minicucci

Brian:

Moab recommends that you use Epson's Watercolor Radiant White as the paper setting.

Here are the instructions they provide with their profile:

Profile Name: Moab_Entrada_Natural_2200_UCMK

Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural 190gsm and 300gsm

Rendering Intent: Saturation or Perceptual

Printer: Epson 2200

Inkset: Ultrachrome Matte Black

Paper Type: Watercolor Radiant White

Print Quality: 1440

High Speed: On or Off

Color Management: ICM: Off, No Color Management

Curtiss: As mentioned above, you cannot create data where there is none. Attached is about

the best I can do, using several layers set to multiply. If you crop it to a head and shoulders

shot, it is something ... but not much.

Gus: See the above dialogue box. Just above the PPI box is the pixel dimensions selection. As

long as you select the native size of your image (in pixel dimensions), there is no resampling.

That choice will always be the one without a plus or minus sign, which signifies (obviously)

resizing the image up or down. If you select one of the + or - choices, the pixel dimensions

will be resampled.

The PPI is really just a divisor of the pixel dimensions that you use. It is the dimensions that

are important. PPI can be reset anytime, without reampling. I leave it at my print PPI, as a

rule.<div></div>

Michael:

If you print B&W, the 1160 is hard to beat, especially with archival third party inks. If you

print color, run don't walk to a new printer. The improvements in color since the 1160 make

it a no-brainer decision.

Not too long ago, I sold an 1160 (refurbished by Epson) for $360 so the $225 print head

replacement cost seems reasonable to me.

Not sure. Post back with the settings you are using in "Save for the Web" (right side). The

quality may be set too low.

<blockquote>Does anyone have experience blowing up images from film scans for very large

murals like this?"

</blockquote>

I don't but Jeff Schewe has an article in the new magazine, Digital Photo Pro entitled:

"Bigger & Better Ð How to res-up with art & science". Jeff uses PS to uprez and then goes

through a sharpening routine that includes adding grain in. You might want to go take a look

at it.

Hi Alma;

No, you cannot transform a TIFF (or any other non-raw file) into raw format as defined by

linear gamma. Once a conversion is made, it's done and the file can not go back. The raw file

format in PS is different than the raw file formats used by digital cameras to compile sensor

information.

When you calibrate your monitor/laptop, use a gamma of 2.2 (the PC norm) versus the more

traditional 1.8 for Macs. Most color gurus agree that the 2.2 gamma offers better blends/less

banding. Macs initially used 1.8 gamma to optimize for the original Laserwriters, a rationale

now obsolete. Images done in a 1.8 gamma environment will appear dark on a 2.2 gamma

screen.

Try using SuperCal as a software calibration tool (it is shareware). It does a decent job if you

do not have any of the hardware tools.

Howard: Assuming you've embedded an ICC profile (sRGB?), take a look using the FoxFire

browser (free download). FoxFire is supposedly color aware and will read the ICC profile. IE is

definitely not color aware and will substitute Microsoft's own version of sRGB.

Matt: In addition to Eric's suggestion, there are a couple of decent papers for blending

exposures from the same raw file or shots in a bracketed sequence that do not meet the

dynamic range definition of using the HDR capabilities of PSCS2:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

is a tutorial by Michael Reichmann, and

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/highlight_recovery.pdf

is a tutorial by Jeff Schewe.

I just reread PN's advisory on what makes a manipulated versus unmanipulated photo. Mark,

you are right, it really is pretty good. I'd read it when I joined but not since.

Since all uploads have the opportunity to check the "unmanipulated" box, is there any

possibility of having a review sort done based on how one checked the box? More simply, can

Pnet just use what is already in place to perform the sort?

Carl, I'm really not arguing your definition of manipulation. It is yours and you are welcome

to it. I'm just pointing out that it will not be held in common by all or even, perhaps, most.

Perfect. It just makes the point that people will always disagree on a definition of

manipulation.

