falcon7

<p>I try to maintain skin tone among photos of the same model when I use PS elements. And usually do so by 'eyeballing' when comparing two images. I find that this doesn't always work until a while after I've finished processing, when I can get a more objective viewpoint. So I tried a little experiment with determining skin color values, and took 'readings' after post-prod of two photos (same model) and came up with these numbers (r/b/g values, two readings, ratio between colors). The numbers between the two color readings are the ratios. My question is whether this data could help me in rendering matching skin tone color of the same model from one photoshoot (especially outdoor ones), or whether it is even necessary to do so as long as the skin tone appears similar to the viewer (the model has brown skin). Thanks.<br /> <strong>Photo A</strong><br /> <em>Dark area (shadow)<br /></em><br /> <strong>140 ></strong><br /> <em>1.8</em><br /> <strong>76 ></strong><br /> <em>1.8</em><br /> <strong>41 > </strong><br /> <em>Light area</em><br /> <strong>194 ></strong><br /> <em>1.6</em><br /> <strong>123 ></strong><br /> <em>1.5</em><br /> <strong>83 > </strong><br>

<br /> <strong> Photo B </strong><br /> Dark Area (shadow)<br /> <strong>140 ></strong><br /> <em>1.8</em><br /> <strong>79 ></strong><br /> <em>1.4</em><br /> <strong>56 ></strong><br /> <br /> Light Area<br /> <strong>118 ></strong><br /> <em>1.9</em><br /> <strong>61 ></strong><br /> <em>1.4</em><br /> <strong>43 ></strong></p>

<p>I've been wearing glasses for two years and I still can't get used to using them when using a DSLR. I'm farsighted. I searched the internet to see whether Lasik surgery can be used to correct farsightedness. I looked at the Johns Hopkins Medical Center website to hopefully get an unbiased view. The site states that they do perform this surgery for farsightedness. Do you know anyone that had corrective surgery on the eye with the primary reason to take photographs more easily? I've tried everything. I have considered using my extra pair of glasses and knocking the 'dominant eye lens out', and using the adjustment on the Nikon. Any helpful experiences?</p>

<p>I've found a website that does comparative analyses of any two cameras. It's <strong>snapsort.com</strong>.</p>

<p>One of the attributes is 'image quality.' To experiment I compared a Nikon D40 to a Nikon D5300. The 'image quality rating for the d40 was "56". The image quality for the D5300 was 85. The site's evaluation was that the d5300 has nearly twice as high a rating as the other. <br>

This sort of comparison can be done for any two cameras. But what does it mean? How could image quality judged? It doesn't explain this on the website. There are so many factors that go into 'image quality.' I don't know how anyone could come up with some sort of formula. Do these numbers have any significance? </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I thought I understood megapixel size, but having been away from digital editing for a while, my brain has fogged regarding what these numbers mean. Here is the info for a recently taken jpeg image taken with an older Olympus P&S camera. Let's say I wanted to explain the megapixel size of the image to someone. Here are the data I've retrieved. This may be asking a lot, but I'm sure this stuff is easy to decode, but I'm just getting confused.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p >CAMERA: Older Olympus P & S: IMAGE taken as jpeg file</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Image opened in PS elements with the following information </p>

<p >2560W x 1920H</p>

<p >17.77 Width</p>

<p >13.33 Height</p>

<p >144 resolution</p>

<p > </p>

<p > Various data found on PS elements editor and in windows folder/file details for same image</p>

<p >PSE editor info lower left tab: 14.1 <strong >document size</strong></p>

<p >PSE editor info lower left tab: 171m/2.29g <strong >scratch size</strong></p>

<p >PSE editor (unedited save) 2.34 mg saved as <strong >jpeg</strong></p>

<p >PSE editorsaved ( <strong >as jpeg after adding ‘multiply’ layer</strong> and combining 2 layers, (i.e. orig. + mult. layer) 2.99 mg</p>

<p >PSE editorsaved edited image is 13.53 meg as <strong >PSD</strong></p>

<p ><strong >Windows library detail data of image 2354 kb }</strong></p>

<p ><strong >Windows library summary data of image 2.29mg } same as above?</strong></p>

