bill_fouche

Nah - Just make a "photo filter" adjustment layer and choose either yellow or orange or pick your own version of same. Create a black layer mask for it. And then using "brush" tool set to "white", selectively "paint" that effect onto the chrome object.

If you search "DPP" software on photo.net, you will find a number of threads praising the RAW conversions possible with Canon's pro raw converter. Many, myself included, think it's better with subtle colors, particularly caucasian skin tones, than lightroom, Adobe CAmera Raw, etc. Interface is not ideal. But it's fast and effective, once you learn how to use it. I recommend it highly.

Canon A650IS - same lens and sensor as G9, but has swivel LCD. Won't do RAW though.

One of the best threads I've seen on this subject (and updated regularly by the original author) is here:

 

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y

 

You will find that many of the monitors mentioned above and on other similar threads are discussed in the thread.

Good and recent info on this topic:

 

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y

If you are a Canon user, you may find that Canon's included DPP (digital photo professional) software does a better job than Lightroom (or ACR) with skintones.

This thread on another site is informative and updated regularly:

 

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y

 

Personally, I am very pleased with my NEC multisync.

The Canon 28 f/2.8 is cheaper and is rated by many as optically superior to the 28 f/1.8. If you plan to use it primarily outdoors, it might be a better choice than either of your nominees. See the following website:

 

http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_select.php

Here's my quick effort via Lightoom.

I've recently tried doing this with Canon XTi on an old photo, but surface defects (scratches, pits, etc.) show up like crazy. How are you lighting the subject-matter?

Those are great links. (Moderator should preserve this thread.)

FYI, the Canon A650-IS is very similar to the G9 (same lens, same sensor), but with less fancy housing. It's considerably cheaper, which may be of significance to some. It won't do RAW, but it does have a feature the G9 lacks: flip-out, twisty LCD screen that can be awfully handy, depending on shooting style. See Bob Atkins's comments here:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/Powershot_a570is_a650is_a720is.html

Michael, one of Canon's bundled programs, Digital Photo Professional or "DPP" does terrific RAW conversions. Interface is not as intuitive as Lightroom and its library functions does not compare well, but if your budget is tight, you can get an excellent RAW start with DPP. Simply edit to taste in DPP and convert to TIFF, preferably 16-bit, which can be opened by Photoshop. You do need to be sure your color management settings are compatible between CS2 and DPP, but once that's straight, you're set.

I don't get it. Are these methods used by people who are trying to artificially inflate the ratings of their own photos by downgrading the "competition" en masse? Is this common? Can someone explain why they bother to do this?

Is "upgrading" the right verb for moving from XP to Vista?

If you plan to use the RAW format, Canon's included Digital Photo Professional or DPP does beautiful raw conversions. Can't beat the price (free). And using DPP will teach you what the camera designer "intended" in terms of colors and tones, even if you ultimately decide to switch to something else.

 

Photo.net hero Bob Atkins likes Paintshop Pro:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/psp/psp1.html

 

Norman Koren swears by Picture Window Pro.

 

http://www.normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html

 

The virtue of Photoshop and Photoshop Elements is that lots of knowledgeable people can help you learn them, due to good and frequent updates they are unlikely to become obsolete any time soon, and tutorials and good books about them are easy to find.

Nope.

Yes. Some of them appear to be straight out of the LucisArt tonemapping software, or possibly Photoshop's HDR feature. There are some other things going on too - saturation tweaks, etc. And, as you say, careful lighting.

I don't understand what it means to "import raw files as PSD." If you are importing your NEF files directly from the camera or the card, then what you are seeing is Adobe's best guess at how Nikon's raw files ought to be rendered. Lightroom ignores settings you've made in camera (except White Balance), so if you've punched up the saturation or decreased the contrast, Lightroom won't know that. And I'm guessing that Nikon guards is NEF conversion formulas jealously. So Adobe is forced to reverse-engineer by trial and error.

 

Speaking from the perspective of a Canon user, I find that Lightroom just does not make particularly good "guesses" about Canon's raw data. I get better color and better tone from the camera-maker's software (DPP), even though I am not fond of DPP's very clunky interface. Lightroom, IMHO, needs better camera profiles (if that is the right word.)

 

The best solution I have come up with is this: make a "preset" for the default look that you are after. This is slow and fiddly. You have to look at photographed color charts and compare lots of images, but it's the most reliable way I know to harness Lightroom's disappointing (at least on Canon raw files) effort to do what the camera maker's own raw converter usually does better.

 

Lightroom does lots very well, particularly if aggressive changes in "look" are desired. What I am saying is that its default "starting place" on both tone and color is disappointing. Just my two cents.

Thanks Godfrey. If the difference can be seen in the prints, that's what I needed to know.

Godfrey, I hear what you're saying about the the theory here. I've heard that before and, until now, accepted it. But here's my question to you: have you ever compared photos captured, processed, and printed in sRGB, to prints of the same images done in AdobeRGB or ProPhoto? If so what results? The link "Ken Rockwell" link furnished above by "Bruce C" is facinating. Rockwell is great and an expert in color. He challenges the conventional wisdom. I'd be interested in hearing your specific reaction to Rockwell's findings.

Give serious consideration to the Canon 60mm macro designed for the reduced frame cameras (XT, XTi, etc.). Great at macro. Quite good at portraits at a serviceable focal length. Although it can't be used on a fullframe body, it's optically clear and bright, very sharp, with decent "bokeh" (albeit, bokeh not as dreamy as the 85mm f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4, neither of which can be used for macro work at all.)

Pieris, I have bookmarked the Fors site for later consideration. Thanks to you and everyone for the thoughtful responses.

I find DPP to be considerably better at reproducing rich and accurate colors

than Lightroom, but clunky in most other respects. I MUCH prefer the interface

and asset-management features of Lightroom. I have played around with

Lightroom's "calibration" and "preset" features trying to force it to render

color and tame highlights like DPP. Those efforts have failed. Has anyone else

experienced (and hopefully solved) this?

Yes, I have also noticed that highlight clipping is easier to control in DPP, without as much loss in overall image contrast, compared to using LR's "recovery" slider.