charles_watson
-
Posts
198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by charles_watson
-
-
By the way - I leave my computers on full time. I never have to restart. Both run Windows Vista Ultimate. What to look for in a computer?
- RAM - get at least 3GB. This is 2008, RAM is cheap and really speeds up Photoshop.
- Processor - get a Core 2 Duo - at least 1.8GHz.
- Hard drive space - get at least 320GB. This is 2008. 2 terabytes of space costs US$179 if you build it yourself
- Monitor - get a screen size of at least 1680 x 1050, 15" or larger.
- Video cards - Photoshop doesn't need a good video card, but make sure you get a "dedicated", not "shared" one.
That's pretty much it. I hope you make the right choice!
-
Kristian - have you thought about building your own computer? It's very simple.
Adobe Photoshop CS4 will only have 64-bit support on Windows computers. Apple computers won't support it. Not only that, but Apple charges way too much for RAM upgrades. Windows computers are easy to upgrade. I'd recommend going for a computer from a Windows based vendor, if you're not willing to build your own, and upgrading it yourself by putting in a extra RAM.
If you're looking at spending $1,600 on an iMac, why not spend $1,600 on a Dell? The 2407WFP is a very nice monitor.
That being said, if you are looking at $1,600, I would really recommend going to a website like www.newegg.com , buying all the parts yourself, and assembling them yourself. I built my dad a media server with 2,000GB of storage space [yes, 2TB], 3GB RAM, a DVD burner, a decent speed Core 2 Duo and a dedicated video card for only $640, not including the monitor. The case I used is a "Shuttle", which makes small form factor computers. The size is small enough to carry around anywhere you go, it's about the size of two boxes of A4 paper. The deals you can get on the raw components are spectacular. Much, much better than buying from a computer company.
That being said, I'm typing this on a Dell M1530 that I bought used and upgraded. Price was just over a $1000, plus about $400 extra for the parts I bought. It has 320GB space, 4GB ram, a 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo, and an 8600GT. The screen's max resolution is 1680 x 1050, which I find is great for Photoshop.
If you'd like to learn more about building your own computer, contact me at charlesviper @ gmail . com. I'll help you learn what parts to get, choosing a case, etc.
-
Mike, I recommend you don't use the "55" unit, whatever it may be. Rather, just type in what you want, hit "CTRL + enter" or "Apple + Enter", then use "CTRL + T" or "Apple + T" to resize to your liking.
-
Sorry that link should be:
http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/11/better-than-hdr-local-exposure-editing/
Also see the post we have going on here:
-
You don't always need HDR. I don't like it because lots of my photos are action shots or moments when HDR wouldn't make sense. I'd rather take three photos at different angles than three photos with exactly the same composition.
http://www,onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/11/better-than-hdr-local-exposure-editing/
-
This means you need to resize the image to 2400 x 3000 pixels. Go to Edit / File Resize and set the image to those proportions. Make sure you resize the image to 2400 x 3000, rather than cropping it to 2400 x 3000.
If you have Photoshop, you can create an "action" that resizes to 2400 x 3000 pixels then use the "Batch" command. This is more useful when you have ten or more images open that you want to save and exit.
http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/2008/07/30/batch-save-using-photoshop/
-
I think that considering an Epson Perfection 4490 could be had for about the cost of those extension tubes, it's not exactly "poor man's scanning technique". A $120 scanner would give results that are far, far better than what you have here. But, as you said, it's just using existing equipement.
-
If you send me the photographs after scanning them, I could write a tutorial on how to edit the specific photo so you can apply the technique to all the others. However, I can say that generally a mixture of layer-based Curves edits with masks and the healing brush is a good way to do it. I scanned thousands of old photographs on an Epson V700, and many more on an Epson 4490. Both are quite good. The V700 fits right into your budget at $499.99, while the 4490 is significantly less expensive at under $130.00.
This print in particular was covered in fungus and had been exposed to water. Cleaned up nicely...
Scanned on a V700, but significantly downscaled. Working with old prints / negatives, which are generally larger than 35mm, you don't need as much DPI to get a good-sized image.
-
I hope I'm not too late, Julie, but after seeing this post I wrote a tutorial for you on using Adobe Camera Raw for dust removal. The advantage is that you can edit just one image, and then apply the dust removal edit to any photo you want.
http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/15/batch-dust-removal-using-adobe-camera-raw/
-
Great point on the Polaroid Back, Stephen. Actually, even the FP-3000B I was using on a Calumet 540 had more exposure latitude than digital [the negatives, at least]. However, that did cost $0.80 per photo...
