charles_watson

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I'm helping out putting on a show set in the 1900 - 1920s, long before the invention of flash bulbs or electronic flash. The period I have in mind has the magnesium on a metal plate which goes up in a "poof" and creates light. The photograph doesn't need to come out (it doesn't even need to take a picture, it just needs to go "poof" so that the audience believes a photo was taken).</p>

<p>This is what I'm thinking:</p>

<p>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/AHA.jpg<br /> http://www.geocities.com/mbarel.geo/panflash.jpg<br /> http://einhornpress.com/images/ARC%20FLSH%20MAGNESIUM-1.BMP</p>

<p>Does anybody know if this kind of contraption is available anywhere? My understanding is that the metal tray has a spark creator where you pull a trigger and the magnesium or magnesium+potassium nitrate goes up in flames.</p>

<p>I submit myself to the photo.net knowledge Gods!<br>

<br /> It seems like it'd be too much of a hastle to trying and build one of these to the point where it would fire the flash every time. I'm sure there are some available...somewhere out there.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Charles</p>

 

Hey everyone. I have an unorganized mess of a computer with JPEGs, NEFs, ORFs and their respective sidecar .XMP

files strewn over three hard drives, running Vista Ultimate 32-bit. I'm going to reinstall using Vista 64-bit,

and setup the HDDs in a way that makes more sense. I'm going to add another one terabyte drive to the setup.

Here's what I'm planning: many of the files have the same name: there are a couple of DSC_0001.NEF, for example.

Is it possible to back up every folder with images straight onto the 1TB drive?<br>

<br>

For example, if I have C:/Images/Other/, and both the "Images" folder and the "Other" subfolder have pictures in

them, it will create D:/Images and D:/Other, without keeping the subfolder structure? This way I won't have to

navigate through a million folders and subfolders when the backup is finished.<br>

<br>

Are there any backup programs that will save .NEFs and .XMPs together? I don't want to lose all my RAW

adjustments.<br>

<br>

Thanks

If you use a Nikon dSLR, you might just want to use "Preview Extractor" and shoot only in RAW. Works for me. Only takes a minute or two to generate an entire library of .JPGs, identical to what I see on screen of the D300.

 

http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/

@Patrick, he has a "MacPro" - not a laptop. That is Apple's line of high-quality desktops.

I use Photoshop.

 

1) Flatten Image

 

2) Convert to LAB

 

3) Sharpen the Lightness channel

 

4) Smart Sharpen on "Basic"

 

5) If for web, view 100%. If for print, view 25% [because a screen is 72dpi, a print is 300dpi, zoom out 4x]

The Dell M1530 is hit or miss. One screen by Samsung is awful, one by LG is great. If you get the Samsung screen, beg and moan with Dell's customer care to get the LG. Other than that, it's a 15.3" screen, 1680 x 1050. I can even play video games on mid-low quality [Mass Effect, which is quite new].

High dynamic range is often quite unnecessary. Often, a scene's dynamic range is contained well within the limits of the digital camera's sensor, and the only problem is that the scene doesn't appear as you remembered: for example, the shadows used to be midtones, etc. I wrote a tutorial on how to combat this. It's not going to "fix" every image, but it'll help as a technique you have in your repertoire.

 

http://onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/11/better-than-hdr-local-exposure-editing/

Interesting. It looks me like the hair, the helmet and the face were awkwardly put into the image, and that fire hydrant in the back too. Where can we find the original image? It's easy to spot the hair because of how it is joined into the image [check the bottom right], The head is not lit the same as the rest of the picture, and the angle on the fire hydrant is straight-on, but it should be top down.

Hey all. One of the things people said to me when I was picking out a GW690 was that they're "hard to load".

Couldn't disagree more! I wrote a tutorial that shows the steps, if anyone is interested.

