minicucci

David; You might be interested in <a href="http://beautiful-landscape.com/

Thoughts35.html">this</a> article, by Alain Briot. I use DxO for optical corrections and like

you, output as a DNG for subsequent raw processing in ACR. That's less a comment on DxO

than it is the fact that I really know ACR and know less about DxO's raw engine.

I'm not a Windows user, but could it be authorization? I think you can only have two installs

and use only one at a time. Maybe that's why the third machine will not work.

I sure do not speak for Brian, but in one of yesterday's threads on this subject, he said:

"The "Critique Only" images are still where they were ( http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-

recent-requests?topic_id=1481&critique_p=1 ), but the new format does not support

Critique Only yet."

Based on that, I'd expect Critique-Only to be integrated with the new approach at some

future, but reasonably near term point. I hope so because I miss it.

Larry: You might take a look at Moab's Entrada Natural. It is a beautiful paper, double-

sided, somewhat less costly than Epson's Velvet and you can front load it in the 190

weight. Warmth is roughly on par with Velvet, with less surface texture. I have found that

the Entrada papers really benefit with use of a good custom profile or put another way, I

do not like the canned profiles. Even the one in ImagePrint. The media setting for Entrada

is watercolor paper. These papers can flake and need to be well brushed.

You might also check out a mail order company called Atlex (http://www.atlex.com/) for

supplies of Velvet. They always have it in stock, they ship quickly and prices are pretty

good ($53 for a package of 13X19). Good proces on Epson inks, as well.

I really think people get confused about what the ratings are for, although Brian has been

very clear about this point. The ratings are <b>not</b> for the photographer. They

<b>are</b> for the site and are intended as a way to filter up the most popular images.

When you enter the RR queue, as a rater, you are there as a volunteer for the site to help

perform that filtration, versus having any authentic dialogue with the photographers

involved.

Conversely, critique is <b>for</b> the photographer and not really for the site. They are

two completely separate activities that may be done together or apart but neither depends

on the other for legitimacy.

In that context, getting 3s versus 4s really means little since the desired product of the

filtration is to search out the 6+s. What can be galling to members is that the limited

exposure within the RR queue combined with a random audience of disparate standards

can produce a "wrong" rating result. PNet probably figures that the results work often

enough, on an average basis, so they are not worried about individual image results. In

effect, the filter is highly imperfect but good enough for aggregate results. From an

arithmetic standpoint, I am not sure I agree since the aggregation of individual wrong

results will produce, on average, a wrong result but I cannot think of a better way to do it,

either.

Curtis: I think that the rating number is the sum of the average rates for A & O. K is the

number of ratings. So, if an image has one rating of 6 on "A" and 5 on "O", the thumbs will

list Rating = 11, K = 1.

Mihai: Carsten only submits his work to the Critique-Only forum. He's not a fan of the rating

system.

Anna; the consensus has been that you only need one set of calibration factors for daylight

(whether overcast or sunny) but that you do need a separate set for flash/strobe lighting.

Ellis: I think the motive for doing this is the same, regardless of PS/ACR versions: to custom

tune ACR's default color calibration for a particular camera model to the unique properties of

your individual camera's sensor.

Anna: You've got the basics right and Edward is correct: the script is really owned by

Thomas Fors. There is a long and useful thread on Adobe's user forum for Camera Raw

(http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@404.WJYmf7Hw9MX.4@.3bb5bcf7/0)

that includes input from Thomas, Bruce Fraser, et al.

Here are three ancillary points that I've picked up over the time the script has been out:

1. Shoot the Color Checker chart in a color neutral environment. Use a white, black or true

grey background (and ground cover) to eliminate color spill from your surroundings.

2. Expose to the right, and seek to get the brightest white square of the Color Checker in

the vicinity of 238-245 without any EV adjustment in Camera Raw. Your goal is to pass on

to the script a raw conversion that only has white balance corrected.

3. Shoot the chart in daylight and use the resulting calibration factors to adjust non-flash

shots. Shoot the chart with flash in tungsten light for separate tungsten calubration

factors.

"I have not tried DNG yet. When you convert existing RAW files that already have XMP files

does DNG save the settings from the existing XMP files in the DNG file?

"Since Adobe does not release new RAW converters for Photoshop CS with new cameras

would converting the RAW file to DNG allow you to use the CS raw converter on the new

cameras?"

Hi Robert: the DNG conversion will copy over any prior xmp data and integrate it in the

converted file.

Re your second question, ACR still will not have a camera profile to work with. You can

jigger the file with a hex editor to use another camera's profile but results would be

uncertain.

