steve_vanslow

<p>I remember when my first photography teacher showed the class this thing called Photoshop back in the early '90s. This crazy teacher told us that computers and, more importantly, computer printers would some day take over photography. The days of the darkroom were numbered, he said. We all thought he was nuts.</p>

<p>Use a waterproof P/S while on the river. Get a Pelican case to keep your good gear in and keep it on the supply raft. Use the good stuff when on dry land in the mornings and evenings. As far as digital or film, bring both, use both, and bring extra batteries, film, and cards. Don't forget a tripod.<br>

Have fun, it's a great trip.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>My first exposure to the Southwest was a rafting trip down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. My trip was a "full canyon", 8-day, Friday to Friday, motorized trip. It was amazing. No driving, hours of great photographic opportunities each day, all meals prepared, and tents, sleeping bags, and dry bags were provided. <br>

For me, it was pretty cool seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time from the bottom, looking up, and then after the trip, going to the rim and looking down.<br>

Steve.</p>

 

<p>Try rotating the print in the scanner a little bit. Try different angles up to 45 degrees. Sometimes this helps with hard to scan prints.<br>

Steve.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Peter,<br>

It could be a defect in the Gatorboard. I'd call the lab and give them a chance to redo it and make it right. <br>

Instead of glass, does your lab offer lamination? Ask to see a sample, there are some nice laminates made for fine art photographs. A print mounted on gator, laminated, with a metal frame around it, can look really nice, especially for large prints.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Yeah, I think what you're seeing is called "orange peel". It's caused by a combination of the paper surface, the adhesive, and the board it's put on. The more glossy a paper the more orange peel you will see and the more matte the paper the less you will see. Some adhesives will show more orange peel than others, usually less orange peel = more expensive. Gatorboard will almost always show some but generally the smoother the board the better. Acrylic makes for a nice surface but is expensive.<br>

I can understand not wanting to use glass, but if you put these on display, someone will sneeze, spill coffee, put fingerprints, and etc. all over your nice prints.<br>

Steve</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p><em>"It would seem that 2 individuals who set up on a tripod with similar lighting & vantage, and then use similar settings would get essentially similar photographs." Thomas Powell.</em></p>

<p>My first question is - what is your definition of a "photograph"? Is it the raw data from the camera , a jpeg posted to the web, or a print, matted and framed on the wall?<br>

I've stood next to dozens of other photographers at dawn at the tunnel view in Yosemite. I'm pretty sure some had similar equipment and camera settings that I used. Are my prints going to look like the guy/gal that was standing next to me?, I doubt it.<br>

Ansel Adams' quote of "the negative is the score and the print is the performance" has some value to this discussion. I personally think that there is more to being a photographer than just clicking the shutter. Much of the "artistry" comes in the performance.<br>

In the end, I guess that's why I go stand next to other photographers and take my own picture instead of asking to buy a print from one of the other guys/gals standing there with me. My photograph will not be the same.<br>

Steve</p>

California Condor<div></div>

Show a little motion.<div></div>

<p>Friday night qualifying at Sears Point, Ca.</p><div></div>

<p>Alvin,<br>

I've never worked with frontiers/noritsus, so I can't speak to them, but I doubt many people could tell the difference at that small of a size. So, no, I don't think your statement is true. <br>

Printing small (under 16"x20") is easy, taking the same file and printing at the size Jon wants isn't. But the right person, with the right equipment, can make HUGE prints with that same file.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>I used to work at the place that does the printing for Frans Lanting in Santa Cruz. The single most asked question I used to get was "How large can I print this file???" The two types of printers we used, Epson inkjets and a Lightjet, make different prints, and they both have their pluses and minuses. One of the Lightjet's strong points is it's ability to go BIG. With good PS work and a little testing to get the sharpening right, I think you can print with the D300 as big as you want on the lightjet. I would suggest that you try some tests. Crop out a section of a file, send it to your favorite pro-lab and have them print it. Also, if you can get past the customer service people and actually talk to the techs that do the printing, ask them how to best prepare your files for their printers. <br>

I hope this helps Jon.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Here's my try at it. A little crop, a little contrast, a little desaturation and removed the dress strap.<br>

Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>Here's one from Stage 3 of the Tour of California.</p><div></div>

<p>The Tour of California (stage 2) in the rain and hail.</p><div></div>

<p>I never said put the image into Lab, I just said use Lab info. I just wanted to know the luminance value without color info. Also, the OP never said he was using raw. He just wanted a photoshop trick to help with WB. And he used the word close, not exact. </p>

<p>I would try using the white eyedropper tool in a curves adjustment layer.<br>

First open the info pallet and make sure the "Lab" readings are visible. Point the eyedropper tool over the white area of the Kodak target and note what the "L"(luminance) number is. Now open a curves adjustment layer and double click on the white eyedropper. In the box that pops up, make the "L" number the same as the number the info pallet gave you. LEAVE the a=0 and b=0 and click OK. Now click the white eyedropper on the white area of the target. This should force your whites to your "known" white of the target. I hope this helps.<br>

Steve</p>

<p>I agree with Elis.<br>

#1-correct<br>

#2- correct<br>

The only reason I have to convert to sRGb is to post pictures on the web.<br>

Steve</p>

Do you mind if I ask, what are you going to do with these scans? What will the final output be? Prints, publishing, book, web, stock....?? Also, what is the subject matter of the image on the film? Drawing, blueprint, landscape, portrait, still life, medical...?

