ethervizion

<p>Are you sure she has Photoshop 7, and not Photoshop Elements 7? A common mistake...<br>

If she has Photoshop Elements 7, it supports up to ACR v.5.6, which should support the Canon 50D.<br>

Download <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4624">here</a>.</p>

<p>CSx has a "Deactivate" option in the help menu. Be sure to do this before uninstalling. For Lightroom, I don't think there is anything. You may be forced to call Adobe to activate after you've run more than two installations.</p>

<p>I don't know for certain, but I doubt that it is possible because the output has not been rendered yet (e.g., output to JPEG or TIFF, etc.). The specific RGB values will depend on the image bit depth (8 or 16-bit) and the colour profile. These are not fixed until you save to an output format (i.e., export).</p>

Will, those are nice credentials, but it doesn't change the fact that we are operating under different definitions. The definition you are operating under may be standard "Adobe speak" but there is a whole other world out there... We can agree to disagree, but there is simply no need to use language that dismisses the world outside yours.

Will, just because you don't understand a definition or use a different one, doesn't make it nonsense. Image processing is my area of research (as in algorithms, not dinking around with consumer software). In calculating an output pixel value, USM takes into account the values of neighbourhood of pixels, making it a localized operation.

There is a confusion/disagreement here as to what the terms local and global mean. Some people use it to literally mean whether all the image was affected or only part (e.g., through masking) -- this would make curves and USM global.

 

However, there is a more subtle definition which refers to whether the operation takes local context or neighbourhood into consideration. In this context, curves are still global -- it's a global mapping of values x->y. In other words, a certain mapping of one pixel value to another is the same, regardless of the location of that pixel in the image. However, here USM is local -- the mapping is different depending on the pixels location relative to structural elements in the image (e.g., edges). In other words, the mapping may be for values x->y in some part of the image and value x->z in another part of the image.

My impression was that the best implementation was Kakadu:<br>

<a href="http://www.kakadusoftware.com/" target="_blank">http://www.kakadusoftware.com/</a></p>

 

<p>I used the precompiled binaries for research purposes and found them very fast. The libraries seem very extensive. Also, the implementation is coming from the originator of the EBCOT coding scheme itself (Dr. David Taubman).</p>

 

<p>Good luck!</p>

Jeff, you may be right that different manipulations may result in different behaviours in this context. Personally, I'm not interested in carrying out such tests, but I would be interested in hearing the results if you do them.

Sorry, I made a mistake when I said I keep 16-bit output of the different sizes. In this case only 8-bit is required because I expect these to be final output (I of course keep the original large size in 16-bit). But I do keep the different sizes in TIFF or PSD since whatever level of quality/compression I need at the moment may not be appropriate for later.

Lisa, I find that what I store depends on reproducibility. If I use different sharpening settings for different images (almost always the case) and at different sizes (definitely always the case) and I'm worried about reproducing the *exact* results, then I will save the output at that size as a 16-bit TIFF or PSD (of course, I could just write down everything I did as long as there were no layer masks involved).

 

Easiest and most important thing to remember, for photos that matter, if the output will be JPEG, it should only be saved as JPEG last, last, last.... (you get the point :)

Jeff, I should add that Tim Grey probably interpreted the question to mean a JPEG saved on disk, opened, then resaved, degrades the image. This is true. The key point (and difference) to what I said is the "opening" part. If you save an image as a JPEG, then while keeping it open and in memory manipulate it and resave, the first saved JPEG is lost and has no bearing on the new one.

