randmcnatt

There's a pretty comprehensive comparison at <a href="http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm">Cameras.co.uk</a>, and another at <a href="http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/shutter-lag.html">Impulse Adventure</a>. Sony is a big winner on both pages.

Duh...wrong button.<p>Or maybe ths instead:<p>

"Create your own screensaver from JPEG images. Also plays your own MP3 sound files. Fade images, <b>tile images</b>, overlap images, and more. Display your own pictures (including JPEG images) as a screensaver while listening to your favorite sound files, including MP3. <b>Other options include tiling the pictures on your screen</b>..."

<a href="http://www.softdd.com/screens/index.htm"><br>Screensaver Creator Free Trial</a>

How about setting up 4 slideshows in 4 windows then tiling the desktop?

The 'Healing Brush' works by grabbing texture from <i>outside</i> the defined circle, which may be why you have some rather odd artifacts along the nose shadow and chin shadow. Too much reliance on the healing brush will leave tracks, too, which I see in her cheek. If you cloned those marks in, then shame on you. Try turning the opacity down to 25% or less and sneak up on the correct look. You need to take more care around the eyes, too: you've trimmed off some of her eyelashes.<p>

About the color: I suppose you want it to look like a selenium toner job, but it makes your model look, well, like a dead fish. <p>And I know you were probably trying to make her look thinner and define her cheekbones, but now she looks like she needs a shave.<p>You did a nice job with her teeth, just add back the highlight - I was taught that teeth should look shiny.

Fast. Reliable. Durable. Dependable. And that hasn't changed in - what? - 40 years? They're like <a href="http://www.speedotron.com/">Speedotrons</a> you can carry on your belt. They're not sexy or glitzy, and cost like Italian sportcars, but <i>damn</i> they work good. <p>Look up 'lumedyne + problems' vs 'sb-800 + problems'.

<grin> I have to admit that was one of the funkier links I've come across. It took a while to figure it (them) out. </grin><p><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/TeckNet-OT101-Digimate-Speed-Reader/dp/B000Q7RQTK">TeckNet OT101 Digimate III 2.5" High Speed Card Reader & Photo Bank</a><br><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ex-Pro-Picture-Drive-Photo-Storage/dp/B000RF45KY">Ex-Pro Picture 2 Drive P2S Photo Storage Image Tank 80Gb</a><p>No.

Well, I <i>was</i> going to suggest a safari jacket, as women's safari jackets are available in satin, linen and other nice fabrics, and in a wiser range of colors than men's jackets (let's see...beige, tan, khaki...). However, a quick search leads me to think that women's safari coats are designed to carry a cellphone and, if you're lucky, lipstick.<p>

Is that a <a href="http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/jump.jsp?itemID=711&itemType=PRODUCT">Crown Graphic in your pocket</a>, or are you just glad to see me? Now, let's see you slip an extra dryfit battery in <a href="http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/339/2212/216.html">this little number</a> (which has "<i>...storage for cell phones, keys, coins...</i>").

There's an anomalous hot-spot on the background, camera-left, just behind the goblet, and the "softbox" on that side is unevenly illuminated. I'd vote for either an inefficient softbox, a spot + scrim on the left, or two reflectors, the left one of which is hit by a spot from overhead.

It sounds like your clients want the impossible and expect to pay commodity prices; that's not a sustainable business model. FWIW, this is what I would consider 'moderate' retouching, what we would do for a client at no charge before charging 'plastic surgery' rates (it's not too good, but then, it's from a compressed 469-pixel jpeg).<div></div>

Photoshop allows you to create hue/saturation-based masks, which is a method I like for severe freckles and tattoos. It's works better than value and color masking because you can select a hue right across shadows and hilight areas.<p><a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/55242/2007/02/marchdigitalphoto.html">This article</a> explains the basic technique.