If I know what you are going to do with the scan, I may be able to help you get the best scan.

BTW, the preview is only showing a small fraction of the image data and cannot be used for anything but cropping. And at that resolution, you are scanning the clear film between the grain and thus the histogram cannot be trusted.

 

Steve

OK Frans,

 

I'll give it another try, since a couple people expressed thanks for what I wrote.

 

I'm guessing some body somewhere told you that, to add contrast, use an s curve. That is

an acceptable way of adding contrast, yes. My point was, it is a simplified statement to say

that an s curve adds contrast. It also decreases contrast in some areas. period. As anyone

who uses Photoshop knows, there are many, many ways to do anything in Photoshop. I

was just giving another way of adding contrast, without decreasing it in the highlights or

shadows.

 

About my reading Real World, I read that back when I was using Photoshop V3, V4, V5,

V5.5 and V6. I haven't bought a Photoshop book in years. The program hasn't changed all

that much, just adding bells and whistles through the years. I do take workshops and have

worked as a Photoshop Professional for years. I'm not a name dropper, but I have had

personal access to some of the top Photoshop users in the world.

 

And Frans, it would help if you kept it positive on this board, we all have questions and

some of us might come up with new answers.

 

Try what I said about using a straight curve and a mask and if you don't like it, don't use

it.

 

Steve

Wow, Frans,

Ummm Ok.

 

I was just trying to help, but , hey, I'll just keep it to myself next time. I'll be busy reading.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

"1) Adjustment layers are great, but not always necessary, particularly when doing limited editing. I only use them

for complicated editing situations."

 

First, I always create a "Master File" that uses layers for everything I do. This file uses layers for everything from

spotting, to color correction, to tonal adjustments, to dodging and burning, and ANYTHING else I do to an image. I

can always go back and tweak any part of anything I have done, be it 5 minutes ago, yesterday, or 3 years ago. I can

tweak it to print on an inkjet, to print a lightjet, to e-mail, or to publish. During all of that my background layer

remains UNTOUCHED. If in a couple of years, a new software, a new printer technology, or I take a class or read a

new book and want to try something new on an old image, I can do so without having to re-do and re-create

everything. You can always flatten and save as another file for whatever output you want to use. Yes, this makes for

a large file, but storage is cheap, RAM is cheap. Every time you make an adjustment to the background layer, you

permanently change the file. You can never get those pixels back. If you do that often enough, your image will

degrade.

 

"2) Which area(s) of the image will increase in contrasts and which will decrease depends on the shape of the s-

curve applied."

 

An "S" curve, by definition has the shape of an "S". The top part ( the highs- 255s) and the bottom part (the

shadows- 000) get more horizontal. The middle of the curve gets more vertical. Now, as I said, the more horizontal

a curve, the more it reduces the contrast. The more vertical a curve, the more it increases the contrast.

 

"Any area of the tonality curve can be increase in contrast, not just the mid-tones."

 

True. But if you use an "S" curve, you will decrease the contrast in some area.

 

"3) Whether it is better to move the end points in depends on how far away those points are from 0 and 255 because

of potential clipping of tonal values."

 

I'll come back to this one.

 

"And if those end points haven't been moved yet to stretch the image information across the entire tonality range,

then Levels is a way better tool to do this."

 

I disagree. Curves can do everything levels can do and do it better with finer control.

 

"4) I'm at a loss about what looks to me like a description of first compromising the shadows and highlights and

then trying to save them by "painting them back with a mask". In my opinion, Levels and Curves will accomplish

whatever corrections to the tonality of the image are needed."

 

When I do my tonal corrections, I will use a curve adjustment layer. I move the bottom point ( the shadows ) and the

top point ( highlights ) in so that 90% of the image looks like I want it, ignoring the clipping going on in the shadows

and highlights. I then click on that layer mask ( the white box on the curves layer in the layers pallet) and using a

brush of varying sizes and opacities, with black as my selected color, "paint back in" the highlight and shadows. I

take care to blend it all in nicely. This way you can have your nice contrast in the midtones and still "save" the

contrast in the highs and lows. And remember to put the blending mode to luminosity or you will get saturation in

the colors as well.

 

Now, I didn't invent any of these techniques or ideas. I learned all of this from people much smarter than me and

masters of their craft. I'm not saying this how it has to be done, but it's how I was taught and it works for me and

my use of photography.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve