perfect_exposure

you can, of course, add other functions into the resize action to sharpen etc and if all images are landscape or portrait then you can combine the two actions into one.

 

I like the image and crop you have chosen. Very well seen and executed.

actions are recorded inside sets and the .atn filename is the same as the set name.

 

just make sure that when you record an action that you are looking at the set you want the action to be in. Its very easy to record an action and find its buried in a set which didn't realise was the current set when you started recording.

 

good policy is to create a new a set, record action in that set and then save to save the set.

take your intended print dpi setting and work out required image size.

Lets assume 300dpi. For this you will need 2100x1500 pixels for a 7x5 print or 1500x2100 for a 5x7 print. This means the tallest will be 2100Pixels and the widest 2100 pixels.

 

open one image, any image will do.

Now start record action and do the following:

 

use file/automate/fit image and set both values to 2100.

(N.B. if you want a minimum border around the image, e.g 1/2 inch then set "fit image" size to 1800 x 1800.

 

save file

close file.

stop recording action.

 

next copy all images to a working directory and play the action on the contents of the directory.

This will resize all images to required size for printing without changing aspect ratio or cropping.

 

Next put landscape images in one folder and portrait in another folder.

 

next open one of the landscape images and start recording a new action as follows.

 

change name of background layer to layer 0.

 

insert new layer

 

move new layer below layer 0

 

change canvas size to 2100 x 1500

 

fill bottom layer with white

 

save image

 

close image

 

stop recording action

 

play action action against the contents of landscape folder.

 

repeat creation and play of action for portrait folder but use 1500x2100 canvas size.

 

you should now have all images sized for printing and none of them have been cropped from original aspect ratio's.

here's the simplest way to do it.

 

Your ISP will have allocated you an ftp address for your web space. It's usually called something like "ftp.yourdomian.com".

 

Next open Internet explorer and in the address bar type the following:

 

ftp://ftp.yourdomain.com

 

replace the above "ftp.yourdomain.com" with the name your isp provided you with, then press enter.

 

you will be asked for your webspace login and password which you type in.

 

When it connects click on the internet explorer "folders" button so that you see both your local directories and your web space directory.

(note that if the folders button is not showing then you have to right click in the grey menu area and select "customize". Then add the folders button to the right hand side so that it appears on your menu)

 

next, copy and paste the files from your local folder to the remote folder (probably the root folder).

 

note that the starting page should usually be called "index.htm"

 

then try to access it from IE by typing in www.yourdomain.com or what ever it is called.

 

thats all there is to it.

there is no one method that works best for all images.

 

the attached action will convert using 6 different methods and you pick the one which looks best as your starting point for that image.

 

put the action in your "photoshop actions" folder and don't forget to save it as "6 grays.atn".

Walter,

 

If you have a DiamondPRO 2070 then switch it into sRGB mode and there should be very little difference between that and your calibrated monitor profile, assuming you calibrated for sRGB. If there is a big difference then either your calibration is wrong or your monitor is suspect.

most crt's have an aspect ratio of 4:3 as you have suggested but setting monitor resolution can alter that. My crt monitor's optimum resolution is 1280x1024 which is not 4:3. On windows 2000 using 1280x1024 makes squares into rectangles and circles into elipses. i.e. on windows if you do not use a 4:3 ratio then your image gets distorted (unless you have some smart software which detects and corrects it).

 

However, depending on your monitor, you can, for example, adjust the screen width using the monitor controls to undistort the image at the non 4:3 ratio. N.B. that even at the 4:3 ratio, whats on your screen may be distorted/stretched width or horizontally unless you have actually measured the onscreen image and adjusted using the monitor controls so that squares are square and circles are circles. Most people have a tendancy to adjust their monitor so that all the possible visible area is used without thinking about whether the image is distorted by doing that.

 

Draw a circle in PS which is as big as possible on screen using the shift key when you drag the cursor to make sure it is a circle, and then using a ruler, measure the width and height of the circle from the screen. If they are not the same then you may want to adjust your monitor.

