nigel_nagarajan

You do get an Epson sample pack with the 2400, but it only includes Premium Glossy and

Archival Matte (A4). I have yet to try other Epson papers, but have ordered a Pack of Velvet

Fine Art, which is supposed to be good. There are ICC profiles for the 2400 for Ilford

Galerie and Kodak papers, but I have yet to try them as there seems to be a consensus

that Epson printers work best with Epson papers (but I'm willing to be told otherwise).

 

I suspect you can get sample packs from quite a few places, e.g. Calumet, 7 day shop,

even Jessops, probably.

I tried to post a reply a few minutes ago, but there seemed to be a problem with the photo.net server.

 

Anyway, what I wanted to say was, why would you assume that the Epson profile will be accurate for non-Epson inks? Why would it? Shouldn't you make your own profile for MIS inks, or get a canned one from MIS or have a custom profile made for you?

 

What sort of results do you get using the Epson profiles and Epson inks? If the results are fairly accurate, I would suggest that the poor results with MIS inks are indeed down to your using an inappropriate printer profile for that printer/paper/ink combination.

 

Custom-profiling services are relatively cheap, but you will need a custom profile for each printer/paper/ink combination you use.

Choose Select --> Save Selection.

 

If you have the Channels palette open, one of the tiny buttons at the bottom will do the same

thing. You can view your saved selection in the Channels palette. It is saved in what is called

an alpha channel. You can load it later and make further refinements to it.

<em>>>I've read other threads about dodging and burning on a separate layer. </em><p>

Dodging and burning on a separate layer is a good idea because it allows you to work non-destructively, i.e. without changing the background layer itself.

 

<p><em>>>Will any of these work when I am dodging or burning specific regions of highlights, midtones or shadows? </em><br />

<p>Yes, of course. There are two main non-destructive techniques for dodging and burning.

<p>The first involves adding a new layer and changing its blend mode to Soft Light (in the Layers palette, where it says Normal, you can choose from a variety of different blend modes). Now fill this new layer with 50% grey (Edit --> Fill and choose 50% grey). Then get your Brush tool (press B) and make sure you have the Foreground Color and Background Color set to their defaults (press D). Now paint with black to burn (e.g. over the highlight regions) and white to dodge (e.g. over the shadow regions). Don't worry if you go a little bit over the top, because you can lower the opacity of the new layer. Or, if you prefer, you can reduce the opacity of the brush tool to gradually build up the dodging/burning effect.

 

<p>If you want to be specific and limit your burning or dodging to the shadows, highlights or midtones, then you will want to use Layer Masks, as others have said. This is how the second method works. This method involves adding an Adjustment Layer (e.g. Curves) and changing its blending mode to either Screen (to dodge) or Multiply (to burn). You can paint with black in the Adjustment Layer's layer mask to mask the effect (i.e. the effect will only be visible in areas where the layer mask is white, although you can also use grey to partially reveal the effect).

 

<p>Here is an example of using this technique to burn the highlights. First select the highlights (Select --> Color Range and then choose highlights from the dropdown menu). Now add a feather to your selection as appropriate. With the selection active, click on the New Adjustment layer icon at the bottom of the Layers palette. Click OK without making any changes to this adjustment layer. You will see the layer mask thumbnail to the right of the adjustment layer thumbnail. White areas show where the adjustment is applied and black areas show where it is masked. Now change the adjustment layer's blending mode to Multiply. Reduce the opacity of this layer as appropriate.

<p>You use the same technique to dodge by using the Screen blending mode instead of Multiply.

<p><em>>>I know there's good stuff on the net. As I alluded to by mentioning Russell

Brown. There's also a lot of crap. If I need to know how to do something in PS, whether it's

new to me, or I simply don't remember all the steps in the process, it's a lot quicker to

open a book written by an expert, look in the index and turn to the page than it is to

google and wade through the crap to find the answer.</em>

 

<p>My sentiments exactly! It is less frustrating and time consuming to pick up a good

book than to wade through Google.

 

<p>I always get the new version of Martin Evening's book when it comes out. If you want

to get an idea of how much new material is in there compared with the previous version,

you can look at the sample pages on that book's <a href="http://

www.photoshopforphotographers.com/pscs2/sample.htm">web site</a> or use the

Amazon <em>Search Inside</em> feature. While quite a lot of material is carried over

from the previous edition, I felt that there was enough new material to make it worth

buying (e.g. the video tutorials on working in Camera Raw and with the Reduce Noise

filter). I would describe my PS knowledge as intermediate/advanced, but I find I always

learn new things from Martin Evening.

