henry_s3

<p>Thanks all round for the suggestions.... Looks like I'll have to wade my way through all the pages after all...:-(</p>

<p>It seems I could photograph every page with my smartphone using Evernote, Jos, and apparently it can read text but I've heard very varying reports about the results.</p>

<p>Yes, Wouter, I was thinking along those lines but the thought of doing this to 2249 (I've just checked up on the exact number) pages is more than daunting...</p>

<p>Thanks for your quick response, Matt!</p>

<p>I have received just under 2,500 of photos of typed files and letters of varying quality, some of which have also had notes scribbled on them in pencil. I'm trying to find any references to particular people and ships e.g. SS Ettrick which may have been made. Here is a link to the file:<br>

http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c10327/757?r=0&s=2</p>

 

<p>Hello!</p>

<p>I'm trying to do some research into my family tree and have been sent a file of almost 2,500 images (jpg) of text. Is there a way of searching through the text for given words (in my case the name of a ship) as in any other text-based page (i.e. Command+F). Are there any particular programmes for this? I've googled "How to search for text in images" but it didn't really produce anything... Thanks in advance for your help!</p>

<p>As far as I know. you should not have any problems with <a href="http://hugin.sourceforge.net/download/">http://hugin.sourceforge.net/download/</a> and you<em><strong> certainly</strong></em> won't have any problems with <a href="http://www.chip.de/downloads/Hugin-2012.0_13014544.html">http://www.chip.de/downloads/Hugin-2012.0_13014544.html</a>. The only trouble is that the second option is from a German site but I'm sure you'll be able to change the language once you've downloaded it. </p>

<p>I'm forever having to send people pictures both at home and abroad and although most of the time doing this with CDs or DVDs is without any problems, it can be a bit of a hassle (distance from PO, having the right size envelopes etc). Consequently, I normally arrange with the recipients that I'll be sending them as emails. This generally entails a long session at the computer but I personally prefer this and I get almost immediate feedback if something goes wrong (rather than irate emails because CDs have got lost/not arrived after the customers have been waiting for some time). If I'm sending off 30 pics, I send each photo in a separate email and mark each email with 1/30, 2/3, 3/30 etc. If 5/30 comes back to me because the recipient's mailbox is full, I wait till I've been informed that there is now enough room and continue sending. Just take into consideration the timechange if sending to Europe!</p>

<p>Hello!<br>

I'm not certain if I'm in the right forum here but it seemed to fit the bill better than others. My apologies if this is the wrong place.<br>

For the past 6 or 7 years I've had annually to photograph 2 separate graduation celebrations of about 100 - 150 students each. I used to prepare beforehand the album where the pictures could be seen and prepare cards with the internet address and the required password and hand these out at the event. Today I wanted to prepare the albums again for next week - only to discoved that I now have to personally send an email to each person, informing him/her of the internet address and password! This is naturally impossible at an event of this size.<br>

So, my question is: Does anyone know of a free platform to which photos can uploaded but they cannot be seen by the general public as a password is required to view them?<br>

Thanking you for any suggestions you may be able to give me!<br>

Regards<br>

Henry</p>

<p>Thanks for your response, Craig. I had a vague suspicion it was something on those lines. I was just wondering if it might be better than blue/greenscreen - especially when the person in front of the screen has whispy or curly hair. I just never seem to be able to get the hair really life-like. The turorials I have seen always seem to use people with hair pulled back tauntly or with no curls and that makes it look so easy to bluescreen it........ But what about when the model is Miss Curly Locks?!</p>

<p>Hello!<br>

Does anyone know anything about the "Image Maker Special Effects Projection Box" as I can find nothing about them on the Interent. I believe it is attached to a studio light and you can put gobos into it for different designed backdrops but I'm not sure. Any information - whether positive or negative - would be much appreciated. Also the cost should they still me manufactured!<br>

Cheers<br>

Henry</p><div></div>

<p>Hi! I'm translating from German so hope the terminology is correct.<br>

Take the original photo with the colour cast and try removing the cast by using a complementary colour to you colour cast.<br>

First copy your background [Control + j]<br>

Go to Filter > Blur > Average. The layer will consist of one plain colour which is your colour cast. Now make the complentary colour by going to [Control + i]. It will now consist of again one colour.<br>

Go into the Layers Panel Menu (the menu on the lower right hand side of your screen) and the word 'normal' will most probably be visible in the Blending Mode. Click on this and change it to Colour in the drop down window. Your picture will now become visible but with a strong colour cast (perhaps blue). Go to the Opacity slider next to the Blending Mode and move it (most probably to the left) until the colours are about right - round about 30%. Your colour cast should now be gone!<br>

