robert_fisher4

<p>Shun, that sounds reasonable. I loathe the idea of having to pay Nikon's exorbitant costs to assess and repair. I so rarely use Live View that it wouldn't have happened from overuse of the LV button, that's for sure. :-)</p>

<p>Having a recent problem with my D800. When I press the LV button, in either still or video, the camera will switch into Live View then, many times, almost instantly pop back out of Live View. Sometimes it will stay in Live View with one press of the LV button, sometimes it takes several presses to get it to stay in Live View mode. Once it goes into Live View, it will stay till I press the LV button to exit. It's getting there and staying there that's the problem.<br>

I've got v1.1 of the firmware installed. Batteries are freshly charged and good. <br>

I did a search and found a similar issue from a user in 2013, but that wasn't resolved. <br>

Thoughts appreciated.<br>

Thanks.</p>

Working in a larger colour space doesn't automatically mean more colour. If all the colours in your image will fit within the sRGB space then tagging the file with a wider colour space (e.g., AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB) isn't going to magically create new colours.

 

Looking at the two shots in an application that is not colour aware like MS Photo Viewer won't tell you anything. Look at the two in PS. Take the one that's in ProPhotoRGB and proof it in sRGB then turn on the Gamut Warning. Use the eyedropper to compare various parts of the two shots to see how the RGB colour numbers are different. I just took a RAW file and in ACR turned the Vibrance and Saturation levels to the top with no other adjustments, saved the file once tagged with ProPhotoRGB and a second time tagged with sRGB. I then opened them both in PS. There is a visible difference between the two. It's not huge, but it's there. In particular there's an area of teal/turquoise in the shot that definitely shows a difference. When I proof the ProPhotoRGB shot in sRGB there is a marked colour shift and the two then look identical. A gamut warning on the proofed shot shows basically the entire image as out of gamut for the sRGB space. Took the same shot, converted it twice in ACR with no bump in Vibrance or Saturation, did the same proof and gamut check and the difference is much less. Only a small amount of the teal/turquoise is out of gamut, the rest which is mostly greens is in gamut.

 

It depends on what you're starting with and you need to use a colour aware application to see the differences.

The difference in the prints on Enhanced Matte and the other rag papers could also be paper texture. While Enhanced Matte is a matte paper, it's a smooth surfaced paper and quite firm. If the other papers are more textured or softer surfaced, the way the ink absorbs differently could explain a difference in perceived brightness or vibrance. I'm not sure I'd knock the other papers just on that reason alone.

There are a couple reasons why there's less noise in a muti-exposure, tonemapped HDR image. First, by increasing exposure in the shadow areas, you're automatically reducing noise in those areas to begin with. Then, when the images are merged, the averaging algorithms reduce noise in the entire image as well. It doesn't work with a single image, even tweaked to give different exposure results because all you're doing is brightening the shot which simply makes the noise in the shot more evident. The averaging that takes place during the HDR merge will help some, but not a lot.

 

Using just a single image and tonemapping it is going to show more noise, again, because all you're doing is brightening shadow areas and making the noise that's there more evident.

 

Could you do it with scanned film? Sure, but you'd need multiple shots at different exposure settings and you'd have to scan those. It's still not going to work quite as well as using RAW files from a digital camera because the scans you use will be cooked image files (TIFF, JPEG, etc) which means that you've already locked in certain results which reduces the amount of flexibility you have in the HDR process.

 

You can do it with a digital camera, which is what most people doing HDR do. For best results you want to shoot in RAW mode and use those RAW files in the HDR software. The alignment functions in the various HDR programs work somewhat well to not well at all. Handholding isn't ideal but if you've got a camera with a fast burst rate and can hold pretty steady, you can knock off at least 3 shots in pretty short order. There are some cameras now that allow for 5 shot bracket bursts and a couple that I think allow for even more but most are three. Personally, I like Dynamic Photo HDR for its manual alignment capability.

I'm sorry Kelly, but if you're going to drop the kind of money necessary to buy something like an Epson 9880 or a similar Canon or HP you're not going to mess around with saving a few pennies on ink and risk a fatal print head clog. That's just sheer folly.

 

Now that Canon's on its second generation of pigment inkjet printers I'd be more comfortable with their offerings than I was with the iPF5000. When buying my 3800, that was the choice I had to make and I went with the Epson because they'd been doing pigment inks longer. Visibly there was little to choose between the two in terms of print quality.

 

With the HP, try to find out what paper availability is like. Other HP printers don't typically play well with non-HP paper. Longevity numbers drop off a cliff. Wilhelm doesn't even test (or last I checked anyway) HP printers with non-HP paper anymore.