 

<p>I only have the CS2 version of Bruce Fraser's Real World Camera Raw book, so can't

comment on the differences with the previous version. I definitely learnt a lot from it, and

would certainly recommend it to someone who didn't have the previous version. Maybe

getting both this and Martin Evening's book is overkill, but that is up to you to decide.

 

<p>Hope I have been of some help. Since I have both books I'm willing to answer more

questions about what's in them.

There is a good review of the 4990 <a href="http://photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson

%204990/Page%201.htm">here</a>.

You probably want what is called a "stock agency".

 

Google "stock photography, india" and see what you find. I suspect you will find lots of hits.

People are probably reluctant to answer, because if you praise Epson too highly on these

forums you are accused of being part of a cult! But, anyway, I have both a Canon ip8500

and an Epson R2400 (and used to own a 1290), so I suppose I'm entitled to an opinion of

sorts.

 

<p>Basically, I would say that the Canon is very good, while the Epson is outstanding. Of

course, they are in different price categories, so it is an unfair comparison. And the Canon

only does A4, while the Epson is A3+.</p>

 

<p><em>>>what is the quality and accuracy of Canon's printer profiles</em>

 

<p>I think the supplied profiles for the Canon are, frankly, not very good. I have a similar

experience to Vincent Oliver (UK photographer and digital imaging expert) with regard to

the ip8500 Canon profiles. See <a href="http://photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Canon

%20ip8500/page_10.htm">here</a> for his review of the ip8500.

 

<p>But I have solved this problem by using Ilford Galerie paper and the supplied profiles

for the ip8500 from the Ilford site. With this combination, I get very good results. I know

that other people are also getting good results with Ilford papers on Canon printers.

 

<p>The R2400 is, of course, in a different league. To compare them to football (soccer)

teams, the Epson is like Brazil's World Cup winning team of 1970 (outstanding) while the

Canon is like Germany's 1990 World Cup winners (very good, but I'd rather watch Brazil).

 

<p>The Epson supplied profiles are very acurate.

There is actually a Travel Photography forum on this site (although you wouldn't know it

from the drop-down menus!). Look under All forums.

 

Anyway, to answer your question, I suspect that there will be places that will do this for

you in the bigger cities. I found one place in Lhasa that offered this service, but there were

probably more.

 

There are apparently quite a few Kodak Pro Centres in China. You could check with Kodak

in the country you are in to see if this service is available in their Chinese bureaus.

 

On the other hand, I agree that something like an Epson P-2000 is a better solution.

>>carry the raw and shot film around for 6 months

 

I definitely would NOT do this! It gets rather hot in India (you heard it here first!).

 

>>mail packages of exposed film home periodically

 

Yes, that would be my preference. Try to find companies that will do this for you before you leave. UPS, DHL and FedEx have branches in India now.

 

>>buy film there

 

6 months' worth of film is a lot! You may have to do this to some extent, but I would take as much as you can carry with you (which should NOT be in your checked luggage).

 

Film availability is difficult to predict. It depends on exactly what you want. You may find that it is difficult to get, e.g. Velvia, Provia, outside of one or two pro places in big cities. Look for previous threads in this forum for pro labs in, e.g. Delhi, Beijing. There are a few threads I remember with recommendations for India. Probably the same for China.

 

Call the best places beforehand and see if they have what you want. Ask how it is stored. If they don't have what you want, can they order it for you?

 

If not, see if you can get UPS, FedEx or DHL to ship film to you when you are out there!

What Edward said.

 

<p>Also, look <a href="http://www.adobeevangelists.com/pdfs/photoshop/11_01_2001/adv_masking144.pdf">here</a> and <a href="http://www.adobeevangelists.com/pdfs/photoshop/01_09_2002/channel_masks.pdf">here</a>.

<em>>>looking for advice on what to do after I have finished my post processing in

photoshop and then I push the print button</em>

 

<p>Read Chapter 14 (Output for Print) of Martin Evening's book, <em>Adobe Photoshop

CS2 for Photographers</em>. It describes exactly what to do after selecting Print (actually

Print with Preview) from the PS File menu. He shows how to print to an Epson 1290, but

the steps are virtually identical for printing to a 2400 (I upgraded from the 1290 to the

2400).

 

You don't need to worry about RIPs or CMYK with this printer (although you can use a RIP).

 

Selecting the appropriate paper profile is very easy.

 

Note that the 2400 is not an A2 printer (it does A3+).