 

http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/01/loading-the-fuji-gw690/

Hello all,

 

A friend of mine is using a 7950GT graphics card in a computer they built themselves. When they unplug the power

cord from the video card, and run it solely off the power delivered through the PCI-E x16 port, the video card

will put an image through to the monitor, but it doesn't have enough power to properly load the operating system,

or something like that - while the image will show up, he cannot get into the operating system [using Vista, I

assume becuase it is more graphically demanding?]. However, when he plugs the cable in, nothing shows up on screen.

 

Odd. I'm wondering if it's a problem with the power supply, or the video card.

 

Charles

For individual zits, blemishes or scars, I generally just use the healing brush. I wrote a tutorial on it here. However, for smoothing out skin, I see that the general techniques have been posted here too.

 

http://onlinephototutorials.com/2008/07/25/removing-acne-with-photoshop/

Sorry, Steve, what exactly do you mean they "don't work"? Do you get something that says "Program Error"? Are they blanked out? I think the vast majority of the times people have trouble with PhotoShop, it's something like trying use a filter in 16-bit mode, being in the wrong color space, etc. When does the eraser "not work" for you?

 

Generally, when something isn't working, I'll hit CTRL + D to make sure I don't have anything selected, CTRL + Enter to make sure I shut any selections I have, verify it is in 8-bit or RGB mode, things like that. Could you be more specific?

If you look at your channels, R/G/B, you can find that the red channel held a significantly higher amount of

highlight detail than the Green or Blue channels. Copying this channel to a new layer and setting the blend mode

to "Luminoisity" helped quite significantly. Well, it's five in the morning and I'm on the phone will the ol'

girlfriend, so I haven't really put any effort into creating the masks. If you want to download the .PSD yourself

and spend some time with it, I left all layers intact. For reference, this edit only took five or six minutes.

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://onlinephototutorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/eiffel-tower-bw.jpg" alt="Eiffel Tower in

B&W" />

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://onlinephototutorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/eiffel-tower-color.jpg" alt="Eiffel Tower in

Color" />

<br>

<br>

Here's the layered .PSD file for both the B&W version and the color version. Once again, I DIDN'T PUT ANY EFFORT

IN BRUSHING THE LAYER MASKS. Download the .PSD and try it yourself. I've resized the .PSD so that it's not too

hard on my bandwith, but you can drag and drop the adjusment layers into the full-sized image, and resize them to

your liking. Hope I helped!

<br>

<br>

http://onlinephototutorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/eiffel%20tower.psd

I'd say it'd be great to get a Dell monitor. My 2407WFP is stunning. I think it's more important to get a good

calibrator than a good monitor. Look at the ColorMunki, it will profile monitors and printers.

That is clearly 30 images stiched together. You can tell by the light falloff or 'vignetting' in the individual photographs. However, you can use the "Filter > Distort > Lens Correction" tool to distort the individual photos.

 

It could be easier, however, just to take twenty or thirty pictures, print them, and arrange them - like the artist did here. Looks like they were taken on a cheap Holga.

What's with all the Windows bashing? I left a computer running Vista Ultimate on all summer while I was out of the country, running my website's server. It never once skipped a beat, even while it was downloading the backups of my photography and my brother's 1080p videos. The traffic log said it downloaded 740GB over a two month time period. I have never had the stability problems other people have, but it could because I have built my own systems and understand how to use a computer. I mean, have you used Vista? I find it good, but once again, I might just be justifying the fact that I built a 2TB photography workstation and server for under $800. It's completely possible that I'm just being biased, it's hard to remain unbiased when you're defending your passions.

 

I think that truthfully, considering your workflow would probably be using Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Bridge, and Adobe Photoshop, all of which use their own file management windows / systems that are not the same as the computer's, you will get a good experience on either. If you are familiar with OSX, buy a Mac. If you have had a good experience with PCs so far, or you want to build your own, do it yourself.

