cosmic_c

some interesting interpretations already posted. Was not sure whether to build on the monochromatic nature of this image or find some colour. In the end went with a painterly effect - so straighter and crop, then color efex pro to bring out some colour, followed by curves to increase contrast, sharpening and application of "Ocean Ripple" filter.

 

Like Glenn, thought I would concentrate on the right of the image

Lightroom - cropped and slight rotation of -1.41. Basic global adjustements of contrast +9, highlights -100, shadows +100, blacks -26, clarity +52

adjusted white balance -10 and -23 tint, increased aqua and blue saturation and luminance

Applied 2 graduated filters and 3 lots of brush for local adjustements

 

Processed in Lightroom 5 - Auto vertical adjustement, Cropped, then worked on clouds using brush

applied high sharpening, adjusted white balance -100 highlights, +48 shadows, -23 whites, -54 blacks, and +85 clarity, +69 vibrance

to bring out details

 

Nice picture but a little cluttered.

Cropped left right and bottom and cloned out heads at bottom for a bit more space

Used Color EFEX pro 4 filters - Tonal contrast and Pro contrast.

Applied White Neutraliser using "Wedding dresses" setting

 

Nice picture - decided I would emphasise the barges and foliage

by cropping and using a couple of filters in Color Efex pro - Tonal contrast and Low Key

Oh yes! I wonder if it changed if I switched my units to metric or when did I manage to switch it.

Anyhow, thanks a lot, very helpful!

 

Your welcome, I suspect your right, it may have changed when you switched units to metric.

You need to check the units your using - what you show above is in cm, so please keep in mind that 300 ppi (pixels per inch) is very different to 300 pixels per cm

Drawing-like version

Very nicely done - what application/filters did you use for the conversion?

Here you go - cropped then processed with color efex pro4. Applied tonal contrast, pro contrast and foliage filters

 

<p>Any "lossless" format such as TIFF provides a reasonable format for archiving, however its the storage medium that is used which will show degradation over time. As such you might want to store those on different media types (keep at least 3-copies of your data and store at least one copy in a different location). Which media you use will depend on your total storage requirement - and make a new copy of the media at least once a year.<br>

<br /> You could also generate JPEG's and store those on DVD/USB sticks to give to family.<br>

<br /> If you scanned prints, there will not be 2400dpi worth of information in the original images</p>

<p>In that case you should check the black level (labelled brightness on many monitors) and the white level (might be labelled contrast) - you might need to reduce the white level. If your not going to use a hardware calibrator there are many sites with test targets that might help - do a search - the targets at link below might help<br>

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php<br>

NB make a note of your current settings before changing them so you can always get back there</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With the image above, to me, the black seems to be too black (if that makes sense) particularly on the shoulders and pants. I have lost the creases on the shirt and pants. Also looks a little too much noise on the face. However, if I increase the noise slider then I lose some of the sharpness on the rest of the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Your image looks fine to me, what makes it are all those creases on the shirt and pants - if you cant see them perhaps the luminance level of your monitor is too hight, what do you have it set at ? The face could be brightened a little using the "brush" in LR with a touch on the exposure or shadows slider if you want. I would not worry about noise in this particular image - it helps with the subject matter, but just my opinion</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Cosmic thanks for confirming what I thought was the case. I did not want to delete files due to inexperience.<br /> Kind regards, Frank</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Frank<br>

Just in case your not sure how it works, the LR catalogue does not hold your image files, just the "editing commands" and metadata changes you make to your image files. So whatever you do, dont delete your image files unless you really want them gone because LR does not make a copy when you import them - it uses the original file</p>

<p>You can do what you describe or you can just select "new catalogue" from the file menu and create it in a new folder. LR will then use the new one by default and when your happy with it, delete the old one</p>

<p>Depends on your software but Lightroom and PS for example can deal with "light fall off" automatically by selecting the profile for the lens your using. If its not in the lens database then there are manual controls to correct lens distortion as indicated by Stephen Lewis above</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Success. Again, many thanks for the help. Nice to know a bit more about LR's brain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Glad you to read you sorted the problem. It usually only occurs if a computer is rebooted/turned off / crashes whilst LR is still running in which case it does not get the chance to delete the lock file itself. (edited typo)</p>

<p>In the folder/directory where you have the Lightroom catalogue (ie the .lrcat file) lightroom creates a file with an extension ".lrcat.lock" to indicate its using the catalogue. Sometimes this does not get deleted when LR closes down, so if if that file exists - delete or rename the file with the ".lrcat.lock" extension and LR will start OK. <strong>Note: do not touch your .lrcat file which is the catalogue.</strong></p>

<p>I use its baby brother the Minolta 5400 on windows 10 without any hassle. It runs well and is fast when not using the dust removal. You just need to use a suitable .inf file made for Vista - for me the same file worked on Win8 and now Win10. Follow instructions at link below which also <strong>contains entries for "Minolta Scan Dual III"</strong> and other scanners<br>

http://www.fixya.com/support/t872019-minolta_dimage_scan_elite_5400_vista<br>

You will also need to deal with Windows objecting to it being an unsigned driver, see link below and you can reset the option after you finished installation.<br>

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-hardware/how-to-install-a-driver-that-does-not-contain/7c3f299b-3483-4c96-8c44-87c7451af222<br>

Enjoy - these are still very useable scanners even on Win10</p>

Interesting information in those links Jay

 

Anybody know of any scripts that use an IT8 target for the calibration, since I have an IT8 target but not a Colorchecker chart. Tried a google search but found nothing.

Hello Gabriel - its not that no one wants to help (re your later post) but I suspect few people here have practical experience of the Canon Canoscan 4400F, it being being very much a low end product for film scanning.

 

Claimed resolution: 4800 x 9600 but the true or practical optical resolution of this scanner is unlikely to be more than 2400dpi, and could well be lower. I do not have one so am not able to test that statement but offer it as something you should investigate.

 

There is nothing to be gained by scanning at greater than 4800 dpi and having done so, you can then downsize the image to the extent that you see no loss of detail at lower resolutions.

Try this, got truncated above

 

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/new_digital_photo_guides.html

Re your last 2 questions

 

Levels and contrast should not affect the file size or rather the image size. (Obviously if you use layers for curves and levels and save the layered file it will be larger, but the image will be the same original size as can be seen by flattening the file)

 

Photoshop Preferences for New file are for when you create a New File ie file/new - in your instance your opening an existing file so the default will not apply. The screen resolution relates to when you use

view/print size command

Jen - the quick answer to your question is, make sure the box labeled resample image is NOT checked when you change from 72 to 300dpi in Image size

 

You only check that box to when you want to actually reduce/increase the image dimensions such as when making a small web copy of the image.

One technique to get this in post processing is to do a selection in the image, using say the elipse/circle tool, of the part of the image you do not want affected. Invert the selection CNTRL I which will select the corners, feather to taste (say 10 to 30 pixels), Apply curves as an adjustment layer, darken as required and adjust opacity to fine tune.

Have a look at the "fit image" command which will constrain the image size to a maximum hight AND width

 

file/automate/fit image