Can't do it. Inkjets don't produce white. If you're going to paint the opposite side of the substrate white, what difference does it make? Anyway, then take a look at Pictorico OHP Transparency film.

Or the PDF Presentation option?

 

If you use the Slideshow option in Bridge then you can adjust your background in the Bridge Preferences, Edit>Preferences>General. Move the User Interface Brightness and Image Backdrop sliders to Black then when you select the folder for the slideshow, the backdrop will be black.

Have a look at Pictorico White Film.

Have you tried the Compatibility Mode of Vista? My guess is that you haven't.

 

Navigate to the executable file in Explorer, right click and select Properties. There should be a tab on the box that pops up labeled Compatibility. Click the Compatibility Mode checkbox and then select an earlier version of Windoze from the dropdown menu. That's how you do it in XP, I don't know if it's the same in Vista but if not, the built in help files for Vista should indicate how to do it.

It's kind of funny when digital users want to try to replicate what they did with film.

 

The 5D produces fabulous photographs. Take advantage of it. Shoot RAW and experiment with what the camera gives you and what you can achieve with a little editing work. Chances are pretty good you'll find you can do better than Reala with a little experimentation.

40 gig is pretty small by today's standards Lauren. With 200, 300 and larger drives being pretty cheap now it's not all that expensive to ramp up your storage capacity.

 

There's nothing that says everything has to be kept on a drive inside your computer either. Good archiving practices; either with external hard drives, optical disks or a combination of the two, will help keep your internal hard drives clean and help keep your computer running better.

A scratch disk is a type of temporary file. It's what PS (and other programs) use when there isn't enough memory to hold everything that it's working on. Other programs just don't give you the option of where to set up the scratch disk. Ideally the scratch disk should be allocated to a different disk than you have PS installed on. So if you've got a C drive with PS installed on it and a D drive for files and such, make the D drive the scratch disk.

 

Under that same Performance tab mentioned by Rich, you'll see a RAM allocation as well. It will tell you how much RAM is available for PS. Set the amount of free RAM that PS can use to about 75% of what's available. It will give you an ideal range. That "ideal range" takes into account that other programs may be running concurrently as well as other considerations but you can go over that "ideal" if you want. What you see as available RAM will not be all that's installed on your machine. Some gets carved out for the operating system and is not available for other applications. Also, if you have more than 3GB installed and have the 3GB RAM switch turned on in the boot.ini menu (I expect that you don't and it only works in XP Pro, not Home. Don't know what the protocol is for Vista) you still won't see all the RAM available because XP will show a max. of 3.5GB installed but the full 4GB is still available (XP 32 can't use more than 4GB).

Oh bloody hell Andy, grow up already.

Thomas, having used both Digital Photo Professional and ACR, my opinion (for whatever that's worth) is that ACR is a much superior place to adjust and convert RAW files than DPP. DPP is OK but ACR is much better.

 

Thanks Rob. I appreciate the kind words.

Thomas, I think it's some terminology that's getting you tripped up. Let's try to clarify.

 

What are you referring to when you say "Canon RAW"? Are you talking about a RAW file from a Canon camera or are you talking about software?

 

If it's a RAW file you're referring to then it depends on what camera and what version of Adobe Camera RAW (ACR). ACR isn't one program. Like Photoshop, it's had numerous updates since it first came out a few years ago. As new versions of Photoshop are released, new versions of ACR are released with updates for new cameras. ACR doesn't get updated for all previous versions of PS though. Adobe is up to v4.3.1 for ACR which works in PS CS3. But, you can't use ACR 4.3.1 in PS CS2. It's not backward compatible. It's Adobe's little trick to try to get you to upgrade to a new version of PS. For example, I can't open RAW files from my 40D in CS2 because the last version of ACR for CS2 doesn't include compatibility with 40D files. I can; however, open RAW files from my 5D in CS2 (and CS3).

 

If you're talking about software, there is no software called Canon RAW. Canon's proprietary RAW conversion software is called Digital Photo Professional. It's a standalone program and does not work from within Photoshop.

 

If you don't want to upgrade from CS to CS3, you can download Adobe DNG Converter. It's a program that converts all RAW files to Adobe's DNG format. DNG is Adobe's RAW file format. It retains all the benefits of the original RAW file. When you open a DNG file in PS CS it will open the file with the ACR plugin. DNG files can be opened with any version of ACR. The DNG Converter is free to download and use from Adobe's website.

 

As has been pointed out, once you convert a RAW file in ACR and open it in PS (whatever version), it's no longer a RAW file. If you process the RAW file then click "Open", the file will open in PS and it will still have the .cr2 extension in the file name but it is no longer a RAW file. From that point on, you're working with an actual image file and editing becomes destructive. Please don't jump down my throat about layers and non-destructive editing people. I know that I'm just trying to simplify.