There appear to be no official exporters of those models yet. If you know Chinese or don't mind some entertaining Google translations, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=benro+a.068+OR+a.069+-site:ebay.com+-ebay&hl=en&lr=lang_en&sa=X&oi=lrtip&ct=restrict&cad=9">this link</a> will get you to practically every non-ebay link available at the moment.

Oops...<div></div>

The problem is not with Firefox or any other browser, it's in the style sheets, which aren't quite yet cross-browser-clean. In the case of overlapping menu items, the culprit is <i>application.css</i>. All the drop-down menu styles have hard-coded heights, which force your browser to use a certain line height no matter what the font size.<p>

For instance:

<p>

#nav {<br>

float: left;<br>

width: 641px;<br>

margin-top: 34px;<br>

<b>height: 23px; </b><br>

font-weight: bold;<br>

text-transform: uppercase;<br>

font-size: 0.9em;<br>

margin-left: -15px;<br>

&nbsp}<p>Just commenting out the marked line fixes the "dissappearing menu items" problem on Firefox 2.x (although the buttons still look funky, but they're at least readable). My guess (and it's only a guess) is that IE conveniently ignores a direct order if it might result in semi-obscured text.<p> Similarly, commenting out all the <b>height:</b> and <b>line-height:</b> styles from all the following <b>#nav li</b> blocks completely fixes those pesky overlapping menus items, at least on my machine.

<p>I don't know how it looks on IE because we only have 9-foot ceilings and can't get the requisite 10-foot pole in here, and I haven't done any in depth trials with other browsers.

It probably means "minus-zero", as opposed to regular zero. A 16-bit integer can count from -32768 to 32767, and if you overflow on either end you can get some strange values reported.<p>

Irfanview may be getting mixed up somewhere because your cameras are set to "no" extra sharpness.

<p>

Or, as Russian poet/photographer Sergey Mitrofanov said (Babelfish translation),<p>

"Sharpness Low, -32769 -- Oh, here as this to understand? <br>Why sharpness is not brought out accurately <br>Also into Normal?<br>However, at the camera it is put out by me<br> Precisely into zero! It can be, <br>Still are some, unknowns to me<br>Installations in the camera to the sharpness?" <p> I think that pretty much says it all.

The old ones were only rated to 1200w/s due to the flashtube used, although newer ones are rated up to 2000w/s, which is good, since it sucks a LOT of power: it takes a full 2k to get you up to the f11/ISO100 range, and adding filters, masks, and especially transparencies will drop it from there.

 

However, there's nothing special about the flash circuitry, so it can probably be re-plugged to be used with almost any 400-900 volt studio power pack - I know they can be modified for Speedotron, for instance.

1. Grade-school salt+flour paste mix with cocoa powder. Control the color with milk and mustard. Begins to dry fairly quickly and cracks convincingly. Real mud can be rather abrasive.

 

2. In addition to the furniture polish, glycerin makes good dewdrops: adheres well, doesn't drip off, and evaporates slowly.

Sand works good in gallon-size "Zip-Lock" type freezer bags (press out as much air as possible). Slip one or two into a small diaper bag or purse for easy handling and peace-of-mind. Those grade-school zipper pencil-pouches can be used, too.

 

For ultimate portability, your local hunting/camping store will have leak-proof collapsible water jugs you can fill with sand/dirt or water on-site.

There are a number of links which use relative addressing, sometimes

inconsistently, for instance:

<p>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://static.photo.net/v3javascript/jquery.jcarousel.js"></script><br>

<script type="text/javascript" src="/v3javascript/sample.tcl"></script><br>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://static.photo.net/v3javascript/main.js"></script><br>

 

and

<br>

background:url(/v3graphics/icon-zoom.gif) no-repeat 0 50%;

<p>

There should be no problem with that, except that my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.14)

prepends 206.83.79.132, which I assume is a new load-balancing server or

something, instead of 'photo.net' or 'static.photo.net' (since's there's no

<base> tag) or photo.net's usual 206.83.79.129. It took me a few days to

realize what was happening, and tell my various firewalls and spam blockers and

such that dot-132 is not a malicious address and can also be trusted as

photo.net is. The site looks a lot better now.<p> However, as you add new

servers the problems will continue if not grow. It may be something your script

gurus should consider.

