tar heel

<p>Turns out I was daisy-chaining two Thunderbolt WD HDs and DxO did not like that. Problem solved separating them. It's always something easy, isn't it?</p>

<p>I am not surprised that Windows users are not having this problem; but mine is just not working from external HDs. It must be a local problem with my computer.</p>

<p><a name="1"></a>I shoot everything in RAW, and just switched from Capture One to DxO Optics Pro. What I've noticed about both programs is that they have a very difficult time functioning properly when images are located on external hard drives. DxO and C1 CRASHES when I access the images from an external drive. Obviously, internal hard drives do not come close to being able to hold the vast store of images we all accumulate. I can see loading everything into the internal HD initially, do your work, then transfer to the external HD, but when you have to work on old images, transferring your images to an external everytime you want to work on them is a major extra step that just isn't feasible. <br /> <br /> Does anyone have solution to this problem? <br /> <br /> I use a MacBook Pro 8,2, 16 gig ram, 500gig internal HD.<br /> <br /> Do you Windows folk have this problem or is it just us lucky Mac users? DxO and Phase One both seem to be clueless about this, which surprises me.<br /> <br /> Opinions?</p>

<p>YES! Fluid Mask is it. http://www.vertustech.com/ I saw this demoed at Mac World a few years ago and it's amazing. It'll mask smoke, etc.</p>

<p>There are some software packages that do this very well, but I do not remember their names. Anyone know what PS add-ons can do this?</p>

<p>yes, it's bootleg. </p>

<p>This is one of the best questions I've ever seen on this website. </p>

<p>Beauty and taste are purely in the eyes of the observer. I read PDN, the fashion and commercial shooter's magazine and the "Best 30 under 30", meaning the best up-and-coming photographers in the commercial field generate images that make me scratch my head. I just don't get it. But I guess that's why I'm not a fashion and commercial photographer. Shots that take no imagination; shots that a blind monkey could get are held up as "avante-garde, cutting edge, innovative..." So, don't agonize over it. Take the Photo.net ratings with a grain of salt. One man's garbage is another's priceless work of art. It's just the way of the world.</p>

<p>Andrew, excellent article. Explains in detail what I was saying in my original post; you're leaving colors on the table working in 8-bit mode. Thanks for posting it.</p>

<p>You won't notice a difference until you print the image. Especially on properly exposed portraits. Skin tones will be noticeably different.</p>

<p>You're dealing with people who don't care about the quality of your images. While they are correct in saying 8 bit vs 16 bit has no effect on resolution, an 8 bit image contains 16.5 million colors; a 16 bit image contains 281 TRILLION colors. Which would you prefer? Now, to be sure, no scanner can deliver that many colors, even in 16 bit mode, because the film doesn't contain that many. But scanning in 8 bit mode is definitely leaving colors and dynamic range on the table. The point of scanning in 16 bit is to be sure to capture ALL the colors and brightness gradations that exist on the film.</p>

<p>The other consideration is color gradation and dynamic range; scanning in 16 bit can potentially give you an extra 1.5 stops in dynamic range, and will most certainly give you smoother color gradations, which, in turn, will result in a higher quality print.</p>

<p>Find another lab. Especially one that doesn't argue with the customer. One reason they don't want to scan in 16 bit is that it takes so long, and resulting file sizes are very large. Always insist on 16 bit or at the very least, 14 bit scans.</p>

<p>Another thing; subsequent posts to this question will most certainly point out that very few printers print anything but 8 bit, so why scan in 16 bit mode? The Chromira lightjet printer does generate prints in 12 bit mode, and the newer high-end Canon inkjet printers accept 16 bit files (but print in 8 bit mode) and the results are astounding. In any case, scanning in 8 bit is most certainly leaving image information and dynamic range on the table, and will affect the final print quality.</p>

<p>It's my understanding that only Capture One Pro has this capability. That might be your problem.</p>

<p>Yes. Less is more when sharpening. It looks great (to a point) on a computer screen, but when printing it turns horrible. Sharpen only to the point of first being able to see it at 100% view and STOP! Back away from the mouse. And use the Unsharp mask only.</p>

<p>The amount of planning, logistics, licenses, insurance, transportation (local), etc. is astounding. Especially when the workshop is in a foreign country. I agree that some workshops that take 40 people is unconscionable, the workshop organizer MUST make money. Workshops are personal training. You are paying for immediate logistics, but also for the vast experience brought to bear in the class. <br>

<p>Where did Eleanor go in this debate??</p>

<p>Photomatrix software.</p>

<p>Whaaaa...??? 60x39 at 300 PPI?? Geez, that's a file size of 1.3 GIG or thereabouts! And what, pray tell, makes you want to do that? <br>

Here's what you need to do. Convert preferably in Capture One (or ACR) at 300ppi TIF 16-bit and then in PS open the file and choose "Image">"Image Size" and then uncheck the "Resample Image" box in the lower left corner. (All three boxes will go blank; it's OK) Then, under "Document Size" change the height or width in INCHES, (which ever is the case), to your LONG side and then your resolution will change to 58ppi. For an image 5 feet tall (or wide) 58 ppi is plenty enough resolution. These numbers are based on my 1D MKII, and if you have a different resolution camera, your numbers will change, but the process is the same.</p>

<p>All this talk about upconverting and interpolation is well and good, but if you start with the RAW conversion process in your normal workflow with software you already have, you don't have to depend on these 3rd party applications to do it. I would also put it to you that if you are working with an existing JPG or TIF and you want to stretch to 60 inches, your not going to get the quality you want, no matter what program you use... Start from the RAW conversion process and you will get flawless results.</p>

<p>Using an external hard drive is no different than using an internal HD. It will show on your directory tree in Windows Explorer and you just move your files into a directory on the new HD and that's it. There's no magic to it.</p>

<p>What shooting conditions? What WB settings on the camera? Many more questions to be asnwered be fore I can address your problem. But I can say the D700 is one of the most accurate color cameras I have ever seen, so you either got a lemon or it's operator error.</p>

<p>What, precisely, is the problem with Bridge?</p>

<p>Although William's advice is good, you might also consider getting Capture One raw converter. The color quality in the conversions is perfect, especially when viewing skin tones. </p>

<p>You need a RAW converter like Capture One or Adobe Camera Raw. Either one can do batch conversions.</p>

<p>ditto.</p>

<p>Sharpening is always the last thing you do in your workflow before either printing or internet posting. Use Photoshop Unsharp mask and adjust your settings to reflect sharpening that's just barely noticeable on your screen at 100% view of the image. Remember; when sharpening, less is more.</p>

<p>As for Capture One, the sharpening is good, but disconnect the noise reduction. using the sharpening AND noise reduction in Capture One is a bad thing and will degrade your image. The noise reduction algorithms are horrible in C-1.</p>

<p>Use Capture One to convert your RAW files into TIFs and then process in Lightroom. Capture One will give you more accurate colors, especially when doing portraits. One thing; disable the Capture One noise reduction, it's horrible and operates on both color and luminance noise thresholds. Disable it by adjusting the sliders to zero, closing out the program, then reloading. I know, it's round-a-bout, but that's the only way to disable it on a global basis.<br>

Phil Hawkins</p>

<p>You don't mention the ISO your shooting at, or the kinds of shots you usually take, conditions, etc. This will help address your concerns</p>