Both LR 1.3 and ACR 4.3 in CS3 will recognise 5D RAW files.

 

A couple things. One, using the camera as your de facto card reader isn't the most efficient approach. It's slower and wastes battery power. A simple $20 high speed card reader will be much more efficient.

 

Second, using Explorer (or the Mac equivalent if you're on a Mac) to simply drag and drop images from the card to the hard drive is probably the simplest way to get photos off the card. Once they're on your hard drive you can import them or find them easily in any other program.

'Show us photos, show us photos, show us photos.' The age old siren song of the person who has nothing more to add. LOL!

 

Andy, you've really got a bug up your arse about HDR. I don't know why but for some reason you do. You're almost as anti-HDR as some film users are anti-digital. And you both have something in common: You're speaking from a position of ignorance.

 

Simply doing something for any period of time does not automatically translate into knowledge or competency. You say you used it for 6 months straight but who knows when. Software is improving at a rapid pace and there may have been significant improvements in the technology since you gave it up. Based on what you said earlier it sounds like you tried to do everything in Photomatix. Photomatix is one program and there are others that may do a better job or do the job differently enough that it would work better for you. As I mentioned previously, an HDR-software only workflow is not something that (m)any people who are serious about using HDR for more than just creating comic book effects use. Hell, I know someone whose written a book on HDR who will use 3 different programs on one photo. I don't think he's used 4 yet. And yes I know you'll say why go to all that bother when you can do it all in Photoshop with layers and masking. Why? Because you can. And because since HDR is still relatively new there may not be one software app. that can do all that needs to be done. If the HDR part of PS were improved significantly then perhaps people could stick to one program if they wanted to. And lets be clear on something else, not everyone who doesn't use HDR uses PS (or their editing app. of choice) exclusively either. There are other standalone programs that get used in an editing workflow in addition to PS so this isn't a workflow that pertains to HDR only.

 

Andy, you seem to feel that I'm attacking you personally for not using HDRI. I don't know where you get that impression but it's somewhere in the far reaches of your fragile mind for certain. You captioned the photo above as "No HDR Required". Nowhere in anything I've written have I suggested that HDR is "required". I will reiterate that it's simply one tool in a very large toolbox. You, on the other hand, have told the OP that it's useless and that he shouldn't even bother trying it. Well, if we all took that stance then we'd have no progress in anything.

 

You don't like HDR. That much we're clear on. I will say again: That's fine, no problem. You don't want to use it, don't use it. But don't tell others not to use it or that it's a waste of time or that it's a bad technique simply because you don't like it or don't fully understand it. That attitude leads to a lot of bad things. Book burning, segregationism, ethic cleansing are a few that come to mind.

 

Jorge, yes, creating TIFFs out of three differently processed RAW files will give you something to work with in HDR software. It's not a true HDR approach as you know but it will let you practice and become familiar with some of the software and techniques so that you'll be ahead of the game a bit when you have multiple differently exposed RAW files to work with if you want to take it further. If you really get interested in HDRI then "The HDRI Handbook" by Christian Bloch would be a good book to get as would the ebook "HDR: An Introduction to High Dynamic Range Photography" by Jack Howard.

You're right Colin. I often forget about the DNG converter, obviously. I don't use it and don't particularly like it. Purely a personal choice.

 

Let me rephrase. To work with D300 RAW files without an intermediate step, then an upgrade to CS3 would be required. :)

LOL! Andy, where in anything I wrote did I say anything denigrating or negative about your photography? Nowhere is the right answer. Where in anything I wrote did I say that your method was wrong? Nowhere is the right answer. Where in anything I said did I suggest, intimate, hint, imply or otherwise indicate that your skills were substandard? Nowhere is the right answer. I simply said that done by someone with the proper skill you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Does that skill develop overnight? No and I never said it did. Did I intimate that your method (which I've also used and continue to use) was simple or that the skill to do it was easier to learn and develop? No I did not. And yet here you are getting your knickers in a twist and your ego all bent out of shape. Too funny. So now that we've cleared that up, put on a clean diaper and go about your business. ;)

 

Who says everything has to be done in Photomatix? It doesn't. Few skilled users of HDR do just work in one program. There are some fairly extensive options for 32 bit editing in CS3. And quite honestly you have more control with 32 bit floating point than you do in fixed 16 bit. You don't need all the extra image layers which means file sizes are smaller and easier to work with as well. Did PS have all the bells and whistles 5 years ago that it has now? No. Similarly HDRI is a relatively new technique for the mass market (it's been used in movies for many years). Tools will develop over time and probably quite quickly.

