rnd

<div></div>

<p>The F1 Grand Prix returned to Montreal this past weekend after a one year absence - one of my favorite events of the year and great for photography. Here is a slow shutter speed shot of the eventual race winner, Lewis Hamilton.</p><div></div>

<p>Here are a few more doctored classics (along with some more recent ones):<br>

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1924226_1949526,00.html<br>

The tools have changed but the concepts have been around for a while!</p>

 

<p>The initial image that you see in Lightroom is the low quality JPEG thumbnail that is embedded in the RAW file. This JPEG has been processed by the camera based on the camera presets. When lightroom then replaces this with a higher quality image for you to work with, it generates it using the actual RAW data and applies whatever presets you have specified in lightroom.<br>

The default lightroom settings may not be what you want - they are typically more neutral (in my experience) which has the advantage of being easier to manipulate but also requires manipulation. If you want something closer to your JPEGs right out of lightroom, the latest version allows you to apply profiles that match your specific camera settings - in the camera calibration tab of the develop module (not all cameras are supported, though). Alternately, you can download/create your own presets and apply them to all images directly on import.</p>

<p>CS2 is the first version of Photoshop that supports the D200. Your options are:<br>

1) Upgrade to CS2 or later.<br>

2) Use Adobe DNG converter (free) to convert to DNG and open in CS<br>

3) Use another program like NX2 or Adobe Lightroom or other RAW converter<br>

Lightroom is a nice option as it will do all of your raw processing and catalog your work. I now do all of my file management, printing, and most of my processing in lightroom. I only port to PS for key images.</p>

 

<p>Could be that your EOS utility thinks they have already transferred and won't do it again but your computer is not recognizing this.<br>

Did you try manually moving the files over without using the EOS utility? In other words, using a card reader, use windows explorer to select the files from the card and copy them to the hard drive. I've had issues before transferring directly from the camera (sounds like this is what you are doing but hard to be sure). <br>

If you have to use the camera, with my Nikon, I also had to select the USB option in the camera for proper transfer (PTP or Mass Storage depending on the operating system). No idea if you have the same options on your Canon but might be worth a look.</p>

<p>Debated between the Dell 2408 and the HP LP2475, both of which get very good reviews. The Dell went on sale last month ($200 CDN off) and I picked one up. Am very pleased with it and had no issues calibrating with an Eye-one Display 2. Definitely requires calibration, though (as would any monitor). Here is a good review site for both:<br>

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm</p>

 

<p>I like this technique (stepwise toning):<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/sepia/index</p>

<p>Contact the labs that you intend to print at. They should have profiles for the papers that they use along with their specific printer. Once you have the profile installed (as you did), you should be able to assign this profile to your photos. How you do this is dependent on the software that you are using. <br>

In Lightroom, for example, you would select the photos that you want printed and export them. In the export dialogue box, along with sizing options, you can assign the profile for the specific printer/paper combination that your lab will be using. Photoshop is similar. What software are you using?<br>

The icc profile ensures that the print reflects colors accurately. If your monitor is calibrated, this means that the print colors will match what you see on your monitor. If your monitor is not calibrated, YMMV. <br>

Be sure to specify "no color correction" to your lab or they may try to auto correct the colors for you. Try out some test prints first if you can.</p>

<p>Here's a really useful tip I came across that gets around one of Lr's stranger limitations. It allows you to create a template with <strong>BOTH</strong> multiple images <strong>AND</strong> multiple sizes on the same sheet. A bit convoluted to create the template, but, once it is done, it is easy to work with and modify.<br>

http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/2009/video-multi-photo-picture-packages/<br>

Here's a screen grab of an 8-1/2x10 sheet with 6 different photos in 3 different sizes. Still don't understand why this isn't an option right out of the box...</p><div></div>

<p>Consider taking a course at a local community college. A good way to learn photoshop and it opens up their educational pricing. Significantly cheaper, fuly functional, and upgradeable.</p>

<p>Image...</p><div></div>

<p>Quickly in photoshop with a curve layer to set black and white points, slightly drop the reds and lighten. De-noise and USM.</p>

<p>Photoshop would be much easier - curves layer, set black point on black stripe and white point on the whitest fin gets you most of the way there. Hard to do in lightroom but here is my attempt. First I warmed it up using white balance then boosted exposure until the histogram was shifted to the right edge. Then boosted black until histogram was a bit past the left edge. Boost contrast, clarity and vibrance then sharpen and noise reduction. Still not enough red, though...</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Lex. Makes sense and the shot was at 300mm. How does bright light figure into the equation, though? I just tried to replicate the scenario (except that there is no bright light to be had right now) and could only get to f/32...</p>

<p>John, I have never felt limited by the colors on the D200. I shoot manly in RAW and post process in Lightroom. I would describe the images as neutral and very easy to work with. Easy to push into the "beyond real" realm if that was your goal! I think the complaints may be coming from people who shoot JPEG and want the images to pop like Velvia straight out of the camera. You can certainly adjust the camera to suit but the default settings are definately geared towards a very neutral image, possibly to a fault. Does make it easier to post process, though.</p>

<p>Not to say that there are no improvements with the latest generation, but I would be more tempted by the improved autofocus (sometimes challenging on the D200) and the high ISO performance - anything above ISO 400 is quite poor on the D200 (for my tastes). For scenics and low light city scapes on a tripod, I would not consider these to be limiting factors. Auto racing is tougher. I was roughly limited to 1/500, f/5.6, ISO 100 in sunny/lightly overcast conditions. I shot mainly at 1/250 to keep the tires somewhat blurred but you'd have to start boosting your ISO under heavily overcast conditions or if you wanted to fully freeze a fast moving race car. Indoor sports and hand held street photography in low light benefit even more from high ISO performance. </p>

<p>If money were no object, I'd say get a D300, especially if you frequently use fatser than ISO 400 film in your F4. I am a very happy D200 owner, and have no intention of upgrading at this time. YMMV and you'll have to judge for yourself, though. Here is a good review with lots of sample photographs at low and high ISO. The D300 review on the same site has some good side by side comparisons with the D200 at different ISOs.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/</p>

 

<p>Huh. You're right and that is odd. I just copied the info out of the exif data without giving it much thought but the limit should be f/32 for that lens. I checked again and that whole series of shots is showing the same thing: 1/13 sec, f/40. I checked the RAW file in both Lightroom and Capture NX and it was the same. I also did a second similar series but with a Polarizer and the EXIF for those shows 1/10 sec at f/25. Conditions were similar and, as you would expect, there is roughly 2 stops difference. I do remember trying to get as slow a shutter speed as I could so I'm fairly confident in the 1/13th shutter speed but I am at a loss to explain the f/40 aperture in the EXIF data.</p>

<p>As for the picture itself, I have to admit to a bit of luck :-). Out of ~50+ shots I have a few where there is enough sharpness to make out what is going on but this was the only one that had such clear definition. The fact that it was the helmet was an added bonus. This is at the apex of a hairpin so the car was at it's slowest and it is literally pivoting around the driver. Slight crop in post and global saturation/contrast boost to heighten the relative sharpness of the helmet but that's pretty much it.</p>

<p>Another. Motion blur at slow shutter speed.</p><div></div>

<p>Try that again...</p><div></div>

<p>A couple of D200 shots from last year's Montreal F1 GP. Shot from the stands with a 70-300VR. I found the AF tracked well but I also tried some pre-focused shots. I was happy with the color and sharpness. A dedicated 300 would have been nice...</p>

<p>Here's a link to a video on batch cropping...<br>

http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/2009/video-batch-cropping-and-more/</p>

<p>Be careful with the upgrade path. The student edition of PS is either Extended or part of the Creative Suite. Both of these will cost more down the road when you want to upgrade (CS5, CS6, etc.). Its a great option if you want the extra features but, if you only want the basic photoshop, you might want to look around to see if you can find a discounted copy of CS3 (watch out for fakes). I saw the full version of CS3 on sale at a local Staples store (Canada) for $199 which is the current upgrade price for basic photoshop. The student version is still a good deal but know what you are getting into.</p>

<p>My attempt using stepwise sepia toning (http://www.photo.net/photo/sepia/index). Convert to BW using Lightroom or ACR then apply the Tritone process (modified to suit your tastes). Finished with some sharpening.</p><div></div>

<p>Was wondering about automation as well but I don't know the answer. Hopefully someone else can chime in. <br /> You might not need to go to these lengths, though. As Roger suggests, you may be able to get close enough with a gradient. Can you post a sample image?</p>

<p>You're reference photo idea would help create the mask. Open up both the image to be adjusted and the white wall image.</p>

<p>In the white wall image, go into the channels tab. Select one of the individual channels (not the combined RGB) - they should all be roughly the same. Drag this channel into the image to be adjusted. It will be called Alpha1 and be highlighted in blue. Go to select>load selection and you should see the marching ants of your selection. Go to Select>Inverse selection. Click on the RGB channel so that you can see your image, then switch to the layers tab. Create a levels adjustment layer (or curves). The selection will automatically be loaded as a mask. Make your levels adjustment and only the dark area will be changed. If you forgot to invert the selection, the light areas will be affected instead. All of this assumes that there is still detail in the darkened areas and it is not completely black.<br /> With your white wall image, make sure the wall is really white. The further away from true white it is, the less effective the mask and more of the adjustment layer will affect the correct portion of the image.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Hi Nick,</p>

<p>Here's a link to a Bruce Fraser article that explains it a lot better than I can:<br /> http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-realizing-good-intentions-with-rendering-intents</p>

<p>The paragraph that makes me think it is what you are seeing:<br /> "Absolute colorimetric rendering tries to reproduce the source white exactly in the target space. If your target space represents a print and there's a visible paper-white border, an absolute colorimetric print will usually look strange: The white areas in the image will almost always have some color added, but our eye adapts to the paper-white surround, so the image appears to have a color cast."</p>

<p>Rob</p>