-
By the way, everyone. I put the technique basics and the original RAW image on my website. If you want to see the exposure exactly as it was out of the camera, you can download the raw image and play around yourself.
http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/11/better-than-hdr-local-exposure-editing/
I've only been editing the site for two weeks, so it is still an infant content-wise. However, I have enough web hosting to stand the barrage of photo.net users!
-
Bernie - thanks for the great response! I'm aware of white balance's effect on "overexposure", but I completely forgot about it. I find it amazing how if you look at an "underexposed" photo, and shift the white balance accordingly, it'll reveal detail that wasn't there before. It really shows that raw images capture more than what you can see in a JPEG. For example, if I took a photo at night that was a very interesting composition, but very under exposed, I often find shifting the white balance all the way to the cool or warm side and converting to black and white lets me achieve a doable exposure.
Also interesting is a process I tried once, by making a new raw conversion at color temperatures only 500 - 1000K apart, adding them all into one document, one image per layer, then reducing the opacity down to 2 or 3% for each layer. It really brings out detail, especially if you then convert to black and white. From what I remember, it was good for black and white landscapes or night shots at high ISO. Can't remember exactly, though.
-
I agree with Roger. Print film is easier to shoot with than using a dSLR. If you want that authentic feel, turn off "Image Review" and don't go into preview mode. However, the exposure latitude of color negative film is much larger than that of a digital SLR. If anything, dSLRs make exposure much more critical - fit the exposure perfectly in the histogram, but try to expose to the right, and decide when DR is too wide whether you want the highlights or shadows to be retained.
-
I never trust the "flashing highlight" blowouts you see on an LCD screen. Why? Because this only accounts for
pure white - not when the individual color channels are over exposed. If your camera supports it, use the
R/G/B/brightness histogram.
Secondly, when using a raw converter, it will pull highlight information from the least exposed channel. If your
blues and greens are overexposed, making it appear white or "flashing" on the camera, a raw converter can pull
the detail from the red channel. I don't think it's a good solution, it leads to posterization.
Thirdly, I do make my own prints, using an Epson R2400. Very good printer for a student like me, I got it
refurbished from an Epson dealer for a great price.
Last thing - Patrick, you say that the exposure could have been better - then you suggest I make two exposures.
The goal was to recreate the scene, as I saw it, from just ONE exposure. Also, the reason I mentioned "ProPhoto
RGB" and "16-bit" is that the histograms had less "jaggies" when I used 16-bit from the start. It certainly makes
a difference. ProPhoto RGB is great, too, because that is the native color space of Adobe Camera Raw and I think
it did improve the overall workflow from camera to printer by keeping the color spaces the same.
Even if you use sRGB [which I used to], you would be using ProPhoto when converting from ACR. Why not keep the
color profiles the same from start to finish?
-
Thanks, Pete. I think you understand why I made this post - it's not to flaunt a well-composed image, it's to
show a technique for image editing. Color calibration problems aside [the blue sky at the top left looks awful in
the original edit, I admit], what I did was the easiest way to get the end result.
I think what Patrick means is it'd have been better to use a graduated neutral density filter? In the Digital
Age, I'd say neutral density filters are becoming less and less important. While they still have their own uses
on film, I think the photo I showed here proves pretty well that managing the exposure can be just as effective.
After a certain time period, a single exposure edited like this won't hold any advantages over a neutral density
filter. If the dynamic range of the scene is far too wide for the sensor, then of course the GND solution is
necessary. However, considering the scene was captured within the dynamic range of the D300's sensor, I'd say
this technique is better. I didn't have to use a slower shutter speed [remember, this was hand held], I didn't
have to buy the GND filter, I didn't have to align it so that it covered only up until the tree line.
-
I'm waiting to get my D300 back from the camera repair shop. Once I discovered the advantage of ProPhoto in 16-bits, I really wanted to see how far I could take an image. Unfortunately, the only one I could think about editing was the one I showed here.
I just realized, however, that the link to the flickr image looks awful on other monitors. This computer uses a glossy laptop screen without color calibration, and the colors were much more saturated on other monitors. The "unnatural blue" you were talking about looks terrible on my brother's computer!
Still waiting to get my broken Huey Pro returned from Pantone. After calibration I got a huge magenta tint and couldn't use it.