<p>Jeff, I just did a test and confirmed what I said is true. Logically speaking, it must be true. Imagine the following scenario: you open an image, crop it to only show a small portion on the left, save JPEG; then you undo the crop, and now crop to a small portion the right, resave the JPEG. Of course, it could not be recompressing the first JPEG because the new file doesn't even correspond to the same image data (portion of the original larger image) as before. And note that undoing the crop is not undoing the JPEG compression (the JPEG compression is an output procedure and does not "taint" the image currently in Photoshop's memory).</p>

 

<p>Note, here is the test I ran:<br />

a) Open image 'test'<br />

b) Save 'test.jpg' using lowest quality setting (many artifacts visible)<br />

c) Outside of Photoshop (but keep Photoshop running with image open), copy 'test.jpg' to 'test1.jpg'<br />

d) Back in Photoshop, crop 4 pixels off the left side of the image (this is half the 8x8 DCT block size used in JPEG, effectively shifting the block edges to the right by 4 in order to shift the block artifacts right by 4)<br />

e) Resave the image (Photoshop does not open the JPEG options dialog - it will resave using the same low quality settings). For ease of comparison, outside of Photoshop, rename this 'test2.jpg'</p>

 

<p>Now, if Photoshop "recompresses" 'test1.jpg' (b) upon resaving to 'test2.jpg' (e), we would see the artifacts in 'test1.jpg' present in 'test2.jpg' as well as new artifacts shifted to the right by 4 pixels. My testing shows that this is not the case. 'test2.jpg' has "fresh" artifacts, and the original ones are not present.</p>

 

<p>Note, this is the case because the image remains in Photoshop memory. If you were to close the image and open 'test1.jpg', then the artifacts would be there and there would be nothing you could do to remove them.</p>

 

<p>Note that I do research in image compression, so I am very familiar with the principals. Of course, implementation varies from software to software, but the above test makes it clear how Photoshop operates.</p>

There's a subtle but important point missing in the discussion here. Lisa, when you say sharpening after "converting" to JPEG, are you talking about:

 

a) Saving a JPEG (e.g., from Adobe Camera Raw), opening that JPEG in Photoshop and sharpening (and saving the JPEG again); or

 

b) Saving your photo as a JPEG in Photoshop, keeping it open, sharpening, then saving again?

 

In case a), you are double compressing with sharpening in the middle, leading to compounded loss and the sharpening of JPEG artifacts (bad). In case b), the first save to JPEG actually has no effect (and can be skipped) since when you keep the image open in Photoshop, it keeps the uncompressed image in memory and overwrites the original file when you save again.

 

By what you said, I suspect you mean a) (batch converting to JPEG then opening them and sharpening) -- this is not recommended because you will be sharpening 8-bit, compressed data (though, if you use the highest quality JPEG setting, it probably won't matter too much except on the most critical photos). What you can do to avoid this is batch convert to 16-bit TIFF (you can use lossless ZIP compression if disk space is an issue), then open them, sharpen, and save as final JPEG. Or, depending on what applications you are using, perform sharpening in the batch process (depends on how much control you need), and convert to JPEG as the last step.

Phil, since both programs are saving JPEGs, they are both compressing the image (resulting in compounded loss). You cannot choose which program compresses. If JAlbum supports input images in lossless format (e.g., TIFF or PNG), you should ideally export from Lightroom in this format and only save as JPEG as your last step in JAlbum.

<p>Sorry, the second sentence in the last paragraph should say:

"It requires you to first make the gamma correction to 2.2 ..."</p>

 

<p>In case you want them, here are the profiles for linear output (with manual gamma correction):<br />

<a href="http://www.ethervizion.com/post/minolta5400_fuji_velvia50_16bit_linear_gamma2.2.icm">Fujichrome Velvia 50</a><br />

<a href="http://www.ethervizion.com/post/minolta5400_fuji_velvia100f_astia100f_16bit_linear_gamma2.2.icm">Fujichrome Velvia 100F / Astia 100F</a><br />

<a href="http://www.ethervizion.com/post/minolta5400_fuji_astia_provia_sensia_16bit_linear_gamma2.2.icm">Fujichrome Astia / Provia / Sensia</a><br />

<a href="http://www.ethervizion.com/post/minolta5400_kodak_ektachrome_16bit_linear_gamma2.2.icm">kodak ektachrome</a></p>

 

<p>As I mentioned, make the gamma correction to 2.2 (move the middle slider in the Levels dialog to 2.2) and then assign the profile. After this, you can keep it there, or convert to something else (I prefer to convert to Adobe RGB). You will notice that the scans will look a bit "flat" at this point. This is good since it means that most of the dynamic range has been captured. You can then do curves/levels adjustments to get the tonality you desire.</p>

 

<p>Of course, this is only good for slides. For negatives, you can't really use profiles and you will be pulling out your hair if you try to scan in linear/RAW and try to manipulate it into something usable.</p>

 

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>I have not scanned with my 5400 in a while (I really don't want to go back to film!), but if I remember correctly, scanning in linear/RAW reduced the scan times. This makes sense because the computer does not need to do a 16bit gamma correction on each pixel (and there's a lot of them if you are scanning at 5400dpi). Going to Firewire should help with regards to the USB aspect of the processing overhead, but I don't have any first-hand experience as to how much difference it makes.</p>

 

<p>I made some color profiles for the 5400 linear output. It requires you to first make the gamma correction to using Photoshop (or similar) levels (this can easily be done with an action) and then doing the color profile assignment (and then convert to Adobe RGB or sRGB). Let me know if you are interested in the profiles. For 16bit (gamma corrected - not linear), I have the profiles here:<br />

<a href="http://www.ethervizion.com/lost_found/">http://www.ethervizion.com/lost_found/</a></p>

Jordan, as other's have mentioned, if you cannot get into the BIOS setup, you have a hardware problem. Your video driver may, or may not be corrupted, but that would be a secondary problem at this point. If you are not getting past the POST splash screen, the Catalyst software doesn't even get close to being loaded on your computer.

Jordan, your problem is not relevant to Jammer's question. As others had mentioned in your thread, if you can't even get into the BIOS setup, you have a hardware problem. It has nothing to do with the ATI Catalyst software (and Jammer isn't even talking about an ATI card).

I believe the nVidia drivers will allow you to rotate the display on any relatively recent GeForce-based card.

<p>Or, you could first try the free route and see if you are satisfied with the results.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photographical.net/scanner_profiling1_2.html">http://www.photographical.net/scanner_profiling1_2.html</a></p>

The often overlooked solution to this problem is that you are in fact supposed to "eject" the card, not "safely remove" which is applied to the card reader. In the file explorer, right click the card reader drive and choose "eject". It will unmount the card, making sure it is safe to remove, and you are ready to pop in a new card.

<p>Actually, something exists that does exactly this for you!</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html"><b>ExposurePlot (http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html)</b></a></p>

Did you by chance try to install the latest Camera Raw plugin for Photoshop (~v3.6?)? This is not compatible with CS (just CS2). You need to use an older version...v2.4 might be the latest.

I should add, to try and isolate the problem as a potentially shoddy/not-very-well shielded analog cable, move the cable around a bit while watching the picture on screen. If it changes rather significantly, then it is probably the cable. Also make sure both ends are fastened securely.

It is possible that your monitor is faulty. If you can, try testing it on another computer (ideally, both the analog and digital connections). If the digital looks just as bad on another computer, then there is definitely something wrong with your monitor. If the analog looks just as bad on another computer, it may be either the cable or the monitor. Then, if you can, try another cable... It can be a difficult to completely isolate the problem.

 

Presumably, you were getting a sharp picture on your CRT, so your environment shouldn't have too much electrical noise to achieve the same on the LCD...a new cable might suffice. But, on some LCDs, I suspect that the analog signal path is is not as shielded as it should be, almost forcing you to go digital.

 

Since your video card only has a VGA connector, you would have to get a new one to use the DVI (digital) connection on the monitor. If the monitor is not faulty, and a better cable does not give you a better picture, then you might have to go this route. If you don't need a high-end 3D gaming card, you can get a new one on the cheap (less than $100). DVI ports are standard now.