sarah_fox

<p>I'm already well, Wouter. I had a somewhat mopey day at home, but now I'm back to home renovation stuff. ;-)</p> <p>I do like MS's representation that Win10 is an attempt to have a durable, infinitely upgradeable OS. We'll see how well it makes the transition to future computer architectures. Sad to retire Win7, though, because it has been very stable for me, and I've already paid for it.</p> <p>Bebu, I feel your pain! I tried uninstalling and reinstalling the drivers. I got rid of the lavender and eggshell color scheme with funky graphics, but now my NEC monitor is completely offline again, and my other two monitors are uncalibrated (and conspicuously different from each other).</p>

<p>Thanks so much, everyone!</p> <p>Sadly, Wouter, the unified driver you link to is exactly the same one I installed -- ver. 15.201.2401, dated Dec 1, 2015. The one you link to, Eric, is an earlier version of the unified driver, dated July 16, 2015. The December 1 version, which I assume is the latest, still offers no 10 bit support. Moreover, I have some sort of installation issue, whereby the driver doesn't keep working. Win10 seems to shut it down, and then I have what appear to be 7 bit (or less) graphics, which look really gunchy. Then when the ColorMunki monitor profiles are applied, everything turns to a lavender and eggshell color scheme (should be light gray and white). I'll give AMD a call sometime in the next few days (really busy with other stuff) to see if they can figure out what is going on. (Maybe an ISV driver is what I need -- talks of 10 bit support.) Xrite (ColorMunki) might be my next call. And heck, I have a cousin who is a big-wig programmer with Microsoft. I might contact him too.</p> <p>I have to agree with you, Wouter, that the transition to Win10 has been smoother than I expected. (I have yesterday's version of Win10, BTW. And yes, I'm running 64 bit.) My applications all seem to work, more or less, which is rather remarkable. I think there are some registry issues I'll need to track down and hopefully clean up -- maybe a dozen executables that can't be found. What I hate, though, is having to go through this painful process when I have absolutely no complaints nor feel any limitations with Windows 7 Pro. In fact I prefer 7 Pro to 10. (I've been running 10 on a laptop for a while now, so I'm already somewhat familiar with it.) I decided to work on the system yesterday while recovering from a colonoscopy, leading me to ponder which was worse -- the colonoscopy or the Windows 10 upgrade. I honestly can't decide. </p> <p>Anyway, it's back to work today on a house we're renovating. I have a hardwood floor to lay. I'm not sure how long I'm going to be living with my new lavender and eggshell color scheme!</p>

<p>It IS a nice card! I guess I can call AMD and ask them when they expect to have a Win10 driver for it. I don't really need the 10 bits for most graphic work.</p>

<p>Not on FB...</p> <p>I knew this would be a PITA when I started it. However, I don't want to be stuck with an OS without update support. It's a lonely and scary place to be.</p> <p>With a bit more poking around, I found a link on SoftPedia to an AMD FirePro and FireMV Unified Driver. Not totally trusting SoftPedia, because none of these sites are completely trustworthy, I searched the AMD website for "FirePro Unified Driver" and found this link:</p> <p>http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/workstation/multi-view?os=Windows+7+-+64</p> <p>The release notes indicate the driver will drive my card under Windows 10. However, it warns, "Note that this driver has general support for Windows 10 for listed Workstations products. The driver is not recommended for full advanced workstation features (see more information in section <em>Workstation Features (Win10). We recommend NOT to upgrade to Win10 if you are using advanced workstation features.</em>)"</p> <p>So the driver at least brings up my monitors. ColorMunki calibrations are hosed for now. It looks like I have to give up 10 bit color depth, which is not supported. Damn. It was hard to find an affordable monitor/card combo that would support 10 bit. But at least that gives me minimal functionality.</p> <p>Any suggestions for a replacement graphic card to drive the NEC MultiSync PA241W in 10 bits per color channel (a.k.a. 30 bit)?</p> <p>Thanks!<br> Sarah</p>

<p>Hi all,<br> I'm totally frustrated and could use some friendly help. I took the plunge and reluctantly "upgraded" from Windows 7 to Windows 10. The compatibility search utility detected no compatibility issues beforehand.</p> <p>The driver for my ATI card no longer works. I tried reinstalling, but there seems to be a compatibility issue with Windows 10. I see Win 10 is not cited as a supported OS. When I search the Radeon/ATI site for available drivers, it says there are none. I also tried running the auto-detect driver installer available from Radeon. It correctly identifies the card and OS, but it says there is no driver.</p> <p>A search for Windows 10 drivers for this card brings up a lot of hits, but they all seem to have web-of-trust profiles suggesting malware and such.</p> <p>Any thoughts? Do I have to buy a new graphic card to take advantage of this "free upgrade" I didn't want?</p> <p>Thanks for any leads or insights!<br> Sarah</p>

<blockquote> <p>So how do we go from being a young girl with intact, healthy instincts superior to those of her parents (the child just knowing not to sit on a lion) to being a parent who, with instinct lost to them, would put their kid on a bison, or walk up to a brown bear to take a picture? How is it that instinct is lost?</p> </blockquote> <p>"Hollywood" teaches us to regard these animals as lovable teddy bears, ironically with shows like Daktari (which I loved as a child). As children, we instinctively fear everything we don't understand -- people besides Mommy and Daddy, new foods, house cats, bugs, etc. And then our parents (and Hollywood) teach us what we can trust. This doesn't change after we grow up. People still fear the mysterious and unknown.</p>

<p>Gah! Always check your work! (It would make no sense for Fi to be greater than 2x F! In my haste, I neglected to divide by 1.5.)</p> <p>So substituting and solving, you get a focal distance of 58.3mm, meaning you need 23.3mm of extension. You can probably get that from a 20mm extension tube and 3.3mm of extension from the focusing mechanism. And thus Jochen's intuitions are pretty darned good!</p> <p>BTW, the correct focal distance setting on the lens with a 20mm extension tube would be 0.4 m. </p> <p>G'nite!</p>

<p>Edward is correct, but I believe you need a number.</p> <p>Focal distances are calculated thusly: 1/Fo + 1/Fi = 1/F, where Fo is the focal distance to the object (your slide), Fi is the focal distance of the image, and F is the focal length of the lens. So 1/35 = 1/Fo + 1/Fi. We also know that Fo/Fi = 1.5 (the crop factor). Substituting and solving, I get Fi = 87.5mm. If your lens focuses to infinity at Fi=35, then with your lens focused to the infinity mark, you will need 87.5 - 35 = 52.5mm of extension tube. And then the lens extends via the focusing mechanism, so some of that 52.5mm can be from the focusing mechanism itself. If the lens focuses as close as maybe 0.3 m (300mm) then it can extend to 1/(1/35-1/300) = 39.6mm, meaning the barrel extends 4.6mm. So if you put a 50mm extension tube on the lens, you should get a 1.5:1 magnification ratio somewhere in the middle of the focusing range of the lens.</p>

<p>WOW! And WOW!!</p> <p>This has the same feeling to me as watching "Forbidden Planet" as a kid. I savored every image and read the annoyingly repetitive narrative, wondering, "Will they be able to enter one of the shuttles?" Tantalizing!</p> <p>I have to smile at the culture of the Russian space program. The Russians are often brutally practical. One photo is particularly interesting -- the first shot of the cockpit. The pilot and copilot seats would appear to be wooden.</p> <p>God, I would love to see that hanger in person! Matt, maybe we can shoot the facility together!</p> <p>WOW!</p>

<p>Your story reminds me of what it took to get this candid portrait:<br> http://graphic-fusion.com/phcherokee01.htm</p> <p>I'm not saying this is the greatest photo of all time, but I really wanted to capture this man's beautiful (but fleeting) laugh. I think I took so many shots he was starting to get nervous. And then I managed to capture what I was after. I later showed him the one good frame and explained why I had to take so many shots to get it. Sweet guy! I'm glad he was so patient with me.</p>

<p>(You're welcome.)</p>

<p>The dimensions are standardized per ISO 518:2006. See here:</p> <p>http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Hot_shoe</p> <p> </p>

<p>My 5D measures around 2mm, give or take 0.1 mm (hard to measure). The thickness of the metal measures about 1mm, give or take. My guess is that this is the standard -- 1mm metal and 2mm gap. I don't have a more modern camera (except for my 40D), but I would be utterly gobsmacked if they were any different.</p> <p>Where does this 2.4mm cover come from? I suspect it fits nothing -- defective.</p>

<p>The dimensions of these shoes are very standard. The basic design goes WAY back. Just in my collection, here are some early cameras with shoes of this design: Zorki 1 (ca. 1950, clone of an earlier Leica), Leica IIIf (1950's), Universal Mercury II (ca 1945), Kodak Monitor Six-20 (1946), and even the very cool Perfex 44 (1939) which surprisingly featured a HOT shoe! The only real difference between hot shoes is the layout of the terminals. But they're all the same physically, as far as I'm aware.</p>

<p>There are a lot of people with more camera than sense at Yellowstone. I remember someone with a Canon 100-400, zoomed all the way out, stalking a bison. He got as close as maybe 20 ft to get his photo. Maybe he was getting a close-up of its eye? Another person with a huge 500'ish lens (Nikon photographer) was maybe 30 ft from a bear. I think the point was (1) to show off expensive gear and/or feel good about owning it, and (2) to document one's own bravery/stupidity, staring danger in the face and laughing, so to speak. Or maybe the big lenses doubled as clubs, to be used for beating off the angry beasts.</p>

<p>Well, living around boats, I see very little difference in sheen between diesel and gasoline. The gasoline might be more dynamic, producing different colors as air currents carry off some of the fumes. You could also mix gasoline and diesel for something in between.</p> <p>The reason a point source was recommended is that the ray paths/angles will be more consistent, such that the constructive/destructive interference will occur at more specific wavelengths, hence better color. This would be true especially if the oil film is a bit thicker and ray paths longer. However, there is no reason the light cannot be more diffused if it's better for other aspects of your photo. A very thin film will be even more important, and color might suffer somewhat. But it should still work. You can always increase saturation in post!</p>

<p>You wanted a "scientific" response, to wit:</p> <blockquote> <p>what are your thoughts on the most <strong>scientific</strong> way to go about achieving this and arriving a a true color as it is affected by the sun and overcast?</p> </blockquote> <p>So you got my response, as a scientist with a Ph.D. whose area of study is (or at least was) sensory physiology, but you didn't like it and dismissed it thusly:</p> <blockquote> <p>Wow. There's some bitter folks up in this website. Try the decaf and get out of your house a little more.</p> </blockquote> <p>On this forum, you should endeavor to be a bit less <strong>RUDE</strong>, especially when someone is trying to answer the question you asked.</p>

<p>Oops! Editing error:</p> <blockquote> <p>the imposition of absorption spectra in a camera sensor, the spectral output of your monitor's channels, and/or the absorption spectra of the dyes or pigments from your printer impose additional variables that would make it <strong>IM</strong>possible to characterize the printed or displayed output as anything "true."</p> </blockquote>

<p>You ask a very difficult answer, and unfortunately there aren't very good answers anyone can hand you.</p> <p>Short answer: There is no true color.</p> <p>Longer answer:</p> <p>First you need to study a few things about color. I suggest you read about metamerism to understand more about how color depends not only on the reflective/absorptive properties of the target and the spectrum of the light hitting it (which you seem to understand), but also of the absorption spectra of the detectors (e.g. the photopigments in the cones in your retina) and the response properties of those detectors.</p> <p>Once you understand these things, you will probably realize that the imposition of absorption spectra in a camera sensor, the spectral output of your monitor's channels, and/or the absorption spectra of the dyes or pigments from your printer impose additional variables that would make it possible to characterize the printed or displayed output as anything "true." You can only create metameric equivalents to your stimuli that will fail under certain circumstances. (Google "metameric failure.")</p> <p>Piled on top of all of that is your own visual system's adaptation to the spectra of different light sources. Incandescent light doesn't look orange to us, nor does fluorescent light look sickly green (unless compared side-by-side).</p> <p>Still another factor is that of your definition of "sunny" and "overcast." There are degrees of "sunny," with different spectral properties. And there are especially different degrees and properties of "overcast."</p> <p>In my opinion, the only way to compare is to forget the camera and the monitor and printer. Use your eyes. You need a side-by-side comparison under the two different real-world lighting conditions. Unfortunately you must simulate "overcast" (however you define it) by filtering/modifying the "sunny" light.</p> <p>That said, I will offer another short answer: Sunlight is spectrally complex (or "rich"), and so is filtered sunlight. I suspect your PMS 490 will look the same to your adapted eyes under either lighting condition. Metameric failure would seem unlikely, given those two light sources. If you were comparing sunlight with some variety of fluorescent, for instance, then your PMS 490 could take on considerably different appearances, depending on what it is.</p> <p>But again, truly, don't even think of involving a camera, monitor, or printer in all of this!</p>

<p>Mark is correct. I would suggest using a volatile substance for your oil layer, such as gasoline. If you apply it too thickly, it will thin out as it evaporates. You'll be guaranteed a colorful sheen at some stage of the process. I would suggest dipping the tip of a paper towel in the gasoline, and then lightly dabbing the water.</p>

<p>Please see the following article for tips on cleaning. Some of the useful info is from me, but most of it is from Art Entlich, who will send you an Epson cleaning manual via email at your request.</p> <p>http://graphic-fusion.com/sp4000.htm</p> <p>It is my understanding that using a syringe on the head can blow out internal membranes, so the head might now be damaged.</p> <p>In my experience, even rather stubborn clogs can be dissolved with the correct cleaning fluid, which would have a combination of ammonia and isopropanol -- literally Windex + rubbing alcohol, in the correct proportions.</p> <p>As far as I'm aware, a power cleaning cycle should recharge the head. Whether you might have damaged the head by syringing it might be a good question for Art.</p>

<p>Try putting your camera on a tripod and using liveview at 10x magnification to focus manually on a stationary object. If you can take a sharp photo that way, then your problem might be that the AF mechanism is out of whack. </p>

<p>Can the monitor produce a blue image? Maybe your blue channel is out.</p>

<p>I signed, for whatever good it does. (Be advised that you will be added to their email list and will receive a welcome email immediately. I had to unsubscribe -- hope it works.) There was a blank for giving a reason for signing, and I stated that if the restrictions go into effect, I will be forced to write the entirety of Europe off of my list of travel destinations -- since photography is a large part of what I enjoy.</p> <p>A good motivation for the EU NOT to do this is an economic consequence, such as loss of tourism. I would think the restrictions would be difficult for the film industry too, so it would not surprise me if there are fewer movies set in Europe.</p> <p>IMO, Europeans could turn this whole thing on its ear by creating their own copyrighted "public artwork" to be permanently installed on their buildings (e.g. homes, places of work, etc.), not giving permission to photograph, and then suing when that artwork is photographed anyway. Imagine a land full of legal landmines for all commercial photography, including by the movie industry! That would have quite a commercial impact! Or maybe all movies set in Europe would have to be CGI!</p> <p>Or there's the civil disobedience approach, whereby everyone takes it upon him/herself to photograph European landmarks and portray them in some disrespectful manner (e.g. a giant dog humping the Eiffel Tower). It's easy to enforce restrictions like these against a few people, but it's impossible to enforce it against millions (as Chris has already indicated).</p> <p>There's stuff that can be done, but I agree with Charles that signing a petition urging them not to pass this restriction isn't going to do much. Some big threat needs to be invented, organized, and stated prior to the vote.</p>

<p>I like Adriano's treatment very much, but I tried to do something a little different (for the sake of being different). My goal was to apply a somewhat hard contrast to accentuate differences in skin tones, making this a study of race relations and socioeconomic differences (from which the viewer may draw his or her own conclusions). To me the most interesting elements of the photo are the sitting woman's gaze, her right hand (which I've planted at vertical and horizantal thirds), the gaze of the woman at camera right, and the synchronized gate and arm positions (and even similar jewelry!) of the two women at camera right. I went for a harsh look and applied sharpening rather liberally (much more than I would usually do it). I then selectively sharpened the sitting woman's eyes. I wanted this to be a somewhat uncomfortable image, harsh on the eye. My treatment was pretty ordinary: B&W conversion using adjustment layer in PS, accentuating greens and slightly suppressing reds (darkens the black woman's skin tone more than the white women's skin tone), application of a sigmoidal contrast curve that somewhat blanches out the highlights, and application of another darkening curve, masked so as to "burn" elements other than the main characters.</p><div></div>