avery_nelson

<p>Hi,<br>

I am using Photoshop/Bridge CS5 for Mac.</p>

<p>Is there a general consensus as to if using .xmp files or a database is 'better' from a performance, reliability, future portability, and management standpoint (when editing and tagging raw formatted photos)?<br>

<br />I have also heard that the database may maintain some additional information beyond that of the .xmp file, though I don't put a lot of stock in that without confirmation.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br />Avery </p>

<p>My definition is something more like this :)<br /> Bug = testing didn't catch the issue.<br /> Half-baked = releasing the software before it's ready, with known defects.</p>

<p>I think I found the answer, and it's rather disappointing that Adobe is releasing half-baked software.</p>

<p>http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4219</p>

<p>"With the release of Camera Raw 5.2 (and upcoming release of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® 2.2), there is an important exception in DNG file handling for the Panasonic DMC-LX3, Panasonic DMC-FX150, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Panasonic DMC-G1, and Leica D-LUX 4. <strong>For those who choose to convert these native, proprietary files to the DNG file format, a linear DNG format is the only conversion option available at this time. A linear DNG file has gone through a demosaic process that converts a single mosaic layer of red, green, and blue channel information into three distinct layers, one for each channel. The resulting linear DNG file is approximately three times the size of a mosaic DNG file or the original proprietary file format. </strong></p>

<p>This exception is a temporary solution to help ensure that Panasonic's and Leica's intended image rendering from their proprietary raw file format is applied to an image when converted DNG files are viewed in third-party software titles. The same image-rendering process is applied automatically in Camera Raw 5.2 and in Photoshop Lightroom 2.2 when viewing the original proprietary raw file format.</p>

<p>In a future release, Adobe plans to update the DNG specification to include an option to embed metadata-based representations of the lens compensations in the DNG file, allowing a mosaic DNG conversion. In the interim, Adobe recommends only converting these files to DNG to allow compatibility with third-party raw converters, previous versions of the Camera Raw plug-in, or previous versions of Photoshop Lightroom."</p>

 

<p>I am running PS CS3, and have a newer camera that is not supported by CS3/CR4. As such, I am using the CR/DNG Converter 5.4.</p>

<p>The proprietary raw files are ~15MB<br>

The converted -> DNG 5.4 files are ~12MB<br>

The converted -> DNG 4.6 files are ~42MB</p>

<p>CS3 only supports the DNG 4.6 format. In both conversion cases, no preview jpg or embedded original raw file are included.<br>

I'm surprised. Is this expected behavior? Can anyone shed some light on this?</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

Avery </p>

<p>Does anyone have first-hand, hands-on knowledge of comparing the Dell U2410 and the Dell 2408WFP? I have not seen a good first-hand comparison of these two monitors and am curious if the U2410 is worth the extra $120 for the casual amateur.<br>

I would be using the monitor with my MacBook Pro, running Snow Leopard and calibrating with an EyeOne Display2. Please let me know if anyone sees any conflict.<br>

Lastly, the U2410 is currently $600 at Dell, and I know it has historically been less. Is anyone familiar enough with Dell to know if this price may drop again?<br>

Thanks!<br>

Avery</p>

Thanks guys.

 

So, noone writes any good open-source software to do this?

Hello,<br>

<br>

I am looking for recommendations for multi-media software. Primarily, I will be projecting photos, but will also be

adding some quick-time or avi movies. Ideally, I would be able to add a soundtrack or two.<br>

<br>

I have a somewhat-strong preference for an open-source/freeware solution -- so I don't have to get caught in the

upgrade cycle, although would be willing to hear recommendations for pay solutions, too -- if they're far superior.<br>

<br>

I'm running Windows XP.<br>

<br>

Must-haves include:<br>

- Various photo transitions with control over how these occur<br>

- Ability to play quicktime and avi movies<br>

- Ability to add at least one soundtrack, preferably more<br>

- Subtitling<br>

<br>

Nice-to-haves include:<br>

- Ability to post-to-web<br>

- Zooming and panning<br>

- Ability to burn a DVD<br>

<br>

I've searched the forums and see recommendations for ProShow Gold as well as SoundSlides (although this one

doeesn't appear to do video).<br>

<br>

Thanks in advance!<br>

Avery<br>

Thanks to everyone for your input -- have several options to use now.

Eric -- Yes, I agree that I can do that. However, for instance, I just returned from a 14-day trip and that means that 14 times I have to switch between Bridge and IE to align the dates with the pictures, select the appropriate ones, run the program, etc. Frequently, I will have multiple days of photos on a card. I'd prefer to do this just once.

 

Will -- I think I'm understanding your question. Bridge (and other delivered vendor programs such as Canon's and Nikon's) pull based on Created or Modified date. I believe that if you copied from your camera to computer on a different date, that the Modified date field will actually do what you want. My issue is the sequence numbering not resetting with each group of dates, simiar to how Canon and Nikon do this.

Hello,

 

I am trying to use Adobe bridge to batch re-name my photos, as I have both a lumix and canon camera and want to

have one-stop shopping.

 

I encounter the following issue (which may just be the design of the tool).

 

Example: I have 3 photos to rename, and I want them to have the format:

 

I_YYYYMMDD_####.EXT

 

The three original photos are named:

P10001001 (shot 20080908)

P10001002 (shot 20080909)

P10001003 (shot 20080909)

 

Now, using bridge, with a sequence number, I batch rename all of these at the same time. My files are now named:

I_20080908_0001.raw

I_20080909_0002.raw

I_20080909_0003.raw

 

Which is not what I want, because the sequence number does not reset with each day's photos (say, when i take a

trip for a week).

 

What I actually want is:

I_20080908_0001.raw

I_20080909_0001.raw

I_20080909_0002.raw

 

Is there a way to accomplish this in Bridge? Both Canon's and Nikon's delivered software is able to do this.

 

Any thoughts are appreciated. If this isn't an option with Bridge, is there recommended (non-vendor) software that

can handle this?

 

Thanks!

Avery

That was definitely option 2), which is great because it keeps the battery warm (really, would be ideal for most photographers in cold weather). It's a little less-than ideal if you have a bunch of climbing gear hanging off you, such as ice tools hanging off your wrists. However, I definitely consider this a fall-back option.

Hello,

 

I am posting this here, because I am not sure of the most appropriate forum --

however, the source of my question is cold weather shooting (nature).

 

I have identified a camera that best fits my needs (Lumix FZ18) for cold

weather climbing adventures. Unfortunately, it uses only a proprietary Li-Ion

battery (CGR-S006). My experience here is that the rechargable Li-Ion's don't

cut it in the sustained cold weather. Also -- on multi-week trips in the cold

backcountry (where weight is an issue) charging is not an option. I have had

very good success using the disposable Li's (i.e. 2CR5)in high Alaska.

 

I see three potential options:

 

1) Get an external battery pack

 

2) Rig or purchase an external battery pack that can accept a disposable Li

battery

 

3) Rig or purchase an internal battery pack that can accept a disposable Li

battery (such as taking an existing rechargable battery, removing the cells,

and modifying it to accept a disposable such as teh 2CR5). The proprietary

battery appears physically large enough.

 

Any pointers are welcome here. I am particularly interested if anyone has

experience with 3)

 

Please let me know if there is a better place to post this question.

 

Cheers,

Avery

Hello Folks,

<BR>

<BR>Thanks for all your responses. I appreciate your input.

<BR>

<BR>I called both Colorvision (Spyder2) and X-rite (Eye-One Display2) to get info from the source. Following this, I decided to go with the GM Eye-One Display2. The primary motivation for my decision is that in order to use the ColorVision created profile, a colorvision program must be running in the background at all times. For the X-rite/GretaMacbeth Eye-One Display2, the software is only required to create the profile, which is then loaded for use by the native Windows OS.

<BR>

<BR>Below are my notes from the vendors, which will hopefully prove useful to others making this decison. Overall, the folks I reached at x-rite had superior technical knowledge of their product, than those I reached at ColorVision.

<BR>

<BR>-Avery

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>20070810

<BR>Called colorvison to ask the following questions:

<BR>Software runs all the time: Software must always be running in the background. Utilizes windows management to affect all <BR>programs/display.

<BR>Win OS's supported: If download most current software, can run on Vista, XP

<BR>Multiple Monitors: Only w/ pro, only if each monitor has a unique card or lookup table.

<BR>Hardware: Same between 'suite' and 'pro'

<BR>Projection LCD Profiling: Only w/ 'pro'; a software difference

<BR>Ambient light: Can only be used for creation of 'new' profiles, not existing.

<BR>Multiple Computers/Licensing: Indicated could be used on multiple computers concurrently (desktop + laptop)

<BR>Gamma choices: Unlimited on Pro; Multiple on Suite

<BR>Color Temp: Unlimited on Pro; Multiple on Suite

<BR>RGB control calibration: yes on both (per review)

<BR>PrintFix Plus: Software only solution. Calibrate your monitor, then print, then tweek. Repeat and generate profile.

<BR>Spyder2 Plus: An older product than Suite. Does not look to come with PrintFix Plus.

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>20070810

<BR>Called x-rite to ask the following questions:

<BR>Software runs all the time?: only during profile creation; profile is then utilized by native Windows color management

<BR>Win OS's supported: XP, Vista32

<BR>Multiple Monitors: OS limitation. Depends

<BR>Software: Same between LT and Display2

<BR>Hardware: Physically same between LT and Display2; however, an internal key to the hardware limits hardware functionality.

<BR>Projection LCD Profiling: N/A

<BR>Ambient light: This sensor exists, but is more of a tool for measurement, than for tuning a profile -- sounded like a marketing tactic.

<BR>Multiple computers: Can install on as many computers as you want. Hardware usage across those computers is the limitation.

<BR>Native white point: Cannot set on LT, but can on Full

<BR>Gamma choices: Fixed to 2.2 on LT, options on full

<BR>Color Temp: A few options on LT, more options on full

<BR>RGB control calibration: Yes on both - Don't change with LCD

<BR>Printer Profiling: N/A

<BR>Pantone, Greta-Macbeth Eye-One Display -- are these the same as x-rite: GM is the same; Pantone's hardware is made by X-rite/GM; however, support for the Pantone hardware would be from Pantone -- not x-rite. Also, the technician was not familar with the Pantone software, and assumed it was different than the GM/X-rite software

I don't know specifically, but did learn from xrite today that the pucks are the same physical hardware between the Eye One display 2 and the Eye One Display LT. However, internal to the hardware, there are certain features that are locked out. Perhaps, given that the feature control is at the level of the puck, they do have some firmware installed?

Hello,

<BR><BR>

I am a relative novice, but will be scanning quite a few slides for web,

presentation, printing. I recently acquired a Minolta Scan Dual IV and do have

PhotoShop CS3.

<BR>

<BR>

From spending considerable time digging through the forums, I understand I

should first be focused on profiling my monitor with a hardware/software

solution. I have a not-so-fancy HP Business class 19" LCD.

<BR><BR>

I will be putting together a site with quite a few photos and will

occasionally have a digital slide show of trips I have taken. I may want to

make an occasional digital photo or scanned slide look really great so that I

can print it. I prefer to have a good solution that is not excessive for my

needs.<BR>

<BR>

 

Q1: It appears that most of the color management software provided with the

packages requires a program to continuiously be running in the background, or

profile aware programs. Are there any solutions that allow you to use the

profile continuously with Windows XP Pro SP2? If so, which ones? Is this

recommended or not?

<BR><BR>

Q2: It looks like the following display profiling hardware/software is the

same. Can anyone confirm or deny?

<BR> Pantone Eye-One Display 2 Colorimeter ($185)

<BR> Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display 2 ($205)

<BR><BR>

Q3: I am considering the Spyder2Pro ($165) or Eye-One Display 2 ($185).

Perhaps these are overkill for me? If so, based on expereience, which of the

following packages is the best balance of price, performance, and software

features? I'm not inclined towards a bottom-of-the line product that is kludge.

<BR> - "Special" ColorVision Spyder 2 Colorimeter suite "Special Price ($110

from $130) - Adorama only

<BR> - ColorVision Spyder2 Suite Color Calibration System ($116)

<BR> - Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display LT, Accurate Monitor Calibration for

the Cost Conscious Pro ($150)

<BR><BR>

Q4: From the various forums and reviews, I've gathered the following +/- info

on the following packages. Please let me know if you can add to this or if

anything is inaccurate.

<BR><BR>

Spyder2Pro Color Calibration System:

<BR>

+ less expensive

<BR>

- Individual color profiles for dual monitors only works automatically in

windows if you have two separate video cards.

<BR>

- Software must run at all times to utilize the profile

<BR>

- Potential issues with highlights (abrupt transitions)

<BR>

- Slow (in comparison to what?)

 

<BR><BR>

Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Display 2, Complete Monitor Color Profiling Solution:

<BR>

+ GretagMacbeth Eye One Photo provides flexibility in being able to profile to

specific luminance levels

<BR>

+ The Gretag software creates a profile, and relies on Windows built in color

management to apply it. The Gretag software isn't required once the profile is

built, until you want to redo it.

<BR>

+ ability to calibrate to Native Gamma

<BR>

+ 64 bit Windows support

<BR>

- residue from vacuum attachments (newer incarnations of EyeOne reportedly

don't have that problem)

<BR><BR>

 

Thanks, and Cheers!<BR>

Avery

Thanks to everyone for your help. I picked up a DS IV tonight for $125 from a couple that had it boxed for the prior two years (bought it only to scan wedding photos). Haven't had a chance to mess around with it much, but will be doing so soon! I figured the $450 extra I would have spend on a CoolScan V can be better spent elsewhere.

 

So, now I have to dig in and understand more about profiles. Also, have heard conflicting views on what software to use for the actual scanning. I have PS CS3, but understand the native software or VueScan may be better? Oh well, back to reviewing the forums. Any input is welcome.

 

And Steven, I do have a tablet pc in addition to my desktop, so perhaps that will work ok for dust removal? If not, or if worth the investment -- any specific recommendations? I did google and see the graphire product line...

 

Cheers,

Avery

Hello,

 

I have about 1200ish slides to make digital, none of which were taken with

very good equipment -- though typically on very good film. So, most of the

slides are not-so-great, but they have meaning to me and are from some

international climbing trips. I'd like to put together some digital slide

shows and diplay on my site.

 

I was looking to purchase a new Coolscan V for ~$550, as the used IV's and V's

aren't attractive enough to me, at the given market prices.

 

But then, I ran across a lightly used Minolta Scan Dual IV -- and questioned

if I should give that a shot, provided i can get it at a good enough price. (I

understand that at some point, they retailed for ~$260-$280, even though the

MSRP was $400). I know it may require some internal cleaning, I know it does

not have ICE, and I know Minolta sold out to Sony (so I know there would be no

support/repair). I am curious though, about other's experiences. Also, I have

heard it may have issues on XP?

 

Thoughts? Anyone used it with PS CS3?

 

It seems I had heard good things about the early Minolta Scan Duals.

 

Thanks!

Avery

Godfrey and Gareth,

 

Thanks for your insight -- I appreciate it.

 

Avery

Alright -- I get it, and will stick to an film scanner.

 

My budget is $300-$600 (the lower, the better), and would consider used if people generally have good luck buying used film scanners.

 

The one preference I have is that, if possible, that it can batch 2-6+ slides at a time so I can get an 'initial proof'. I realize anything I print or want to look good I'll have to take the time to scan and adjust the slide individually.

 

I still have to do research, but might as well ask:

 

Top two recommendations for a single-slide film scanner in my price range (new or used)?

 

Top two recommendations for a multi-slide (2-6+) film scanner in my price range (new or used)?

 

Cheers, Avery

Godfrey and Brian,

 

Thanks for your prompt responses.

 

Truth be told, if I was getting something printed to 11x14, I guess I'd probably get a drum scan and have a shop print it. But 8x10s would be nice to do from home.

 

I batted this around about 6 months ago, and ended up settling on the V700, as it had pretty respectable reviews, and I did want to get all these slides digital for review purposes -- so that pushed me towards something that could handle more than 1 slide at a time. The plan would be to come back later and spend add'l time on anything I would print or put on a site. An additional primary purpose would be for the purpose of digital slide shows.

 

Another thing that pushed me this direction, is the lack of inexpensive (e.g. < $600) film scanners that do a reasonable job. From what I could tell, the production of these things has been dropping off severely over the past couple years. I had finally thought I settled on the MicroTek ArtixScan 4000tf, then found they were unavailable (even though shown on the MicroTek site).

 

I had also read good things about some of the Minolta scanners, but those guys are now gone.

 

And, I'm a bit hesitant to buy a used scanner, given their sensitivity - I hear it's hard to get a new one that works well!

 

So, any recommendations, given what I've mentioned? Prefer the < $600 range...

 

Cheers,

Avery

Hello,

 

I have a small personal collection of about 1200 35mm color slides that I am

looking to digitize. I am considering an Epson V700.

 

I'm no photo pro, and probably won't use the scanner a whole lot afterwards. I

might even eBay it. The original photos are not of great quality, but are

meaningful (climbing trips) and will eventually be used on my site and

potentially to print a handful of the better ones to a medium size (~ 8x10,

11x14, maybe some stitched summit panaramics) to hang on the wall.

 

It seems the best current price ($415 vs. $480) is an Epson.com mfg refurbished

unit, and it would be great to hear people's feedback on these sensitive devices

purchased as refurbished. On one hand, it may seem less than ideal purchasing

something refurbished; on the other hand, the factory should be able to ensure

everything is in spec before releasing it for sale.

 

Thoughts and personal experiences?

 

Is there a good standard test to conduct on a new scanner to see if it's

performing as it should?

 

Does anyone think this is not a good hardware choice or that it's overkill?

 

Cheers!

Avery