<p ><strong > </strong></p>

<p >If you have the time, could you explain what these mean, and what would be the answer to the question, 'What is the megapixel size of your final image?<strong ><br /></strong></p>

<p>I have been using PS elements, and am happy with it. It seems that most 'commentators' recommend using lightroom for global tasks, and then, if necessary, workflowing into PS or PS elements. I'm more of a selective type photographer, meaning I will look for one or two images among a batch and choose to focus on post-processing them as meticulously as possible. It seems that lightroom aficianados recommend it for categorizing and also multiple processing, for example, photographers that work on yearbooks, weddings, events, etc., where the goal is to have lots of 'finished' images. That's why I'm questioning whether lightroom is for me. Of course, I could be wrong about the advantages of using lightroom; I'm basically summarizing my interpretation of what I've read. I did download a version, but I got turned off by all the terms used for the different 'looks' you could apply. It reminded me of a pile of paint swatches called things like 'amber glow,' 'ancient bone white,' or 'georgia peach'. My disinclination might be my general eschewing of 'pre-fab' styles because it seems to cramp my creativity. <br>

Could someone explain whether my thinking makes sense, or am I missing something about the advantages of using two different software programs rather than one--which is another caution of mine. I find mastering one program challenging enough. I don't want to learn an entirely new one or end up using two if it's not necessary.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

<p>I know there are quite a few recommendations on what specs to look for in a computer in order to use photoshop efficiently, but after doing hours of research, I'm really exhausted. I'm still trying to interpret multiple-core quad-core, etc. So without delaying any further and before the two computers I've selected get sold out, here are my choices in terms of specs.I only put down the specs I understood. I won't mention 'brands' since I don't want to complicate the issue, and besides, I probably wouldn't understand the explanations. Here are my two choice, but I need to act fast. I did notice that one of them has wireless capacity.<br>

Or, is it simply a matter of either one would do? BTW, I'd rank myself half-way between casual user and professional.<br>

P.S. I have a friend that writes the most abstruse academic papers and books that are published by academic presses. I was watching him work one day, and I said, "Now I know why you like to write about those arcane subjects. You just like testing the features of your computer! - He told me that was at least 50% of the motivation. But I'm not of that camp. I just want a computer that won't freeze up as my current older computer does. Anyway, here are the 2 choices. I got as much of the specs as I could, and I still don't quite understand all of them. But I understand enough, I think.<br>

<strong>COMPUTER 1</strong><br>

<br>

</p>

<p >Intel® Core™ i5-3330 processor (6M Cache, up to 3.2 GHz)</p>

<p >8GB2 Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz -</p>

<p >1TB Hard Drive, 3.5", 7200rpm, SATA -</p>

<p >Intel® HD Integrated Graphics</p>

<p ><strong>COMPUTER 2</strong></p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4 ghz -</p>

<p >8GB DDR3-1333 RAM -</p>

<p >2TB 7,200RPM Hard Drive -</p>

<p >Intel HD Graphics 4000 -</p>

<p >SuperMulti DVDRW Drive -</p>

<p >Multi-in-One Memory Card Reader -</p>

<p > 10/100/1000 Network -</p>

<p >802.11b/g/n Wireless</p>

 

<p>Thanks to the responses. You've saved me hours and hours of research, and helped my Repetitive Stress Injured hands prevent a lot of pain</p>

<p>I just bought an olympus IS-3 dlx film camera at a thrift shop for under $30, thinking it would be interesting to experiment with. But as I think about what kind of 'experiments' to do, I can't really think of any except perhaps trying out some film B&W shooting and comparing it with digital B&W. Anyone have suggestions? Also, what B&W film would be best to use?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>p.s. Here are the main 'specs'</p>

 

<ul >

<li>35mm SLR (or ZLR - Zoom Lens Reflex) camera. Also known as "iS-3000" outside of the USA and as "L-3" in Japan.</li>

<li>Built-in 35-180mm (~5X zoom) lens provides increased range.</li>

<li>Lens is made of ED (Extraordinary Dispersion) glass with high contrast, producing crispy & clear images.</li>

<li>Powerful dual-element intelligent flash rated at GN-28/GN-92 for telephoto and GN-20/GN-66 for wide angle assured shooting.</li>

</ul>

 

 