FWIW, the bugaboo of this subject is the definition of 'manipulated". Composite photos are

an easy call. Everything else gets a little hairy. For example, is the attached file manipulated?

(The image shows the original raw file and the finished image.) Clearly, it has been retouched

to a fare the well. But nothing that could not have done in a wet darkroom.

Why not add a checkbox for composite images (anything added from another image) and add

a small thumb space for uploading a tiny JPEG of the original image on the details page? Then

anyone can see what's been done to an image. Full disclosure, in a sense. I'd certainly

welcome that.

Hi Chris: Michael Reichmann discusses the rear LCD in his field report of the 5D. Below is

the relevant text (quoted). The URL for the full article is

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5d-field.shtml

"Rear LCD

When you first see a 5D you may initially not notice that it's somewhat larger than a 20D,

but you definately won't miss the significantly larger rear LCD. This is a big size

improvement over previous Canon screens, and is identical to the screen that Canon has

put on the equally new 1Ds MK II. The larger screen not only makes image review superior,

but because screen text is also commensurately larger that aspect of camera operation is

also enhanced. Clearly (pun intended) this screen is going to become the norm for future

Canon cameras.

But before it does so though Canon needs to do something about the screen's

performance in bright conditions, such as in full daylight. While shooting with the 5D in

the intense and almost cloudless daylight of Greece I was also taking snapshots with a

Sony T7 ultra-thin pocket digicam, which features a transreflective screen, which is, by

coincidence, the same size as that on the 5D. While the Sony screen actually remains

visible even in direct sunlight, the Canon became so washed out as to be almost unusable.

Canon needs to give their future cameras an LCD screen that provides photographers with

state-of-the-art technology. The new screen on the 5D and the 1D MK IIn, while larger

than on previous models, get a failing grade when it comes to usefulness outdoors."

Mendel's blended exposure folder does a great job of demonstrating the value of using the

raw converter to control disparate levels of exposure. I took a crack at fixing the file in PS,

attached. I'd consider this to be very inferior to what can be accomplished by using blended

exposure.<div></div>

Hakon's advise is spot on. Use two different raw conversions to control exposure areas, then

blend the two files appropriately. Jeff Schewe has a tutorial here:

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/highlight_recovery.pdf

Paul:

If you are on Tiger, just make custom pages with equal margins for all page edges. I say

Tiger because Apple really fixed the flakiness re custom pages in 10.4.

Steve:

Same thing has happened to me. See this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CpEo

Richard:

All raw converters have strengths and weaknesses. It really is a matter of workflow

preference and really investing the time to thoroughly master whatever raw converter you

elect to use. User mastery is way more important than the flavor of converter.

Steve;

You might be interested in the article below;

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

Adjustments in raw are global versus local adjustments. If that suits the image, it is best to

do the adjustment in raw.

Markus:

Take a look at this thread on the Apple Forums:

http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?128@610.qu6uaB475pK.1@.68ade8c1

You need to trash the MFSLibinit file that gets created in the Dimage prefs folder.

Take a look at this article by Bruce Fraser, regarding exposure and raw capture:

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

Getting DSLR exposure right is the single most important element in having files with full

richness of tonality. Bad exposures usually are salvageable (if shot raw) but they lack much of

the tonal magic of a well exposed shot.

Sean:

Can't say I've had that happen to me (yet), but the safe route would be to put the files in the

trash/Mac or recycle bin/PC without deleting to see if anything bad happens. Provided that

you've saved your retouched files and they open without incident, the tmp files are just so

much debris.

Steve:

If the gradient is set to "Foreground to Transparent" ) or "Background to Transparent", you

can use the tool as many times as you wish on the same mask. If it is set to black to white,

etc. you only the one use per mask.

Fat 32 is no problem for the Mac but does impose a 4 GB per file limit, If it is just raw files,

no problem. USB 2.0 also no problem.