Adobe has chosen not to developed CS4 in 64-bit for OSX. It will only have native 64-bit support on Windows machines. The reason "64-bit" is important is that a 32-bit register can only support 2^32 addresses, which is equal to a maximum amount of 4GB. A 64-bit computer uses 2^64 addresses, which is equivalent to billions upon billions of gigabytes of RAM. Windows Vista x64, for example, will "only" address 128GB of RAM, which is much more than you are likely to use these days, but much less than the theoretical limit.

 

So, if you use a 64-bit computer, you are likely to use 8GB of RAM or more, as you are not limited to a 4GB maximum as you are with 32-bit computers. All the RAM in your computer can also be used by Photoshop, and the 64-bit instruction set can used by Photoshop CS4. This is a contrast to 32-bit systems were each application has a limit on the amount of RAM it can address or use.

 

Pretty much, the new "performance" workstations will have an edge if running Windows x64. Even though OSX Leopard has 64-bit support, Photoshop CS4 will not work with it, and will only run as fast as a 32-bit application, and it cannot address as much RAM as the Windows equivilent. If you are running a Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM, I think I'm correct in saying Photoshop CS4 will still only be able to address 2GB, since it is a 32-bit program?

Couple of things, John. First off, the single most expensive component of a laptop is the screen. Choosing a 17" 1920 x 1200 screen is a very easy way to rapidly increase the costs of a laptop, and something Tom's Hardware probably did just to settle the prices. Secondly, the poster is in the market for a desktop, not a laptop.

 

Also, "Hackintoshes" are illegal. Much like saying you can "save" money by downloading Windows Vista over P2P. While I did in fact setup a Hackintosh, I uninstalled it because dual-booting is a very frustrating process. It's much easier to keep a single operating system running. My school's photography department has a full range of MacBook Pros, but I choose to use my own [cheaper] Dell laptop.

 

They listed a Dell laptop at $1999. For $1978 [as close as I could get to the MBP], I got this setup.

 

15.3" 1440 x 900 pixel screen

2.4GHz Core 2 Duo

Windows Vista Ultimate

320GB, 7200RPM HDD

Dual Layer CD/DVD burner

Intel Wireless a/b/g/n card

256MB nvidia 8600M GT

85 cell battery

Surround sound audio

 

So that's an extra 120GB HD space, a faster hard drive, 2GB more RAM, larger battery, $20 cheaper.

Sorry, I made a mistake in that essay of a post. I said "With 32-bit computers [pretty much 95% of computers out

there are 32-bit], you can use up to 128GB of RAM". I meant to say, "With 64-bit computers you can use 128GB of

RAM". 32-bit computers can only address 4GB of RAM.

Good points, Haleemur. One thing about Linux though - the reason DreamWorks and Disney use Linux is that they simply do not need the extra resources Vista, XP or OSX use. Things like MSN messenger, SuperFetch, Spotlight, etc. Many processes that run in the background on OSX or Windows machines are completely unnecessary for computers that aren't even hooked up to monitors, that are constantly rendering image frames in a locked air conditioned room. Photoshop CS3 and CS4 are not supported on Linux, and the GIMP, Linux's main image editor, is not nearly as powerful as Photoshop. CS2 runs, though, if you use "WINE", a Linux program that can run Windows programs natively [or semi-natively].

 

However, if you don't consider yourself comfortable with the technical workings of a computer, I'd recommend staying away from Linux. Plus, with Linux, you're pretty much forced to build your own computer.

 

Looking to the future, Apple computers are upgradeable, but they will void your warranty if you do. It's very easy to upgrade or modify a PC, especially if you build it yourself, because you will be familiar with all the parts.

 

Since OSX will not support 64-bit Photoshop CS4, it could be a good idea to buy Vista 64-bit edition, and buy a 64-bit processor. You will notice a very large speed boost when running a native 64-bit application, and even 32-bit applications get performance increases on 64-bit computers. With 32-bit computers [pretty much 95% of computers out there are 32-bit], you can use up to 128GB of RAM. However, with Vista there is a limit of 3GB [4GB with an update], and a limit of 4GB on Leopard / OSX. I've built a Photographer friend of mine a 64-bit computer with 8GB of RAM, and it was far faster than an iMac will ever be. Cost was around $1,300 USD.