<p>The wording of photo printer cartridge ads is often confusing. Now I've found a really confusing one I can't quite figure out. For the Epson r2000, sets of "genuine Epson" cartridges for the r2000 are going for $30 or so, which would make that less that $4 per cartridge. But there seems to be two different types of "genuine Epson" cartridges for the r2000. Does anyone understand what is going on, specifically are the cheaper variety "genuine Epson" cartridges OK? My main motivation for asking this is that I have the r1900, for which getting genuine epson cartridges is increasingly harder to find. I believe the price for a set of the r1900 cartridges is more than even the "genuine genuine r2000" set. If this is the case, I am seriously thinking of getting the r2000, although I have my eyes out for the r2100, which is probably being concocted as I type. Additionally, any real difference between the r1900 and the r2000?<br>

thanks</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>I'll try to re-install.</p>

<p>I've been working with a trial version of silver efex 2.0, using it with ps elements 9, having placed silver efex as a plug-in under the filter menu in elements. I've found that after about 10 minute of working on images, the screen freezes and stays frozen. I've tried to go into the task manager and close a few functions, which may help, but it is definitely not worth the time and effort. My computer specs are 2ghz process 4gb ram. Any suggestions?</p>

<p>thanks,</p>

<p>alan</p>

<p>I taught 'Communications' full-time on the college level for about ten years ((Background includes a Ph.D. in Communications from a 'highly regarded' university, with a dissertation title that would probably be best suited for an SNL skit, along with the requisite publications, conference presentations, etc., etc.)<br>

Currently, I work mainly 'freelance', but am wondering what the demand for a photoshop teacher (with experience in teaching so-called 'academic subjects') would be, either as a part-time or full-time college, community college, university teacher if I were to hone my PS skills sufficiently. I could also teach general photographic courses (been photographing since I was 13, using film), and whatever other courses might be needed from cybernetics to cyberspace.<br>

Does anyone have experience in pursuing this path or one that meanders close-by? Thanks.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, lots of useful information here--both for calibration with an electronic device and by 'eyeballing'.</p>

<p>I have been using xrite colormunki display for about a year for my color calibration of my monitor. I suspect this is not the best consumer available technology, but my main inquiry here is whether the default color of the monitor affects the outcome of the calibration process. Since such things as ambient light and flare have an effect, it seems to me that the monitor's default color would have one too. So, for example, would a dark blue background vs. a grey background change the calibration settings, and if one were to calibrate with one default color, would changing it (for example, logging in as a different user on the same computer--with that user having a different background color change anything. Finally, would desktop icons have an affect, depending on their color, number of icons, and that sort of thing.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Lately my 'quick selection tool' on my PSE 9 software is extremely slow when 'painting' it over the parts of an image I want to manipulate. This is reflected in the 'lag' time between applying the tool and waiting until the section of the file seems to respond; meanwhile, the hourglass icon stays on until the action is completed. I tried increasing the ram memory (from 2 to 4 ram in my computer), which didn't help. I thought maybe it was correlated to the size of the file, and that does seem to make a difference, i.e., it works a lot faster with, say, a 2mg file than a 40mg file. I reinstalled the entire program with a new DVD of PSE 9 (with a different serial #). That didn't help either. Does this mean I can't use the tool with large files owing to the limits of my computer, or could there by e problem in the way the software is loaded.</p>

<p>If you are not a megapixel 'freak' I don't know why a 'modest' camera like the Nikon d40 (no longer in production but available new rather cheaply) wouldn't be a good camera. I used it for nature photography and it worked fine, even with one 'low end lens', not a few 'pricey' ones. Here's a vulture shot in Panama.</p><div></div>

<p>On the YN560 speedlight, the 'zoom' numbers range from 24 to 105. Just what do the numbers refer to in terms of flash emission? Is there any correlation between these numbers and the range of zoom lenses that say, range from 24mm to 105mm, or is it something else entirely? I know that this info. is covered in the 'manual' but it ithe info is confusing to me. Thanks.</p>

<p>(P.S. This is not an endorsement or critique of this flash. I just want information). Thanks.</p>

 

<p>I recently took some photos with a Nikon D5100 with a +4 setting for the aperture 'instructions.' Did the exif data I receive reflect the change I made in the pre-shot 'formula' or does it reflect the actual settings in place when the shot occurred? Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks- I'm off to Home Depot.</p>

<p>I've done web searches regarding how to create one's own photo backdrops, and understand what material to use, but I, specifically, want to create some with 'nature' - themed designs, i.e., suggestions of tree branches, 'distressed' forests, fallen leaves, etc. I'm not sure how I'd do this. Can anyone provide practical suggestions or guide me to a reference source?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Alan</p><div></div>

<p>I know of the general principle that using glass with matte paper can result in a bright display of the image because the glass will give the matte a certain 'glossy' effect.' I don't have the equipment to try out various combinations of paper + display media, but have you found in your experience a more succinct way of figuring out effects using the variables of paper and 'glass', for example luster and/or satin paper with plexiglass vs. glass vs. non-glare glass, or glossy paper with a non-glare covering medium? I know there are lots of types of glossy, matte, luster/satin brands and types of paper, but I'm looking for general rules of thumb based on experience (as opposed to theory). </p>

<p>I'm also figuring that the type of light where the images are displayed is important as well, so if you can give any tips on the latter, that would be helpful too.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<p>I've decided to go to full Photoshop from PS Elements. I know a lot about PSE, having used it for over three years. I know virtually nothing about Photoshop. Will the workflow and techniques I've learned from PS elements help me with photoshop, or will I have to learn a lot of new processes, using different commands, that could make it confusing? Maybe an analogy would be if I know Spanish, would that help or hinder me in learning Portuguese (then again, maybe it's a lousy analogy). <br>

Also, I've noticed that Photoshop now has a C6 edition. Should I get this latest one?</p>

<p>I have my lightroom software, and my college ID card, planning to register my academic version of lightroom. Rather than reading the blogs, articles, and manufacturer's hype, I want to really understand the 'real time' advantages of it. Up until now, I've used primarily PSE with an add-on noise reduction software (Neat Image) and photoessentials 3 from OnOne. </p>

<p>If you've been a strict PS or PSE user and now use lightroom instead or in addition to, what is the biggest benefit for you? Biggest deficit? I understand photographers use software for different purposes depending on their style, workflow, type of photography, and time management needs, but taking any of these into account, what makes you happy that you use lightroom.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>alan</p>

<p>I was leaning towards purchasing the N7000 until I handled it and the N5100 at an electronics store, and within one minute, I decided on the N5100. Let me know if this makes sense to you.<br>

I was on a college rifle team, and I had excellent accuracy when using a rifle that was ergonomically suited for me, i.e., the right weight, balance comfort of holding (both for brief time spans and lengthy ones). When I found the right model for me, my body just 'knew it' and you might say I became "one" with the machine. Thus, my accuracy was excellent over the short and long term.<br>

Now, when I handled the two Nikon models (actually three since there was commensurate model on display), I got that "human/machine sense of oneness"; for whatever reason, the ergonomics just felt perfect to <strong>me</strong>, as I held and shot the D5100 seamlessly with no perceptual body/arm/hand stress. This is important to me, particularly since I had arm/hand neurosurgury. I also have thin wrists (I guess) 7" circumference, although long arms (sleeve length 35 1/2) & am 6'2".<br>

For me the sturdiness factor seems moot, since I feel a lot more comfortable with the D5100, since I'm not afraid of dropping it, and handling it is a breeze. I'd rather have a 'flimsier' camera I don't drop than a 'sturdier' camera for which I need to do various contortionist tricks so as not to worry about it dropping. A related matter is that I figure any noise reduction advantage with the D7000 is moot (except maybe when using a tripod) since holding the d5100 zones me into a physical/psychical steadiness (not just subjectively--the images bear this out) BTW, I had the same reaction with my former 2 cameras (D40 & D200); after three years, I could never get acclimated to the d200 in terms of holding it comfortably whereas the D40 "fit like a glove."<br>

Without getting into the tiresome discussion of feature comparisons of these Nikon models in general (TTL, sensor point differences, pixel count, etc) , I think my self-analysis of the relationship of camera model to my unique stature, body type, etc., was a great learning experience, and am surprised it's not discussed as a factor when it comes to camera choice. </p>

<p>Any observations? Thanks.</p>

 

<p>OK, I get the picture, so to speak.</p>