 

Look, I don't really care what methods you or anyone else uses. As I said I have used and do use both. Use whatever works for the job at hand or whatever floats your boat. To dismiss a tool or technique out of hand because one doesn't understand it or isn't as skilled at it as another technique is a mistake in my view. You don't like it, don't use it. No problem. But don't say it's not as good or a bad choice just because you don't have as extensive a knowledge set of it.

You do need software to convert your RAW files, yes. Nikon should include some sort of RAW conversion software with the camera (I shoot Canon so don't know with certainty what Nikon does and don't really care for obvious reasons ;)).

 

Photoshop uses a converter called Adobe Camera RAW. The last version of ACR for CS2 was, I believe, 3.7. ACR support for the D300 is in version 4.3 which is only available with CS3 so you'd have to upgrade.

 

There is a free RAW converter on the market called RAW Therapee that does a pretty good job and is kept up to date with new cameras on a regular basis.

 

Aside from that, Adobe Lightroom also uses ACR and the most recent version of LR 1.3.1 has support for the D300 I believe.

 

Sometimes you will get a bundled deal with the purchase of a memory card for additional software. I don't know if it's still active but at one point SanDisk and Phase I had a deal where you got a free copy of Phase I Capture I LE with the purchase of a SanDisk CF card and a discount on an upgrade to P1C1 Pro.

 

RAW conversion software isn't full editing software. Lightroom comes closest but it lacks numerous important features of a full editing package. You want to get the RAW file as "right" as possible in the RAW conversion process because when making adjustments to the RAW file, most of the changes are non-destructive since RAW isn't an actual image format. Once you cook the RAW file into a TIFF or JPEG you start destructive editing. So get it as "right" as you can before you save it as a TIFF or JPEG then do the same kind of editing you would to your film scans in PS.

Well, no Edward that's not quite right. You don't have to use PS to do the merging. And while it's not true HDR there are numerous people doing exactly as the OP is thinking of. Additionally, HDR programs are becoming increasingly sophisticated with their anti-ghosting algorithms. Not 100% effective yet but getting there. In addition, there are times when movement is effective. For example, I'm using HDR software to create impressionistic photos with 12 and more original RAW files where I've purposely moved the camera in between shots.

 

Andy, if you were shown a well made tonemapped HDR file, that didn't have the whacked out colours and exaggerated contrast you wouldn't be able to tell if it were done via HDR or through layers and masking. I guarantee it.

 

And let's get some terminology straight while we're here since what some people are referring to as HDR isn't. An HDR file is a 32 bit floating point file created with different exposures of a scene from original image files. Those files can be RAW, TIFF or JPEG. The effectiveness and aesthetic of the merge will differ depending on the type and quality of the input files. What we view as people's results in print, on a web page or wherever else are NOT HDR files. They are tonemapped HDRIs that have been converted to LDR (8 or 16 bit). After that tonemapping and conversion they are no longer HDR.

If you want to work with the idea of HDR, why not just use HDR generation software? CS2 and CS3 have the capability. There are numerous other purpose-built HDR programs like Dynamic Photo HDR, Photomatix and FDRTools.

 

Using three versions of the same RAW file with different exposure settings isn't the same as using three differently exposed RAW files but it will give a sense of what the software can do and some practice. All have trial versions available to download and evaluate.

 

If you do want to try it, use 16 bit TIFF files tagged ProPhotoRGB. This preserves as much information as possible from the RAW file and gives the software as much information as possible to work with. Dropping down to 8 bit JPEGs just loses too much.

The HDR process in PSP doesn't appear to be as robust as in PS or the various standalone programs. It doesn't let you adjust the exposure values and it doesn't really have tomemapping operators. The Clarity slider seems to be the rough equivalent to the Smoothness operator in other programs but it's not quite the same.

 

Photomatix, Dynamic Photo HDR and FDRTools are the three main, dedicated HDR software packages available. All have trial versions you can check out.

 

When you say PSP won't give you the "look" you want, what look is that? Are you trying for a photorealistic look or are you going for the whacked out, comic book illustration type of look? Any of the three programs above can do either and everything in between. Of the three, my personal preference is DPHDR first, Photomatix second and FDR third.

 

I find DPHDR to be the most robust of the group with the greatest ease of use. Photomatix is good but I find it seems to tend more toward the whacked out look for tonemapping. FDRTools isn't overly intuitive, the GUI isn't that good (it's been cobbled together from an old command line program and it looks like it) and I don't happen to like the tonemapping results.

Roger, that's for an entirely different inkset and printing approach. Doing this with the OEM Epson inks would not be recommended. It would entirely throw off any existing ICC profiles or tone curves and require significant investment of time and money (since time is money) to reprofile with little in the way of benefit. Keep in mind, the InkSupply site you linked to is trying to sell product.