 

Do a search on this forum for Epson 2400 and you will find quite a few threads on how to

set it up and start printing with it. If you are having problems, just come back here and

post a question.

<em>>>the failure to warn about non-sRGB colorspace, perhaps.</em>

 

<p>I can't answer your questions, but if anyone from Adobe is reading this thread, PLEASE FIX THIS!

For recharging from the cigarette lighter on your 4WD I think you would need something like this:

 

http://www.uniross.com/UK/info/227/050302

I recently came back from two weeks in Tibet. I took a 20D plus a battery pack (i.e. two batteries) plus two spare third-party batteries and a recharger (with mains power adaptor). Do not forget to pack this last item! Battery life is very good with this combo, but you will wear out your batteries faster if you are constantly viewing your shots on the LCD screen. You should have no problems recharging your batteries in Chinese hotel rooms.

 

For storage, I took about 12GB of CF cards (one 4GB card, three 2GB cards and several smaller ones). Slightly overkill, but I would rather take too much storage than not enough.

 

If I were going again, I would probably buy an Epson P-2000 photo viewer to download the cards and view images.

The iPod photo is not designed for use as a field device. Even if you can get it to work, you won't be able to look at your images without first processing them on a computer. You would be better off abandoning this route and looking at something like the Epson P-2000 photo viewer or the similar model by Jobo. They are expensive, but will let you download your CF cards directly, will allow you to look at histogram displays, rename files, etc. Otherwise, the next best option is to carry a laptop.

 

Several companies make rechargers for lithium-ion batteries.

<p>Here are two techniques I use regularly for non-destructive dodging and burning:</p>

 

<p><strong>1. Using Adjustment Layers</strong>

<br>Make a selection of an area you wish to dodge or burn (e.g. eyes or teeth). You can hold down the shift key to add to your selection is you want to do both eyes at once. Feather your selection appropriately (Select --> Feather) or use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Alt+D. With the selection active, click on the new Adjustment Layer icon at the bottom of the Layers palette. Choose any Adjustment Layer (e.g. Curves) and click OK without making any changes. Change the blend mode of the new Adjustment Layer to Multiply (for burning) or Screen (for dodging). Reduce the opacity of the new Adjustment Layer until the effect is subtle enough.

 

<p><strong>2. Painting with Soft Light</strong>

<br>Make a new layer and change its blend mode to Soft Light. Fill it with 50% grey (keyboard shortcut is Shift+F5 then choose 50% grey). Get your brush tool and reduce its opacity to about 30%. Now make sure your foreground and background colours are set to the Photoshop defaults (press the D key). Now paint with black to burn or white to dodge. Reduce the opacity of the new layer until the effect is subtle enough.

Sonny,

 

Actually, I feel that Mary has provided you with the most useful response to your

questions. You already have great lenses, and getting some new L glass (whether the

24-70 or the 24-105) is not going to make you a better photographer. Another thing to

bear in mind is how you will carry all of this kit. I bought the EF70-200 f/2.8L IS when it

first came out, but I have used it only a handful of times. It is just too big and heavy to

take with me on my travels, and I don't like the idea of sticking that great big white canon

(small 'c') in someone's face. I'm thinking of selling it and buying the EF200 f/2.8L prime

(funny, because I used to have that lens but sold it to buy the zoom!). Of course, I am as

much an equipment junky as the next person on this site, so I can't lecture you about not

buying new kit. Go ahead and do what you feel is right! I'm sure you will make the right

decision.

 

Thanks for your comments on my portfolio BTW. I'm going to be adding more images

soon, as I'm slowly scanning all my slides on my new Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II. The B&W

photo you asked about was taken with the EF100mm f/2.8 macro lens (my favourite lens

for portraits), which I see you also own. It was shot on Agfa Scala ISO 200 B&W

transparency film (so it was in black and white to start with). The only thing I did in

Photoshop was a very minor Levels and Curves adjustment (I prefer to do this in PS rather

than in the scanner software) to bring out the data captured by the scanner and then apply

some sharpening using the Photokit Sharpener plug-in. All in all, this probably took about

ten minutes to do. Mary is also right BTW about the value of owning PS and of learning

how to use it properly. This takes a lot of time, but is well worth it. The digital darkroom

forum on this site is a great resource for PS.

 

Now to come back to your 24-70 vs 24-105 dilemma, it seems that you are pretty much

set on the latter, as IS will be more useful to you than f/2.8 (subject movement is not an

issue for you). Another thing to bear in mind is that the f/4 lens will no doubt be smaller

and lighter than the f/2.8 one. But, as you indicated in your original post, you are going to

be happy with either of these.