Anyway. Here's an edit I did while looking at another computer screen, keeping in mind what it'd look like for others.
http://onlinephototutorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/swamp_photonetedit.jpg
-
The idea was not to get a realistic look. The idea was to see how far I could take the image without posterizatoin or over exposure, but thanks for the constructive criticism.
-
Brad, you know that ACR can perform local non-destructive edits? It has, for example, the retouch tool which is like a non-destructive healing brush. Also, Bridge is just as good as Lightroom for collections, keywording, etc. I needed to find some filler images for an article I was writing on fast prime lenses, so I typed into Bridge "focal length: 20mm, 50mm" to signify the usage of my 20mm and 50mm prime. About ten seconds later it had over three thousand images taken with the two lenses. I then sorted by file rating [i generally rate the best ten-twenty photos from a shoot], and found five images to use in the article. Total time? Two or three minutes. Very quick and easy.
-
Sorry, that second image link should be:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2751503707_373eda6b97_o.jpg
-
Hey all. Using a D300 and a Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, I took the following picture.
http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/original.jpg
The lighting was amazing at the scene: the sun had just dropped down below the trees to the right, and was
creating a band of light to the left. I held the camera steady at f/13, ISO100, and took the photo you see here.
I exposed it in manual mode, making sure I *just* prevented the highlights in the sky from blowing out. This
would give me the opportunity to use Photoshop to do the rest.
Using ONLY the single raw file [as seen converted with no edits above], I managed to retouch it to the following.
The edit was completely non-destructive, and I have the original 12.2MP file saved as a layered .PSD. I only used
levels, curves [and the channel mixer to increase saturation at the end]. I even converted the merged layer to a
smart object in order to sharpen.
http://www.farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2751503707_373eda6b97_o.jpg
What does everyone think? I am simply amazed by the color depth of the ProPhoto RGB color space, and with ACR's
handling of 16-bit RAW conversion. Just to make sure: is anything blown out or posterized on your screens? I
think I did a pretty good job keeping the histograms within their boundaries.
-
Don't forget, what you see through the viewfinder is influenced by the lens and the pentaprism. My lenses are perfectly clear when I hold them up to a white background, but when I look through the viewfinder it has a yellowish tint.
Take the lens off and look through it. No problems? Than you should be fine...
-
Well, I spent my last $300 on a good condition 6x7 from a friend. I'll now carry both the 6x7 and the GW690, using the 6x7 for a meter if need be. I have four rolls from the GW690 on my desk on a light box -- that is, four rolls where I guessed exposures without a meter. Out of the eight photos per roll, five of them are perfect.
I figured spending $60+ on a good spot meter would be stupid. That's a lot of money for something the 6x7 has built in, plus I get a 105mm f/2.8 and the body itself with that $300 purchase.
I'll put up a picture of my cousin that I took with the GW690. I'm quite happy with it. I hope the 6x7 is of similar value.
-
I didn't mean to offend any of the purists out there. I simply think that for quick photography, for example street scenes or photographing children, it's easiest and more assuring to use TTL metering in-camera.
The film I've shot with the GW690 so far has been done with a Lunasix 3, to satisfactory results. It lacks speed or accuracy in telephoto situations, though.
-
Doug, I'm not saying that the GW690 is too hard to use, just that it's not a great experience. Something is lost when using a rangefinder, it just doesn't feel like photography to me. It's not easy using a hand held light meter while photographing kids, for example, and for spontaneous moments or when accuracy is an issue it's often easier just to use TTL metering.
If the 67II is the only model that offers automatic metering, how does the 6x7 TTL metering work? Does it use LEDs? Does it couple with the aperture and recommend a shutter speed?
iMac vs. Dell PC! Please help
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted
By the way - I leave my computers on full time. I never have to restart. Both run Windows Vista Ultimate. What to
look for in a computer?
- RAM - get at least 3GB. This is 2008, RAM is cheap and really speeds up Photoshop.
- Processor - get a Core 2 Duo - at least 1.8GHz.
- Hard drive space - get at least 320GB. This is 2008. 2 terabytes of space costs US$179 if you build it yourself
- Monitor - get a screen size of at least 1680 x 1050, 15" or larger.
- Video cards - Photoshop doesn't need a good video card, but make sure you get a "dedicated", not "shared" one.
That's pretty much it. I hope you make the right choice!