 

Another tip. If you buy a Mac, beware of their "upgrade" prices. While the basic costs of a Mac are quite competitive, they realized pretty quickly that they could make a significant amount of money by charging huge premiums for upgrades. For instance, if you look at the iMac on the Apple website, upgrading to 4GB of RAM costs a whopping $200! The difference in cost between 2GB of RAM and 4GB of RAM from a very reputable company like Kingston is only $45, from $42.49 for 2GB to $89.99 for 4GB.

 

I'd very much suggest building your own computer. You can get the specifications you need, like a computer with hundreds or thousands of GB's of space, which Apple or Dell don't offer. Plus, the extra $600 or so that you save could go to a second monitor, a high quality inkjet printer like the Epson R2400, or a color calibration suite like the ColorMunki, which will profile your monitor and printer together.

In Adobe Bridge, I also just do a focal length search for "18mm" or "105mm". You can do multiple search values. I

was compiling an article on fast prime lenses, of which I have two - a 50mm f/1.4D and a Sigma 20mm f/1.8. I did

a focal length search for "20mm" + "50mm". Let's say you wanted to do a search of focal lengths between 18 and 200mm.

<br>

<img src="http://onlinephototutorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/capture-copy.jpg" alt="Searching for Focal

Lengths" />

<br>

So if you are checking all the photos with a 50mm focal length, just use "Focal Length is equal to 50mm". Is that

good enough for you? Or are you looking to sort in descending / ascending order by focal length?

At the bottom of the screen in ACR, it says "; [bit-depth]; [resolution]; [ppi]". For example, "sRGB, 16-bit, 4288 x 2848, 240 ppi". If you click this, you can select the "Open in Photoshop as Smart Objects". Why not just open as a Smart Object and save as a .TIFF, or am I missing something?

1) Open Noise Ninja

 

2) Go to the "Filter" tab.

 

3) Set "USM Amount" to 0%

 

4) Click the green graph with four bars at the bottom of the image

 

5) Click and drag, making two or three selections in an area with no patterns or detail, like the sky.

 

6) Press okay and wait.

 

7) Go to Filter > Sharpen and sharpen using either Smart Sharpen or Unsharp Mask

If you already have them in a JPEG format, they are not going to lose any more information. Rather than take a 1MB JPEG file and save it as a "lossless" 10MB .PSD, don't bother doing anything with it. That 1MB JPEG has all the information recorded already. There's nothing else you can do.

 

This is how it works: you recorded an image. The sensor saw the scene at 100% of its capacity. To save space, the point and shoot saved it at 60% quality of the original image. If you re-save the image in a lossless format, you save 100% of the JPEG's information - but 40% of that was already lost when saving as a JPEG. What ends up happening is you get the same filesize as a lossless image, but quality that is only as good as the JPEG that came out of the camera.

 

---

 

A lot of image's information is already lost. Even a lossless format can only be as good as the JPEG is now. However, to prevent losing any more information, save any edits you make as a .PSD or a JPEG with "10" quality or higher. If you want to learn how to use batch edits in Photoshop, follow my tutorial here.

 

http://onlinephototutorials.com/2008/07/30/batch-save-using-photoshop/

Don't teach Elements! Teach Photoshop. Really, Elements just doesn't cut it. Photoshop comes together in a

digital photography suite which runs circles around Photoshop Elements, which is for quick edits.

 

1) Using workflow. Adobe Bridge is excellent, too many people don't use it.

 

2) Using layers and layer masks.

 

3) Saving a layered document [.PSD]

 

4) Using levels adjustment layers.

 

5) Using camera raw

 

If you could teach them everything on "cambridge in color", you'd have taught more than the Level III photography

class at school. While there are a lot of other kids in my class who took really cool photos, everyone always

came to me for things like "how do I make this brighter".

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm