emil_ems5

<p>I am one of those old fashioned photographers who had a field day in the last decade. Lots and lots of medium and large format cameras and lenses on ebay to be had for a pittance. Before that I had always been taking pictures with an old 4x5 Linhof from the fifties and could never afford an enlarger for that big negative size. I still have not obtained an enlarger for large format negatives, but in the buying frenzy just described I acquired a couple more 4x5 and even 8x10 cameras with accompanying lenses. </p>

<p>As a result, i am now the proud owner of some thousand large format negatives that have never seen the light of day in the form of enlarged prints. Fortunately, I had the incredible fortune of obtaining an Imacon scanner rather cheaply last year. Have just started to scan those big negatives and making prints with an also acquired Epson Pro 3880. </p>

<p>In the mean-time, that is in 2008, I also found out to my pleasure that reasonable picture quality could be obtained by buying a quite cheap Nikon D 60 Single Reflex. Since then, there is no looking back. All new photography is being made with Nikon SLR's nowadays and I have to spend an enormous amount of time photo-processing those new digital files. </p>

<p>What is new to us amateur photographers, and not yet mentioned in this thread, is the ease and possibility of producing own photo books completely on your own. I love this new possibility, which allows me to keep complete control over picture quality, from taking pictures to having them printed, in the form of a self-designed book, by a high quality offset printer. My latest book came out of the printer last year, it is of 270 pages with some 90 exhibition quality prints in it. You can have a glimpse at this book, called "Fiat Lux!", at its website emsvision.com</p>

<p>Allow me to finish this tale by encouraging you to go out and take pictures; to go back in and process them; to print them with an excellent Epson printer; and to produce exhibitions and books. This as an alternative to delving into history, which is after all, let's admit it, water under the bridge.</p>

<p>Sorry, double posting!</p>

<p>Permit me to add that buying the latest versions of Schneider lenses for an 8x10 camera appears to me somewhat of an overkill. The much smaller older lenses by Fuji in their C series for example (or even their small process lenses) have sharpness ample enough for this enormous film format. We are talking about 2 to 3 times enlargements for heaven's sake, when producing exhibition prints. Even at greater enlargements, when the viewing distance is no longer at 20 inches or shorter, you would be extremely hard put to see any differences in resolution in the final print.</p>

<p>I fully agree with Michael. Bob has been misrepresenting the Nikkor M 300 on this thread. It is my absolute favorite as tele lens on my Toyo 4x5, light, sharp and contrasty. It has been configured by Nikon to work at infinity. I can understand that it is a bit weak at the corners when used with an 8x10 camera, but this should not speak against it, since it was designated for 4x5 and 5x7!</p>

<p>Thomas,<br>

You mention that your NIKON can stack raw exposures, average them out and produce the result as a raw file. As far as I understand, the result is produced as a JPEG file.</p>

<p>If my understanding is correct, this same operation can suitably be replicated by the process I described earlier. After having taken a burst of exposures with your NIKON, to be outputted by NIKON as raw files, you import this burst of raw files into ACR. From there, you upload them individually into Adobe Photoshop, each on its own file as SMART OBJECT. From there you just move those smart objects as individual layers into one file. Thereafter you can average out those layers and output the result as Tiff, PSD or JPEG, whatever is your fancy. </p>

<p>The advantage with applying this cumbersome procedure is – precisely as you intend – that you can go back to each raw file picture freely and change the parameters without any pixel losses. It is only the output that is being rendered as Tiff, PSD or JPEG, the individual raw files are preserved as layers in the file: they can be accessed and re-processed loss-free as many times as you wish, and the output will be adjusting itself accordingly. </p>

<p>I content that you cannot, with this procedure, get an output that is in the raw format and can be re-processed again loss-free as such. But as long as you can re-process the underlying raw files (smart objects), there is no lossy processing involved. In my opinion, this procedure works as well as the one desired by you; your proposed procedure will possibly be unobtainable to photographing amateurs. I am sure that data experts can construct a scheme to accommodate you perfectly, but will it be workable as easily as the procedure described by me?</p>

<p>There is a way of doing this, although a bit roundabout. You have to own Adobe Photoshop to make it work. If you have access to Adobe Photoshop, you have also access to its raw converter, called Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).</p>

<p>After importing your raw image into ACR, you upload it into Photoshop as a SMART OBJECT. This means that the raw image is preserved in Photoshop as a layer. Nothing prevents you from up-loading another raw image as a SMART OBJECT into another file in Photoshop. Therafter it is a piece of cake to move the second smart object on top of the first in the first file created. Averaging can be done by choosing an appropriate opacity in the second smart object layer. </p>

<p>I hope this helps!</p>

<p>Thanks a lot, that makes it clear now!</p>

<p>I usually rely on iPhoto to make slideshows, including with Ken burn effects. You can easily import any music you would like to play along the show. My slideshows are usually quite long, so I chain several melodies into one file, using Garageband. When projecting the slideshow at presentations, I play the show directly from iPhoto, which gives supreme picture and sound quality. At home, I play it from iPhoto directly onto my TV, using the TV as the computer screen.</p>

<p>If I want to put the show on internet, I usually produce a quicktime movie directly from the iPhotofile and export that movie to Youtube.</p>

<p>I have never felt the need for other programs, everything mentioned above is already included in the Apple computer you buy, without extra charges!</p>

<p>Matti,<br>

I would be interested in more details about how to use the high-pass filter in locating black, as well as white dust in photo files. Could you maybe provide us with a step-by-step introduction into this topic?</p>

<p>Don't give up on the Angulon Lens, if it is in good condition, and if there is a distance scale for it on your camera.<br>

People underrate this lens, since there are modern successors with larger coverage. However, I found that, putting the lens at f 32 or higher, your coverage is quite sufficient, except if you are seriously into architectural photography. In any case, this lens should not be used at an aperture larger than f 22. If abiding by these advices and applying a good lens shape, you will get pictures as sharp as the more modern lenses. </p>

<p>Dear Robert,</p>

<p>Thank you kindly for inspecting my new website emsvision.com so closely. Just a few clarifications, to make it easier for you to find what you are looking for.</p>

<p>I am not putting Chapters on the website as they are printed. I think Internet is a different medium from paper and demands a different way of presenting the content of a book. However, if you would like to see a sample of book pages, as they appear in the "real thing", I would invite you to go to http://emsvision.com/PAGES/book.html and click on the icon that looks like the book cover. There you will find some twenty spreads from the book, to give you an impression of its lay-out and quality.</p>

<p>I am putting one Chapter of the book at a time on the website. For the moment, this is Chapter 2. But, as said above, the lay-out differs from the book. The text is put on a column of its own (to the left), and the pictures corresponding to the text are shown on the column to the right of the respective paragraph. You just have to click on the icon there to see the relevant pictures in question in the form of a slide show. </p>

<p>To arrive at this presentation, you have to go to http://emsvision.com/PAGES/chapters.html and click on the "Page Icon", that is, the Icon that shows you a miniature version of the book spread starting that Chapter. However, I agree that this might be a bit confusing, so in the near future, I will add a link in the text itself, and do the same thing for the "Bonus Icon". I will also change the denomination "Picture Icon" in the text.</p>

<p>Thank you again for pointing out these issues to me and have fun trying again!</p>

<p>Thank you also for suggesting to place an article about how I made this book on Photo.net. It may indeed be a nice complement to the present article you pointed out, since my book has been designed by me in InDesign and printed in offset, in contrast to the today more common method of using photo publishers' (like Blurb's) design program and using print on demand production with digital printing. I have to admit that there is still a big difference in quality between the two printing methods, albeit the great difference in printing costs for small editions may often render it necessary to use digital printing. But, whatever method is being used, it is of utmost importance that each photo in the book be optimized for CMYK printing, which is quite a formidable task!</p>

<p>Dear Dave,<br /> Just go to my website emsvision.com <br /> You can order it from there!</p>

<p>By the way, nice picture of West Gate. To my regret, I have no picture of that in the book. However, there is a picture of "Luke's Revenge" in the book, the huge globe in bronze located some 50 meters to the right of the sign you have put here. </p>

<p>After two years' hard work I am glad to say that my photo-book about Berkeley and the San Francisco Bay ("Fiat Lux! Down Memory Lane in California"), as well as the website for the book are ready.</p>

<p>I would like to take this occasion to thank the generous Community on this Forum for all their help with the many technical problems, mainly relating to preparing the photos for offset printing, that I had to deal with along the way. Special thanks are due to Andrew and Patrick, our utmost experts on digital processing on this Forum.</p>

<p>If you are interested, you can get glimpses of the book on its website emsvision.com </p>

<p>Please let me know, whether the website and book is to your liking ;-)</p><div></div>

<p>Ok, I think apologies are in order. I went into this issue once more today, to prepare a file for Andrew, as requested by him. While doing this, I discovered, to my dismay, that I had overlooked that the fall back choice in the check box "Depth Map" is "None". In Adobe CS4, I must have, some years ago, entered "Layer Mask", and it stayed there. When uploading CS5 and subsequently CS6, I did not think about checking this box again, since it always had worked for me automatically with "Layer Mask" in CS4. This shows how even the most careful photographer can make silly omissions from time to time.</p>

<p>My sincere apologies to Adobe, for having accused them of severe negligence. And also to Andrew, for having taken up his valuable time with this irritating issue. And also many thanks to Andrew for the same thing.</p>

<p>If it would be possible to delete this conversation, I would appreciate it, since its title wrongly abuses Adobe of severe negligence. Otherwise, maybe the title could be changed by the administrator into "Lens Blur Filter not working properly in CS6? - don't forget the Depth Map Box!"</p>

<p>OK, I finally managed to upload a picture!<br>

In the picture you can clearly see haloes around the cactus fringe in the upper right, in the CS6 version of Lens Blur, quite similar to the haloes you get with Gaussian Blur CS6. No such haloes are visible in the CS4 version, which functions exactly as it should. The three versions are based on using an identical cactus mask on a duplicate of the identical background picture.<br /> What more proof can I give you, Andrew? It could only consist of visiting me and working on my two computers, or on the computer used by the Adobe expert at the Stockholm exhibition in late 2011. ;-)<br /> Having said this, I have to admit that I may have been a bit too harsh in judging Adobe in my introductory remark. That remark was made in affect, just after discovering that CS6 still had the same defect as CS5. Now that I have calmed down somewhat, let's agree to disregard the wording "Absolute Disgrace" and replace it by "Possible Adobe Neglect", to be changed into "Adobe Neglect" if it turns out that others in the Community with OS 10.6 or OS 10.7 have experienced the same issue.</p><div></div>

<p>New version to appear shortly!</p>

<p><img src="no%20name/jpeg/comparison%20of%20CS4%20and%20CS6%20Lens%20Blur_1.jpg" alt="" />OK, I tried to upload pictures from my computer to state my point. But for some reason I cannot attach a photo directly to this answer from my computer. Instead the forum asks me to provide an URL. But I have seen others put photos directly into their messages. Is there still a way of doing this?</p>

<p>I have to agree with Andrew,<br>

There is a sea-change in quality and rationality of working between Lightroom 4 and Lightroom 3. The increase in ease of working and quality of outcome is so great that it would not make any sense to me to stay with earlier versions of ACR (for instance, the one bundled with CS2). Do yourself a favor and buy Lightroom 4. You can always output Tiffs from there and continue working on the pictures in CS2.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

When I spoke to the Photoshop expert at the Stockholm Photo Exhibition in late 2011, he experienced the exactly same thing with CS5 on his Apple laptop. So it is nothing to do with my machines, it appears. I made a clean installment from disks on both machines, who have never shared any programs directly. I always install from original disks from the supplier, both as concerns operating systems and other programs. I will put two pictures on the forum, as soon as I have prepared them.</p>

<p>Matt and Keith,<br>

Are you working with an Apple with OS 10.6 or OS !0.7?</p>

<p>I have recently installed Photoshop CS6 on two of my computers, the MacBook Pro of 2011 and the "Big Mac" of 2010. So I am using OS 10.7 and 10.6, respectively.<br /> I was very disappointed to notice that the Lens Blur Filter did not work properly on either machine with CS6. The effect was identical to using the Gaussian Blur Filter with the mask, creating a halo effect on the borders of the mask.<br /> I had the same problem already when installing version CS5, so I am forced to keep the older version (CS4) on the machine just for the purpose of using the Lens Blur Filter. <br /> Since the problem occurs with two different machines with two different operative systems, this is NOT a machine dependent problem, but a problem of programming at Adobe.<br /> I took up this issue with an Adobe Expert at the Photographic Mess in Stockholm already in autumn 2011. He did not believe me at first, but experience the problem first hand, when applying the lens blur filter in CS5 on his own laptop. He promised me to take this up with Adobe and that the problem would be resolved immediately.<br /> To my surprise I see that CS6 has exactly the same problem. I would say that IT IS AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE to let people pay a lot of money for updates, without bothering to remedy such an obvious fault in the program! I am surprised that this issue has not yet surfaced as a big issue in the Community.</p>

<p>Just a small additional advice. After having loaded the two parts as two layers, one on top of the other, you may wish to change the blending mode of the upper layer to "Difference" in the final adjustment. This will show you precisely, when the two parts are aligned.</p>

<p>What Mark says is not really the full story. Once you have finalized your picture in Photoshop, so that it looks perfect to you on the screen, only half of the work is accomplished. Now to the other half:</p>

<p>You have to import the profile for your paper and printer into Photoshop (unless you have already done so). Thereafter you have to proof your picture. For that purpose go to command VIEW/PROOF SETUP/CUSTOM and enter the profile in the frame that appears on screen. Thereafter, make sure to check the box "Simulate Paper Color". After having confirmed this set-up, you will be surprised to see that the picture turns darker and less contrasty on the screen. This is so since it simulates how the final print will look under reflective (rather than transparent) illumination.</p>

<p>As the next step, you will have to increase exposure and contrast of the picture slightly, so that you regain, as well as possible, the quality of your original picture. As a starting point, you could try introducing the following two curves:</p>

<p>(1) Curve with Command LIGHTER at 25% opacity<br /> (2) Curve with Command LINEAR CONTRAST at 100% opacity</p>

<p>I hope this helps</p>

<p>No need to acquire a new version of Photoshop. You could as easily do it manually. Just load the two scans as two separate layers in one file and join them by partial masking of the upper layer. </p>

<p>What you can do is lower the opacity of the upper layer to about 50% so that fitting together the two halves is made easier. Just take care to have an overlay when scanning so that the two layers have a common part of the picture.</p>

<p>I am just now in the process of producing a travel brochure (7 essays about Berkeley) comprising 32 pages. I did the overall lay-out in InDesign. Having done that, I discovered that there was really no need to use any of the companies you mention. In todays world, digital printing is commonly used by many print-shops, so I would use a print shop close to you. Here in Europe, the print-shops using digital printing all abide by the European standard for colour printing, CMYK, Fogra 39. So you can prepare the pictures for printing using that profile, and having them in a resolution of 300 pixels per inch. I am confident that your local printer can provide you with a corresponding profile, if you are located in the US. You provide the printer with a PDF-file ready for printing.</p>

<p>Cost-wise, I found out that printing locally would not cost more than using, e g, Blurb.</p>

<p>Hope this helps</p>

<p>It is also important to realize that Adobe Photoshop CS6 not only contains "Bridge", already mentioned above, but also "Adobe Camera Raw" (ACR). ACR is the counterpart of NX2 and offers at least as much functionality as NX2, as concerns issues like white balance, exposure correction, D-Lighting correction etc. I find it better than NX2, although I have to admit that there are slight differences in the overall color distribution that may lead you to prefer either NX2 or ACR, depending on your taste in color. </p>