sarah_fox

<blockquote> <p>Try this: Duplicate the entire image and flatten. See banding?</p> </blockquote> <p>Ah ha! No! It goes away! [light bulb moment]</p> <p>It also goes away if I save the ACR-opened 16-bit image with comb-patterned histogram in 16 bit TIFF format, close, and then reopen. The combed histogram remains if I save to a 16 bit PSD file and then reopen. I assume this means the adjustment layers give you a low resolution (8 bit) preview until you actually "apply" them in some way, which would make sense.</p> <p>FAIW, I'm not trying to <strong>eliminate </strong>data loss, but rather trying to minimize it. (I realize it can't be eliminated.)</p> <p>Thanks, Andrew! I feel much better now about what's happening.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew,</p> <p>I see the issue in the histogram. I don't actually see the problem on the monitor. My concern is with cumulative error. I often do a lot of editing on a photo, and the cumulative errors from 8 bit processing have sometimes resulted in (barely) noticeable noise or banding by the time I'm finished. I prefer doing my editing with more significant bits of resolution to avoid this cumulative error problem. But FAIW, I'm running an NEC PA241W monitor, calibrated with XRite's ColorMunki. My graphics card allows me to display in 10 bits of resolution, although the driver sometimes misbehaves and drops me back to 8 bits. However, as I said, I'm observing this issue in the histogram, which becomes quite jagged when I apply a curve adjustment layer.</p>

<p>Hey Tom!</p> <p>I'm actually starting out with some 16 bit TIFF files that I had converted from RAW (in DPP) quite a while ago. I had thought the same thing, that they were really 8 bit files. But when I checked (Image/Mode) I saw that I was working in 16 bits. My next thought was that these files had been 8 bit, saved as 16. However, I found this was not the case, replicating the problem with freshly converted files. To rule out any issues with DPP (my preferred conversion software), I also opened a raw file in ACR, making sure to use the 16 bit color depth, and the issue with adjustment layers was exactly the same. So I'm certain I'm working with true 16 bit files. If I were not, I'd see the combing with a simple application of a curve (not through the adjustment layers), which I do not.</p> <p>Do you have CS5? If so, could you confirm whether your copy does the same thing as mine? Just open a RAW file in ACR in 16 bit, and manipulate it with a curve adjustment layer (should produce combing) vs. application of a curve (Image/Adjustments/Curves -- should not produce combing). I am wondering whether there is a setting somewhere that will force 16 bit processing of the adjustment layers, perhaps the default being 8 for speed. (I've looked, but I can't find one.)</p>

<p>If I do the same exercise with an 8-bit image, I see no difference in the histogram between a curve adjustment layer and the application of a curve. Either will produce the same "combing" or "binning." But with a 16 bit image, the curve adjustment layer will produce exactly the same combing as on the 8 bit image, and the application of a curve will instead produce a smooth histogram.</p> <p>Let's just say this 8 bit processing issue looks very familiar to me. It was the reason I jumped ship from PaintShop Pro to PhotoShop. PSP dragged their feet implementing 16 bit engines throughout their application. I'm disappointed to see what appears to be the same issue with the adjustment layers feature of PS. I'm hoping there is simply something wrong with my installation or settings or something.</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>I've been hard at work editing some of my back-log of photos and noticed something rather troubling about my PhotoShop CS5 Extended. When using adjustment layers, all processing of 16 bit images seems to be done in 8 bit. This is particularly noticeable when applying a curve adjustment layer, and it is manifested by "combing" and "binning" in the histogram. If I apply the same adjustment without making it a layer (e.g. Image/Adjustments/Curves), I see the processing is done in 16 bit, and the histogram is smooth.</p> <p>Do other PS users see the same thing? Perhaps there's something wrong with my installation? Perhaps this issue is fixed in subsequent versions? Any insights would be appreciated.</p> <p>Thanks!<br> Sarah</p>

<p>And if HCB had been handed a dSLR (perhaps with a manual focus lens), I think he would have done pretty much the same work, though he might have complained about the form factor. I know that I can use either set of tools to achieve similar results. Most people can't tell the difference between my digital and film work, whether color or B&W. This includes other photographers.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Jose: I cannot understand why most of you like to shoot film to be then scanned.</p> </blockquote> <p>One reason might be format. Large format digital photography is impossible, with the possible exception of highly modified scanners. The closest one can get is to shoot large format film and then to scan. This would give a person access to the best of both worlds, so to speak. Even medium format digital photography isn't available to most of us, for cost reasons.</p> <p>What I can't understand is the big stink that many photographers make over this film/digital issue. I've found both digital and film to be competent media with their own respective strengths. When I started shooting digital about a decade ago, film photographers would bad-mouth digital photography to the point that I actually lost gigs over it. What's a potential client going to do when faced with such conflicting views? He/she will probably go with the majority view, which did not favor digital photography at that time.</p> <p>Now a decade later, the tables are turned the other way around. Now digital photographers can now claim some sort of popularity high-ground, bad-mouthing film photography for its alleged inferiority on whatever grounds we care to concoct. But it's not right that we do so, just because it was done to us before. I would think this in-fighting would only hurt film photographers, with the possible exception of Daniel, who says his business is roaring along.</p> <p>Now that we have so many great choices of tools, methods, and techniques at our disposal, perhaps we need to grow our big tent just a bit and celebrate the diversity of our community. Although I don't shoot much film anymore, I will miss it dearly if it disappears. Fewer tools cannot be a good thing.</p>

<p>It's a clever concept, but a better concept would be to equip a camera with a solar panel on the outside of the camera for recharging. The problem with the design in the article is that low-light photography would be virtually impossible, as there would be little or no light to charge the system enough to shoot a frame.</p>

<p>I once made a "wallpaper" print of a 6.3 MP image that... well... covered a wall. It looked quite good. And I remember seeing a very large (maybe 4' x 8') print in a museum that came from an early 1.3 MP image, by my count of the pixel density. It looked pretty good too. I don't think you'll have any problem, except for the actual printing and framing.</p>

<p>It's ironic that April 11 was Film Photography Day, as I took my first serious/good photo that day with an iPhone. No matter what the medium or format, I think that was an example of the very best camera being the one I had with me. ;-)</p>

<p>Bill, yes, all of the above, at least for me. I used content aware fill to remove the big pole and the healing brush to remove the lines. (To do a line, you can click on one end, and then Shift-Click on the other end.) Then I smooth it all out with cloning. Others may do it differently.</p>

<p>A different crop for me too. I played with a rule of thirds destination for the road.</p><div></div>

<p>Not saying the judge did anything incorrectly, but the problem is that some morally indignant legislator will want to "fix" the problem by bludgeoning it with a sledge hammer, rather than simply tapping in a tiny nail. So instead of introducing a bill that says people can't be photographed in circumstances where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (which I thought was already the case), he/she will introduce a bill that people can't be photographed without their written permission (anywhere, anyhow, PERIOD). Brace for it.</p>

<p>The 1/fl rule of thumb is only a rule of thumb, and it achieves "acceptable" sharpness by most people's standards, with respect to most people's shooting skills. But are you paying all this money for acceptable sharpness? You can get that from a much less expensive consumer lens. If you're willing to shoot at maybe 1/2000 and faster (handheld, of course), then the L 70-200 lenses might start to outshine the 70-300 IS non-L.</p> <p>Is the IS necessary? It depends on what/how you shoot. If you're willing to commit to a tripod, then it's not necessary at all. If you're shooting sports, it is similarly useless (i.e. does not stabilize moving SUBJECTS). But if you're hand-holding (even using a monopod) and shooting stationary (or slow moving) subjects, then it can be enormously useful. There are many of us (including me) who will not buy a telephoto lens without the IS. In fact I'm one of the few people who loves IS even at shorter focal lengths. For instance, here is a photo I took at 42mm with a cheap consumer lens, hand-holding for an entire second, just to see if I could pull it off (which I did):</p> <p>http://graphic-fusion.com/phcolemanbridge01.htm</p> <p>But please understand what I'm trying to say. It's simply this: Top-flight gear only yields an advantage with compulsive technique, and I don't know what level of technique you employ or are willing to commit to. There are many who would disagree with me, but I feel the prudent and skillful use of IS gives you most of the benefit of a tripod without any of the costs (weight, set-up time, lack of shooting freedom/spontaneity). So for me, IS is extremely important and worth twice the cost. For you, it might not be, especially if you are a tripod shooter. But if you want to shoot handheld at 1/250 or so, I honestly think the cheaper 70-300 IS non-L is going to give you better results than any of the non-IS 70-200 L family, at least f/4 or f/5.6 and above. And then the 70-200/4 IS L will be another step up from that lens.</p> <p>And of course there are other reasons to own an L: It's a beautiful lens and a pleasure to use. It's weather sealed (most of them, anyway). Corner sharpness is generally better. CA is generally better controlled. Build quality. Pride of ownership.</p> <p>EDIT: It's been a while since I've looked at prices. Wow, the consumer 70-300 IS is more expensive than when I bought it -- almost as much as the 70-200/4 non-IS L. However, for my shooting purposes, I'd still rather have the 70-300 IS non-L than the 70-200/4 non-IS L, even at the same price. Of course I don't actually own the 70-200/4 non-IS. I own the IS version. But if the IS in my 70-200/4 IS were broken, I'd honestly rather carry around my 70-300 IS non-L. (Note: The 70-200/4 IS L is optically a bit better than the non-IS version.)</p> <p>SECOND EDIT: Apparently you can still buy the 70-300 IS non-L off of Ebay for around $400, which is about what I paid for mine.</p>

<p>I agree with Robin. The f/4 lenses are far more comfortable to carry and hold. Before release of the /2.8 IS II, I had a choice between the /4 IS and the /2.8 non-IS at approximately the same cost. The choice of the /4 IS was obvious to me (for my purposes), because I was not seeking heavily blurred, creamy backgrounds from the lens, and the IS is so useful! In fact I'd go one step further and tell you not to bother with the extra cost of a non-IS L lens if you're gong to hand-hold it. Instead, get a 70-300 IS (non-L), which is a remarkably good lens for what it costs. Of course if you're going to use a tripod, the IS doesn't matter. But if you're going to hand-hold, only the IS version or a really high shutter speed is going to capture that extra image detail that the /4 L lens is going to give you. Furthermore, on those rare occasions you might shoot in low light, the IS will give you several stops shooting advantage (for stationary subjects, at least), vs. just a single stop shooting advantage with a /2.8 lens.</p> <p>Here's another thought: If you want a heavily blurred background for occasional shots, consider also picking up a fast prime, such as the 85/1.8 or 100/2, which are even faster than the /2.8 zooms and also quite inexpensive. You can pick up one of these lenses for a fraction of the differential between the /4 and /2.8 zooms, and then you can have the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>Tim, I think Texans almost take Texas wildflowers for granted. Move away, like I did, and you will miss them tremendously! The wildflowers of Central Texas are right up there with BBQ as the things I most miss about Texas! (On the other hand, I have no fond memories of rattlesnakes, fire ants, or Texas politics.)</p>

<p>Lex, the issue is visibility. Don't sit/lie/roll/frolic where you can't plainly see a rattle snake that might be on the ground. And when walking around where you can't see the ground, for god's sake, wear boots. (A rattlesnake can bite through a boot, but not easily.)</p> <p>As a person who once sat on a rock with a rattlesnake resting beneath it, I can't endorse the recommendation to find a rock to sit on. That's where you'll most likely find the critters. (No, the rattlesnake didn't move from its comfy position beneath the rock. I simply saw him as I left, after having enjoyed my ~15 min water break with a couple of friends.)</p>

<p>What Bob and Marcus said! Let that camera (and phone) continue to dry out, WITHOUT BATTERIES! Rather than the cloth bag that Marcus recommends, I'd use a paper bag, which is also moisture-permeable.</p> <p>I recently bought a Frieq waterproof case/bag for my iphone. It's a bit kludgy, but I don't trust the fancier waterproof cases (e.g. with connector ports) in a harsh marine environment. So far this solution seems to work very well.<br /> <br />Glad you didn't get hurt too badly! This could have come out much worse!</p>

<p>Sunil, I see color banding too. Perhaps some flare artifact?</p> <p>Rick, sorry not to have participated this week. Very busy -- taxes and such. Besides, there wasn't much I could add to the prior edits, perhaps other than colorizing away the subtle banding. Nice image, BTW!</p>

<p>So hypothetically:</p> <ul> <li>I take a photo of someone here in Virginia and post it on a website based in Germany. I offer copies for sale. Any random person in Arkansas can sue me for that? Wouldn't they need to establish standing?</li> <li>Or is it that a subject who isn't a resident of Arkansas can still sue me under Arkansas law if they file suit in an Arkansan court?</li> <li>Or is it that a subject I've photographed outside of Arkansas can move to Arkansas, and then being an Arkansas citizen, protected under this most enlightened law, they can sue me?</li> </ul> <p>I'm very confused.<br> <br />Does this problem go away if I close down my struggling photographic business entirely? Can I still display photos of a documentary nature? (I think the answer is yes, but I'm not sure.)<br> <br />Also what happens with regard to photos I've already licensed out, that are on display on the Internet? I suppose the folks displaying their photos might be sued, but could I be conjoined in the lawsuit? I have no right to ask former clients who have legitimately licensed my photos to stop using them!</p>

<p>I like my pilots looking forward! But if you want to play with people's heads, you could just clone them away. :-></p>

<p>Excellent question, Nick! I look forward to the answer(s)!</p>

<p>Organic rendering: A euphemism meaning the lens makes your pictures look like sh*t?</p>