Sheet straps, AKA sheet suspenders AKA sheet tighteners (although I always heard them called 'bed garters'). Available at <a href="http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=14808051">Bed Bath and Beyond</a>, etc.<p>

<a href="http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=14808051"><img src="http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/assets/product_images/230/7016514808051P.JPG"></a>

"...want to hazard a guess on the odds of the Eastman Kodak company packing the wrong roll..."

 

1/10 of 1/10 of 1% (0.0001) -- or less. Imagine a worker grabs a handful of the wrong boxes and loads them in the boxing machine, and 100 rolls get packaged that way -- 100 out of maybe 1 million chrome rolls on that line. Unless complaints start pouring in ("Hey, you guys gave me too much film!") it would never get to the QC manager at all.

 

Or maybe the boxes were packaged wrong at the printing plant. That happens, too. I remember shipping an unknown number of slides with the wrong logo on the mount (IIRC, Fotomat mounts went to WalMart, oops) because our printer mixed up the orders at their plant. However, since our QC point was like 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% (Hey! You get what you pay for, and we were not Kodak, you know), nobody but Customer Service paid it any attention ("Sorry, we're not sure what went wrong...we'll give you credit on this month's billing.")

 

But that's not nearly annoying as finding a foot or so of film without any emulsion right in the middle of a roll. That sort of thing can ruin your weekend.

Well, there is the issue of careful handling, like using lint-free cotton gloves vs Vaseline® Intensive Care, for instance. But then, I've seen one-hours who treat your film with professional care, and pro-labs who care more about meeting production targets than keeping your film in good condition.

<p>

With any lab, you have to get to know their work, test their service before sending anything irreplaceable, and be prepared to move on if they start showing signs of getting sloppy.

<i> What's the point, and are there any examples of prints up anywhere?</i>

<p>It reverses the sensitivity relationship of the color layers, and creates a red-dominated image. Apparently that's cooler than using color filters. <p> Searching for "red scaling" will get you lots of hits about eczema and contact dermatitis, which are, strangely, also appropriate in this forum - but you should try "redscaling" if you want examples of the film processing technique.

We mounted several 4-foot ceiling troffers to heavy-duty roller stands with conduit clamps, added electrical cords, and use 92+ cri daylight bulbs.

 

Then I built a few units from (don't laugh) angel-food cake pans, stuffed with seven electrical sockets and high-cri compact fluorescents (seven because three switches can be wired to turn on 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 or7 lamps at a time).

 

It actually works pretty good.<div></div>

Every frame. I've got decades worth of shots of my toes, the dash or headliner of the car, and the inside of the camera bag. I've always figured it is extra work to throw the junk away, so I just file it with the roll/job. Since switching to digital, we archive everything as the first step in the workflow, straight onto a DVD even before we start editing. It still comes down to lazy: it takes extra effort to cull the blanks, etc. Besides, I figure that you never know when you may need to borrow an eyebrow or ear or need a skin graft or a bit of landscaping.

 

Years ago I saw an odd picture in, I believe, Pop Photo, all swirly and multicolored: it was a piece of the film leader. Half-page, full color, I figure the guy was paid about a week's typical wages for it. Yep, I starting keeping the leaders, too.

 

Then there was that article about folks dumpster-diving behind Jay Maisel's place...

30" tables eventually kill my back, 36" counter heights are not much better. Depending on your height, a taller workspace and chair/stool can be much more comfortable. In my case, 42" is about right for working on prints, etc., EXCEPT for a paper trimmer, which works out better with the cutting surface at 30" (which calls for about a 28" workstand).