Christian; I use DNG conversion for all shots, with the embed original raw option selected.

(I also archive the original raws, pre-DNG, to DVD). That way I can always extract the

original raw file should I want to use DPP or something like that. The only downside is file

size. With raw embedded, each file will go from an average of 8-9 MB to an average of

12-14 MB.

In addition to the DNG file's incorporation of xmp sidecar files (a wonderful side benefit), I

love it because it allows me to convert through the 100-shots-per-folder hierarchy that

my Canon camera imposes by checking the "Include all sub-folder images" option. I just

convert all of the contents of the DCIM folder into a single DNG folder and then open all of

the DNG raws into Bridge without having to bother with the 100 per folders.

Yaron: Try Other World Computing. Very good prices, excellent service and memory for all

Macs. I've purchased from them for years with zero problems.

https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/

I do not think you can use matte black inks with glossy papers. Try switching the MK cart to a

PK cart.

The OLS files have nothing to do with your image caches. They are tied to Adobe's Online

Library Services (OLS) for things like photo services etc. Are you on broadband or dialup?

The program may be trying to connect to Adobe and failing.

Are you image previews still whacked? Is the OLS warning something different?

Attached is a screenshot of the contents of both my Bridge Plugins and StartupScripts. I've

circled the three OLS files. What I do notice from your screenshots is that the icons for the

OLS bundle and the ols.config.xml file are malformed, suggesting that these files have

never been properly installed or launched.

Open your Bridge prefs and under the General tab, click on the button that says reveal

scripts. See if you've got the ols.jax script in place.

In addition, run through the routine of repairing your permssions, prebinding applications

and, if you have a utility like DiskWarrior, rebuilding your volume directories. The issue

may be with the OS versus Bridge.<div></div>

Major: Well, for some reason, Bridge has lost the path to the centralized cache (More

comment on that in a minute). Have you moved any of the relevant folders recently? I think

the Bridge application has to be on the boot partition of your HD.

In any event, first try to simply re-establish the path. Using Finder, go to the centralized

cache folder in your user library (wherever you told bridge to centrally stash the xml files).

Make sure that folder is there and that the xml files are in it. If the folder is not there,

we've found the problem. Assuming it is there, though, now go to prefs/advanced and

click on the "choose" button as though you were going to select a new location for a

central cache. Reselect your cache folder. Now see if Bridge will work.

If not, you will have to reset Bridge's prefs and defaults. Here's Adobe's instructions for

doing so. Note the warning in the bottom paragraph:

ADOBE document 331083

Reset preferences and default workspace, or purge the entire thumbnail cache (Adobe

Bridge)

Damaged preferences or workspaces can cause unexpected behavior in Adobe Bridge. You

can fix display issues for thumbnail previews in Bridge by purging the central cache.

To reset preferences and default workspace, or purge the entire thumbnail cache:

Hold down Control + Alt + Shift (Win) or Command + Option + Shift (Mac) immediately

after you starting Adobe Bridge. Choose one or more of the options from the screen:

-- Choose [option name] to reset Bridge preferences.

-- Choose [option name] to or reset the Bridge to the default workspace.

-- Choose [option name] to purge entire thumbnail cache.

Note: When you purge the entire thumbnail cache, you delete cached thumbnail

information for all folders. You also delete labels, ratings and rotation settings for read-

only files (for example, files on a CD or locked files) or file formats that don't have XMP

support.

I'd try the least invasive choice, (option one) first. If that does not work, purge everything.

You may have good reasons for a centralized cache but if not, I'd urge you to use the

distributed cache option in the future. This will leave the xml files in the raw folder with

the raw files so that you do not need to export the cache when you archive or move the

folder. It will also avoid issues like the one you are having.

And while you are at it, think about using Adobe's DNG converter. DNG files can embed

the actual raw file and incorporate xml data into the DNG file itself. NO SIDECAR FILES! The

cache data travels with the file. I also like it because it does away with those 100 images

per folder hierarchy that Canon uses. After conversion, I can open just one DNGs folder

into Bridge to open all of the shots. Something to think about.

In any event, post back with results. Good luck!

Major: Don't reinstall yet. What platform are you on? PC or Mac?

This really could be as simple as a bad setting. Try taking a screenshot of your Bridge

window, (as the active window) and attach it to your post here. If nothing else, helpers will be

able to see some of the display options you have set.

I wonder if it would be possible to re-categorize ratings by the experience level of the

photographer? (Maybe this has been discussed and dismissed in the past. I've not found

any reference to it, though.) Specifically, categorize photographers into beginner,

intemediate, advanced or professional classifications (or some variation on that theme)

and allow the rate recent queues and top photos page to segment by those classifications.

