deletemenow

Two NEC FE1250+ 20" (viewable) CRTs as dual-monitors. I normally run them at 1600x1200, or bump them to 2048x1536 for photo editing. Using PS I have the image on one monitor and palettes on the other.

I'm a newbie with a meager portfolio, so I can't explain why one of

my photos has so many more "Views" noted. Has anyone ever seen an

impossibly high number of views on a photo? Any idea why that would

happen? Just a bug?

Scott, will a Mac read a drive running the NTFS file system?

I've had PSP since version 5, and I personally don't have problems with version X "since Corel took over". I think some 16 bit support is better and none, and even PSCS2 doesn't support 16 bit for all its features.

 

As for color management, I have left it off and have been very satisfied, as I was with version 9 without it.

 

I would easily recommend version 10.

I use both, and Paint Shop Pro is much easier to use and faster. So many people use Photoshop, it's hard to ignore, but if you are not doing more advanced manipulation (which Paint Shop Proc does as well), not having a large community to provide very specific advice won't be missed.

 

But if you're likely to "graduate" to using advanced features, I'd go with Photoshop, merely because it sucks to be an advanced PSP user when all the talk/books etc are always Photoshop.

Windows provides functions for filtering images when zooming in or out. Zooming in, the filtering eliminates aliasing. Zooming out it effectively softens to remove jaggies. You'll see this in Internet Explorer, and Office products like Word and Powerpoint.

 

If you compare images at 100% zoom, they should look the same, since technically the filtering should have no effect.

Are you comparing them both at 100% zoom?

People like flo43c (Florinda Carter, 359 State Route 1748 E, Mayfield KY 42066, (270)-376-5470) should also realize that the "damn Internet" is not as anonymous as it feels.

 

Maybe if they did, they'd be less likely to treat people that way and act like it's a free-for-all.

I do hope Adobe improves the interface and the speed. I run PSCS2 and Corel Paintshop Pro 10. Besides being very powerful and only $99, PSP is so much cleaner, easier, and faster than than PS.

More on many pixels... http://www.gigapxl.org/

I just got a Lumiquest Big Bounce. It seems to work but I think it's pretty heavy. If you're hand-holding, you feel like you need to move around slowly and not tip it too much, or its momentum will rip your flash off the camera.

The HP 385 and up GoGo photo printers accept their model 100 cartridge, that contains greyscale inks only, instead of dithering colored inks.

If you want to use the actual steam, a quick blast from a hair dryer on your lens should do the trick.

 

Lighting steam sounds fun (to this non-professional). I guess the issue is to avoid the steam stealing light from the tub

 

Maybe shoot with and without steam so you can blend later and get the amount you want.

Hard to see 'em but I'd go with Alder over Birch. In Washington we have a lot of Alder that look long, spindly, and weaker like that. My experience with Birch would show lower, fuller branches and a slightly thicker, more stately trunk. White Birch have a brighter, more uniform "peeling paper" bark.

 

But I'm no tree expert.

I have Michael Freeman's Mastering Black and White Digital Photography (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579907075/sr=8-1/qid=1141679021/ref=sr_1_1/002-7229083-3810430?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

 

It's well orgainzed and is very oriented to Photoshop with how-to's, screen shots, etc.

Another thread on this.. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Etl9

Have you confirmed that the problem was fixed?

My zoom ring was tighter too, and it did loosen up.

Don't unscrew it all the way. Rotate the collar until it lines up with the underlying invisible pins, then slide it back towards the mount.

No signin required here:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/technology/circuits/02pogue.html?ex=1296536400&en=cfe59032967ce10c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Steve, can I assume that that was the lower right corner? If so, the kind of aberration seem consistent with mine. Although I'd say mine is at least 50% greater in width. I don't know if the added saturation in mine is a function of the contrast or just more aberration and therefore purer reds and blues not diluted by the other frequencies.

 

Is CA virtually undetectable in the center on yours?

Steve, thanks for the feedback about your own 70-200 IS. I look forward to getting mine back from repair and having it perform to its "L" reputation and cost.

 

-Steve

Jan, the CA in your shots indeed looks minimal. Note though that typical Longitudinal CA will appear most noticeably on tangential lines, or those that "face" the center of the image. Since the subject in your shot had lines at 45 degrees from that, the CA you'd normally expect is probably about 40% more than you see. But nonetheless your CA still looks great and I'd be delighted if my 70-200 looked that way.

 

I called Canon technical support yesterday and described the issue. They concluded that it was a definite problem with the lens, so I sent it in for warranty repair.

Andrew, I've tried Photoshop CS2's CA correction in the RAW import, and it doesn't get rid of the fringe. It only modifies it - i.e. yielding green/cyan/magenta fringe on different axes while reducing the red/blue. Your "100% correct CA" makes me think I'm missing something. Is there a trick to using the feature?

 

I'm wondering if the Photoshop feature is designed to correct Longitudinal CA (colors focusing in different planes) and my problem is Lateral CA (colors focusing at different targets in the same plane). I suspect the latter because I have asymmetric fringing at the center of the image - that is, all red fringe on the upper left and all blue on the lower right.

 

-Steve

<p>I just bought a 70-200L 2.6 IS for my 20D and I've noticed what

seems to

be too much chromatic aberration in my shots. Comments from anyone

experienced

with this lens or problem would be much appreciated.<br>

<br>

What I'm seeing is red/blue fringe, even in the center of the image

(4 pixels).

In the lower right corner I'm getting 7-8 pixels of the same. The

cleanest

region is 1/3 up and 1/3 to the left of center, but even it has ~2

pixels of

fringe.<br>

<br>

With all the great reviews of this lens, I'm assuming this is not

normal. I can

see the issue in real-world shots, and my cheapo 55-200 II lens has

less fringe than the $1600 lens does.<br>

<br>

Below are some <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?

folder_id=565146">

samples</a> :<br>

<br>

70-200L 2.8 IS lower right and center, respectively (200%):</p>

<p>

<img height="404" src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4060929-

lg.jpg" width="398" border="0"> 

<img height="400" src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4060922-

lg.jpg" width="400" border="0"></p>

<p>55-200 II lower right and center, respectively (200%):</p>

<p>

<img height="430" src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4060941-

lg.jpg" width="408" border="0"> 

<img height="420" src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4060939-

lg.jpg" width="434" border="0"></p>

<p>Are you seeing this in your 70-200L 2.8 IS? Any comments are

appreciated.</p>

<p>-Steve</p>