 

Good luck with your decision and your photography,

 

Nigel

 

PS Giampi is absolutely correct that most lenses will perform better in their centres. My

point was that we would be comparing different images sizes, and so the comparison

wouldn't be a fair one. Otherwise, more people would be selling their LF and MF gear and

buying APS cameras.

Hi, Sonny

 

1. If you are looking to buy an L lens, like the EF24-70 f/2.8L, then I would not pay too

much attention to this issue of "quality shifts". You are getting a great lens. Period! IMHO

it would be difficult to do a straight comparison of the image from the 20D with the image

from the 1Ds MkII or the 5D because the image sizes would be different. How would you

take this into account? If you are talking about sharpness, you would need to apply

sharpening to your image in any case (although the degree of sharpening might differ) so

that criterion doesn't really help you.

 

If you want to compare the Canon L lens with a cheaper and slower Tokina zoom then that

is a different matter, but the important thing is that you are getting a great lens if you go

for the Canon.

 

2. Probably. As I said, the 24-70 is great. I expect (from what I've read) that the new

24-105 will also be great. Choose the lens that is best for you. If you want/need IS go for

the latter. If you want f/2.8 go for the former. IS is useful, but doesn't help with subject

movement. When you say you are going to take indoor shots, is it likely that subject

movement will be an issue?

 

3. The Canon EOS flash FAQ is the best place to learn about the Canon flash system.

 

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

I found the Camera Raw book to be incredibly helpful, especially the chapter with worked examples of different types of images. Even if you know Photoshop quite well, the Camera Raw plug-in is not necessarily intuitive. However, this book does a very good job of explaining why and how you should use it.

I'm not a Nikoner, but I got my 2400 last week. It was an upgrade from a 1290 not a 2200, though. However, I'm getting excellent results with it and couldn't be more pleased (unless it were cheaper!).

 

What steps are you using to print? I'm on Mac OS X Tiger and have calibrated my monitor with a Gretag MacBeth Eye-One Photo 2. In Photoshop CS 2 I choose Print with Preview and, under the Color Management options, I set Let Photoshop Determine Colors, and Relative Colorimetric for rendering intent. I choose the profile for the particular paper I have chosen then click Print. In the Epson Printer dialogue, I then make sure that I turn Color Management off.

 

It was not doing the last thing that caused my first few prints to be not quite accurate (too dark and too red). But that is now solved. If you could be a bit more specific about your set-up and the options you are setting in PS and the Epson printer dialogue, you might make it easier for people to help you.

Have you tried York Cameras in Holborn?

 

Would you consider buying on-line? If so, Warehouse Express have an excellent reputation.

>> Almost. MP 65 TSE 24, TSE 45 and TSE 90 are designed for the EOS system but lack AF capability. Anyway, these are very expensive and very specialized lenses.

 

I meant all the EOS lenses that I mentioned in my post, i.e. the two 85mm ones and the three 100mm ones (hence the word "these" in "all these EOS lenses")! The original poster asked about 85mm and 100mm lenses for portaits, not about tilt-shift lenses or whatever.

Which 85mm do you mean? I have the EF85mm f/1.8 USM. It is an excellent lens for portraits, but doesn't focus as close as the Leica you mentioned. However, I believe the post you are referring to (in the review of that lens on this site) talked about tight headshots of babies. Is that what you are trying to do? If not, this lens would be a very good choice. I haven't tried the EF85mm f/1.2L.

 

Again, which 100mm do you mean? The EF100mm f/2 USM, the EF100mm f/2.8 Macro, or the EF100 f/2.8 Macro USM? I have the middle one, and it is a truly superb portrait lens. From what I've read, the same can be said of the other two.

 

All these EOS lenses have autofocus, which I consider to be extremely useful for portraits. As for close focusing, do you really need to focus to 0.6 or 0.7 metres? That's a bit close for me for most subjects, but maybe your shooting style is different.

I second that recommendation- Deke McClelland is an excellent tutor. You can probably pick

up the CS version of his Total Training DVDs cheaper on eBay. I also like Martin Evening's

books, which also come with QuickTime tutorials on a CD - although they are not very long.

 

Another option, for video-based training, is the training library at lynda.com, which has lots

of Photoshop tutorials. The one by Chris Orwig called "Enhancing Digital Photography with

Photoshop CS" is excellent. It is 13 hours long!