, remember that whatever the final output method is to be (inkjet, monitor, digital hybrid print., etc.) another added dash of contrast may wash out whatever subtle subject/background separation you carefully prepared for.</p>

 

<p>Question: I don't have an advanced Epson printer so I'm probably mistaken but doesn't the graphic that displays the ink quantity left in a given cartridge reset to "full" if the cartridge is removed then reinserted? i.e. The machine thinks you inserted a new cartridge. The graphic is only a page counter that estimates usage. This could allow a cartridge to run completely dry and introduce air into the ink line which I always thought was something to avoid.</p>

<p>I think you have your answer. It would be as big as a Maxwell House coffee can, weigh as much as a cinder block and cost as much as a new Acura 4door sedan. You could carry it, but then again, you could carry a railroad tie around all day just waiting to build that fire for the weenie roast later that evening. Your thoughts.</p>

<p>The women looks fine. I would first work on the man's glasses and eyes to remove that specular highlight and make his eyes as visually important as hers. Next, I would remove or push back that blue wavy flowing thingy off the right side of the photo. It's visually an unrecognizable object that just raises confusion while adding nothing to the moment.</p>

<p>The women looks fine. I would first work on the man's glasses and eyes to remove that specular highlight and make his eyes as visually important as hers. Next, I would remove or push back that blue wavy flowing thingy off the right side of the photo. It's visually an unrecognizable object that just raises confusion while adding nothing to the moment.</p>

<p>The women looks fine. I would first work on the man's glasses and eyes to remove that specular highlight and make his eyes as visually important as hers. Next, I would remove or push back that blue wavy flowing thingy off the right side of the photo. It's visually an unrecognizable object that just raises confusion while adding nothing to the moment.</p>

<p>Your friend may be compensating for the slight vignette that a regular-mount polarizer can cause on the wide end of a wide-to-whatever zoom. He may be compensating by zooming out or by cropping out the vignette in post processing. Either way it has the net effect of a longer focal length when really the lens wasn't affected at all.<br>

If this is the case the remedy is to get a thin-mount polarizer.</p>