It's the same notion as punching in your own weight class.

Benefits would include allowing relative peers to compete for ratings as well as provide a

more supportive environment for beginning photographers. I know that I'd approach a

beginners rate recent queue differently than one that hosts (and averages) the work of all

photographers. I also think that one of the site's best sources of new subscriptions are

with beginning photogrpahers, so it might make strategic sense to offer a more welcoming

atmosphere.

Difficulties might include self selection of experience classification, as well as the fact that

classifications will change, which could pose real problems for the database. Still, it might

be worth pursuing.

Dennis: I'd start with a mask for the water and use a selective color adjustment layer to

adjust the hues. In this case, your reds and yellows need to go to cyan and blue/green. I'd

also add a curve to bump contrast and a H/S layer to fine tune. Very nice composition, BTW.<div></div>

I also use PK Sharpener and think very highly of it because of its flexibility and ease of

adjustment. I also have high regard for PSCS2's Smart Sharpen algorithm, which is a different

kind of sharpening, essentially a deconvolver for lens and motion blur along the lines of DXO

labs products.

Why not download PK Sharpener's 7 day demo and test it's fit with your work?

Bob: If you use higher ISO settings (above 400), the answer is a definitive yes. NN allows you

to tweak settings and mask areas of detail, etc., etc. But download their demo and test it

yourself.

Peng: You are definitly on the right track. Adobe RGB has a comparatively wide gamut (vs.

sRGB). There are printers on the market today that can reproduce a gamut that actually

exceeds Adobe RGB, especially in the cyans.

When you choose a colorspace, you are discarding any color information that does not fit

within its gamut. For that reason, I work in the ProPhoto colorspace (which actually makes

allowance for colors that neither my eye, nor monitor, nor printer can see). I do it so that

my work files (versus RAW files, which are always untouched and can be reconverted over

and over) can take advantage of future technologies that bring bigger gamut ranges to

printers and monitors without my having to reprocess the file. Or put another way, I try to

keep whatever color information there is, even if today's tech can't always use it. My print

files go to the printer in ProPhoto. For publishing on the Web, I make a flattened copy and

convert the profile to sRGB along with resizing and conversion to 8 bit.

I also leave work files in 16 bit format unless I am doing something that demands a

change to 8 bit. Even then, I use a copy of the file for the 8 bit conversion and only do the

bit conversion after first flattening the file since the advantage of working in 16 bit will be

lost in the conversion without flattening.

Finally, it does not matter which colorspace you set in the camera if you are shooting raw.

Those parameters only affect the JPG preview or embedded JPG. The raw file itself has only

it's sensor information. I'd set it at Adobe RGB only because the wider gamut for the JPG

preview offers a slightly better histogram in the camera's info screen.

Hi Peng;

Here's my advice, which like any opinion, should be taken with a grain of salt:)

Most of the raw converters out there are quite good, each with their own set of strengths

and weaknesses. It is far more important that you gain mastery of one than find the killer

app among them. I use Adobe's Camera Raw (ACR) because it fits my workflow and

because I think I pretty much understand it, by now. There is no doubt that for some

images, raw converters like DPP or CaptureOne might do a better job but I cannot master

them all so I stick with one and wring the heck out of it. That said, pick one that suits your

workflow and invest the time to really learn how it operates.

ACR's auto corrections are generally pretty good as a starting point but should be tested/

changed as needed by the image being converted. You can toggle the corrections on or off

or just change the sliders as needed. If you stick with ACR, I recommend Bruce Fraser's

book on Camera Raw to really understand the nuances of the program. Some of the

parameters you refer to are image specific (like lens correction) and others are not (like

how to output the converted files). In the latter category, select what you need. For

example, if you are outputting a large number of files for proofs and do not intend to do

any further editing before printing, outputting as small JPGs might be fine. But if you

intend to work the file in PS, choose TIFF or PSD.

Libraries have been written on the differences between 8 and 16 bit editing. Just do a

Google search to aquaint yourself with the differences. Same with colorspaces like sRGB,

Adobe RGB, etc.

Outside noise applications like NeatImage do a better job than ACR for high ISO images.

For low ISO images, ACR does fine with the minor amounts of chroma noise.

For the most part, it is better to not sharpen in any raw program. The exception would be

straight to print proofing files. In that case, using the raw converter's sharpening is a

convenience.

Conrad is exactly right. The print driver will always "flatten" the file as it preps it for the

printer. Your work file does not need to be flattened.