 

There are no rules about whether you should retain 4:3 ratio. However it becomes important when you crop or print because what you see onscreen is not the same ratio as what will be printed or seen by someone else on another monitor at a different ratio (unless you have done the adjustment suggested above).

yes, but since lcd screens are now in abundance do we now have two "barns". i.e. the crt "barn" and the lcd "barn" and if so which "barn" would you aim for. I think the sRGB standard may well be OK for CRT but I'm not so sure about LCD's which is why I'm asking.

i.e. does sRGB miss the LCD "barn" by being in the middle of the crt "barn"?

I have just viewed my web site(under development) on some other pc's

and it looked really bad. They were a mixed bunch of uncalibrated

PC's with some old crt's but one with a new dell lcd. They were all

set with brighness way above my own sRGB profile.

 

I'm just wondering what is the norm for out of the box LCD screens

which are capable of much higher contrast and brigtness than a crt.

i.e. if lcd's are much brighter than crt's with more contrast and the

average user follows the ususal basic 100% contrast 50% brightness

setup then should we be thinking to use something different than sRGB

for web images?

 

What do you think?

give the lab precise instructions on how to print. e.g. print full frame with minimum border width of x cms. If they can't follow simple instructions like that then go to a lab that can.

 

3:2 ratio frames fit well onto 16x12 paper (uk size, or at least it used to be) with 2 inch border giving 12x8 print size. For 10x8 you are in trouble because 3:2 ratio does not fit with sensible border ratios. i.e. one border will be too wide. 14x11 using 2,5in borders gives 9x6in which is correct ratio but bottom border should always a tad wider than top and sides to stop image looking as though it is bottom heavy(optical illusion/visual perception reasons). 1cm is enough additional extra border width at that size so 9x5.5in print size would do it which requires very little cropping.

 

18x24 = 2:3 ratio?

thanks, I found a solution at the adobe forums. I have file indexing switched off in w2k but switching it on for the lighting styles folder only, cures the problem. don't ask me why but I suspect there is some weird conflict with another filter I have loaded. The strange thing is that lighting styles have no file extension which is very rare for windows systems.

In PSCS (windows) when I use the lighting styles filter it works OK

but the drop down list of saved styles is empty and if I try and save

a lighting style it comes up with an error.

 

looking in the photoshop cs/plug-ins/filters/lighting styles folder

shows a list of default lighting styles but they have no file

extension.

 

do others have this problem with pscs and what is the file extension

of the lighting filters in your folder? In my folder they are all 1kb

and I have just reinstalled pscs to see if that cured the problem but

no joy.

I assume from your question that you know what the colour changes of cross processing when using chemistry are. Therefore all you need to know is how to alter one colour to another. There are numerous ways to selectivly alter colours but here is one for you to try as a starting point.

 

use the image/adjustments/hue/saturation dialog. master will shift all colours up and down the spectrum simultaneously or you can select reds, yellows, greens etc and adjust hue of that colour range range only and also play with saturation and lightness. The possibilities are limitless.

you can do it from internet explorer. your ISP will have allocated an ftp address with your webspace which is usually something like:

<br><br>

ftp.mydomain.com

<br><br>

if you then type into the internet explorer address bar the following then you will be able to upload files to your webspace.

<br><br>

ftp://ftp.mydomain.com

<br><br>

you will be asked for your webspace userid and password and obviously you have to replace "ftp.mydomain.com" with your allocated ftp name.

<br><br>

once connected then just click on the IE folders icon at top of screen and you a get standard windows explorer drag and drop functionality allowing updates to your web space. It doesn't come any simpler and doesn't require installing or learning anything except what I have explained above.

<br><br>

I assume you are using a PC and not a mac.

<br><br>

for the last time...

 

the size of your image in photo.net is different from the size of your image in your web site. I'm talking both kb and dimensions. This time your red barn image in the web site is 136kb w503 h342 whilst the photonet image is 107kb w504 h333.

 

taking a copy of the rebarn image from my browser cache and comparing to the photonet image shows the same photo dimensions but different kb.

 

you should be able to conclude, as I do, that the image is being rescaled in flash. Maybe not intentionally, but never the less it is being rescaled as I have already told you.