Hope this all makes sense! As I'm sure you will know, there are all sorts of ways to skin a cat with PS!<br>

Regards<br>

</p>

<p>No, Curt, I know nothing about the Westcott version. I believe - but am not certain - that you can still download a trial version of FX. It works just as well for green as for blue; however, I didn't buy the backcloths from FX as a packet with the software as purchasing individually from different sources was cheaper. Consequently, my backdrops may not be 100% the same colour as theirs. I find the green reflects light more readily than the blue. I can see no reason why one backdrop for a double shoot shouldn't work - I would think shooting at exactly the same time (for which the chances are pretty minimal) might cause exposure problems. The cloths that I have are exactly the same on the front and the reverse side. I pull my cloths really taunt so there are as good as no wrinkles and have no problems in that area. Sometimes I illuminate the backcloth as well (depending on the amount of space available) and should there be any creases I have overlooked, the extra lighting disguises them. This can, however, cause a hot-spot. My strobes are from Multiblitz and if possible I use their 'COMVER' attachment for backlighting and this seems to work well enough for me. Should you wish to see other examples, send me an email: henry.fotoman[at]gmail.com</p>

<p>Curt, I used to have the same worries about wrinkles and creases with my blue and green screen backdrops - until I found a very simple solution. I use a background support system (like Westcott's) and pull the sides of the backdrops tight and fix them to the vertical poles using strong vice clamps obtainable in any DIY store (they are the same as photographic clamps but a fraction of the price). The creases disappear! Now I just worry about the wrinkles in my face .....<br />Out of interest which UK software are you talking about? FX Home Photokey? If so, it's very easy to use and gives fairly good results quite quickly. I find the main problem is with hair - it seems to go greyish where it meets the background. If you're willing to invest a little more time, you can reduce this dramatically. The other point to watch is that you don't have your model standing too near to the backdrop - especially if they're light-skinned or wearing light coloured clothing. The blue or green screen can reflect back onto the model and cause problems when placing the extracted picture onto your replacement background photo.<br />I'm enclosing an example I did last week for a belly dancer's visiting card and flier before the text was inserted. You'll notice that the background shows through - even through the thin silk veil.</p><div></div>

<p>I can recommend a couple of good books from the Addison-Wesley publishers but I suspect they may only be available in German. One is by Karsten Rose and the other by Christoph Künne. If you need further info, let me know and I'll try and find out what they are called.</p>

<p>A long time ago I read about a formula to work out picture sizes and required pixels for certain sizes. It seems to work for me (maybe I'm just too dumb to understand all the other explanations!)<br>

If I have a picture of 1600 x 1200 pixels and a resolution of 300 DPI, I can calculate the picture size in cm as follows:<br>

edge length in cm = (edge length in pixels/resolution in DPI) x 2.54<br>

So my example would give 1600/300 x 2.54 = 13.54 and 1200/300 x 2.54 = 10.16<br>

So the picture would have the size 13.54 x 10.16 cm<br>

Conversely, if I require a picture 10 x 15 cm, I can calculate it as follows:<br>

edge length in pixels = (edge length in cm/2.54) x DPI<br>

This would mean a 10 x 15 cm picture requires 1181 x 1772 pixels.<br>

(I've used one inch = 2.54 cm as where I live - almost - everything is measured in cm)</p>

<p>As has just been mentioned, what info are you looking for? I just googled 'sigma 1:4 5.6 28-200' and had 866,000 hits (clearly not all relevant). I don't wish to be a kill-joy and I'm certain there are lots of people out there happy with their lens, but mine gave me almost 50% unsharp pictures and when I sent the lens in to be checked (which took about 6 weeks!) I was informed the lens was fine. I then took the lens with camera (Canon) into two photo specialist shops and both informed me that the lens was clearly not in order and asked if I had sent the lens to Sigma with my camera (Sigma hadn't asked me to do this) so that the lens could be adjusted to the camera. Upon asking Sigma why they had not requested me to do this, I was informed it was not necessary. The lens still produces out of focus pics and is now collecting dust in a cupboard! I have since bought a Canon lens and if any pictures are unsharp, it's through my own stupidity! As you may imagine, I'm not exactly a fan of Sigma and I've written this rather long-winded messagejust in case anyone else has the same problem and advising them to send in camera and lens. Hope you have more luck with yours! It's certainly compact and light....<br>

henry.fotoman</p>

 

<p>Some transportable hard drives are supplied with a Y-shaped cable where one end is attached to the hard drive and the other <em>two</em> ends are attached to USB ports on the computer. Apparently the reason for this is that one USB port doesn't supply enough electricity to make it work. My 2.5" Toshiba was supplied with such a cable and this was the explanation for the cable. Hope this helps.<br>

henry.fotoman</p>

<p>I would either suggest writing to Immense explaining what has happened and requesting them to send you this file or if you google the file, you'll find it on a rapidshare site - could be dangerous! Don't forget that when you finally get this file, the programme could later say that another file is missing.... Good luck!</p>

<p>Downloaded file, scanned it for viruses, installed it as suggested, loaded a picture which I know to have the wrong White Balance, and AphtoPhoto did not appear in the filter menu. Went out of CS3, clicked on the Auto WB file under program files\adobe\photoshop cs2\plug-ins\filters\ and it stated CS3 but again did not appear in the filter menu. Instead my system froze! Now I know why no-one has made any comments about AWB! Or am I being unfair?<br>

Henry</p>

<p>Did more or less what Charles suggested but used channels. As the background of the dog is mostly green maybe you could also use a green screen programme - I expect you'd have to touch-up the background to get rid of the yellow leaves etc. Or just cut out the dog and then green screen. Google 'green screen' or 'blue screen' and perhaps there is a demo which doesn't watermark the final pic. Alternatively, I know people who use Character Studio (I believe it's freeware - again google it) for one offs but they would never admit to it! There are also lots of vidclips on YouTube showing you how to mask, but hairy dogs - like people with fluffy hair - are pretty time-consuming. As I wrote earlier, place the dog carefully and the masking doesn't have to be too exact. Of course it depends on what size print you want to make. What do you mean when you write 'convert to B&W'? Did you make a copy of the dog pic, go into Channels and then find the pic with the most amount of contrast (most probably blue)? I'd be interested in seeing your final version! Best of luck - and Happy New Year!</p>

<p>Sorry, the pic was too big and didn't upload.</p><div></div>

<p>Just had a quick stab at it - with emphasis on 'quick. I presume this is the sort of thing you mean? The outline of the dog should be more precise but if you put it against a good place on the grass, it should not entail toooooo much work.</p>

<p>I'm no expert with Nikons but I believe the FOR error message means that there is a loose connection on the circuit board for the connection to the card slot. You could try repairing this yourself by making certain the card slot has not come away from the circuit board but it would be pretty fiddly and there is certainly no guarantee of success :-(( However, should you be successful, you might be able to get hold of the pics again. As regards the shutter no longer releasing I can imagine two causes for this. 1) there is some sort of built-in safety mechanism which won't allow the shutter to open if the card slot is not working correctly 2) How many photos have you taken with the camera? Once the shutter has been released about 50,000 - 60,000 times, you'll find there you'll have more and more problems with the shutter mechanism. Failing all else, if you can't get at the pictures at all, I would think there is no harm in trying to use e.g. PhotoRescue to attempt recovering the images. I believe it might even be possible to make a copy of the card and to try to recover the images from there. I'm sure s.o. on this site will put me right on that one if this is not the case! I wish you all success</p>

<p>I agree, the pic is not really worth spending time on! However, if it's really required, I'd cut a lot out as the feet have been partially cut off, the men's shoes appear to be dirty etc. I'm not absolutely certain which speaker you wish to get rid off (does he/she know?!) but I did a very quick job on it and it looks like this. I'm sure others could do much better!</p>

<p>I've just realised - do you mean LOUDspeaker? The problems of the English language!</p><div></div>

<p>I, too, had plenty of problems with the functioning (or should I say 'non-functioning') of my Siga 18-200 lens for my 20D. The autofocus just wouldn't work for about 50% of the pictures, regardless of the amount of light available. After a phone conversation with Sigma, I sent it in to be repaired. After about 10 weeks I got the camera back with the information that the lens was working fine and they did not have to do anything to it. When I next gave it a test run, at least half of the pics was still out of focus. I took lens and body to two different photographic specialists where they tested in on both my body and other bodies in their shops. Both said the autofocus was not working correctly and both said Sigma should have asked me to send in the body with the lens so that the lens could be set up to that particular body. When I rang up Sigma about this, they maintained that was not their policy but I could send in the lens and body again if I wanted to. I decided to buy myself a Canon lens and haven't looked back since! So I would advise ringing up first and enquiring about sending in both camera and lens.</p>