 

your designer should also know that if you use shape tweening with alpha, that it can leave a veiled image even though alfa is set to zero. i.e. if the shape that was being tweened was not the image but a layer above the image which is tweened to alph 0, then it is not truly zero and you have to cater for that in flash.

 

I can give you no further information. It is up to your designer to to get a grip. I would suggest some serious study combined with simple observation and testing as a starting point.

right click and save your image as posted on photo.net and send that image to your designer to use instead of the one which is being used currently and that should solve the problem. Once again, the image that is currently in your flash site is darker than the one on photo.net.

 

You need to work out why that is. I have no idea why unless photo.net is altering the image in some way.

this version uses your flash movie version

the plot thickens!<br><br>

 

the image you have shown on photo.net is 87kb. The image loaded into your web site flash movie is 133kb and is yellower than the one on photo.net. They are not the same and we have been given the task of explaining why two different versions of the same image are different!<br><br>

 

the attached flash file uses the photo.net version.

I've had a good look at how your web site has been put together and I have to say it has been done badly.

 

If your flash designer knew anything the problem would have been resolved by them. At a minimum they should have known where to go to get the answers.

 

amateurish errors made (leaving basic construction apart) are that image dimensions have been rescaled in the movie which makes including a 130kb high quality image a pointless exercise. Also leaving a 99% transparent layer above your image makes it look cloudy.

 

Your flash programmer simply does not know what they are doing!

 

check out the following. www.g4dgardens.co.uk and that is the only full flash site I have done so I'm no expert. Garden images were really bad quality (not mine)and needed a lot of work just to make them look reasonable but they load with accepatable speed for non broadband users and there is something to look at while others are being loaded. (and yes the B&W images are legal)

Images in flash can be sharp as they were when you first import them to flash. Use setting 'use imported jpeg data' otherwise flash will re-compress the jpeg and you know what happens when open,save,open,save,open,save a jpeg file! If your designer has amended and recompiled the flash movie several times during development then your image will be barely recognisable. He should re-import original images making sure above option is checked.

 

Also, make sure the flash movie is not scalable in the browser, because if it is, your image will get stretched or compressed on the fly which makes it look bad. Scalable on screen flash is only good for flash vector graphics and not for embedded photos.

 

Sounds like your your designer hasn't got a clue. I hope he's paying you to allow him to experiment with your time and images!

I see more and more that people are looking to describe an image or the image making process with numbers. Numbers expressed in graphs or highs and lows. This, to me, equates to the pedants who get bogged down in zone system terminology and talk about gamma and absolute sensitometric values which are all really arbitrary since the point of a photo or image is to instill a thought or emotion. These can not be measured or expressed in numbers. Develop your software if you must, but you must also take responsibility for leading the uninformed into the world of painting by numbers which most of us left behind in childhood.

just to add that there is a section in the PS help files which explains exactly how to do this type of advanced selective edge sharpening. Look for "Selective sharpening" in the help index.

wide angle lenses are notorious for causing vignetting. Its obvious when you think about it. The greater the light angle from the lens axis then the more likely any filter holder is going to vignette the light. You can buy low profile filters or filter holders especially for wide angle lenses. Also, using a lens shade on a filter can cause the problem. Try removing lens shade if you are using one or maybe use a shade for a wider lens than you are using.

 

The adapter ring idea may or may not work since the adapter ring is often higher profile than the filter holder where it fixes to the lens.

if you are making landscape images then you had better start liking using a tripod because that is THE ONLY WAY to get the sharpest images. Many people think they can hold a camera still but they and you can't. The bigger you print the more the camera movement shows up as unsharp images. If you are photographing non stationary subjects such as people then you must pick your moment carefully and use shutter speed to minimize motion blur. Relying on post image capture techniques to remove motion blur only results in less than perfect results.

you may want to try the free sharpening actions you can get <a href="http://www.aboutdigicam.com/download.html">HERE</a><br><br>

 

they contain the conversion to "Lab" and red channel selection of edges. Some people would make you pay for this stuff...<br><br>

 

Is it better than straight USM? You'll have to try it out on your own images to find out.

<br><br>