macmoss

July 17, 2016

For those having trouble with the Ratoc adapter, don't expect it to work. It is best to use an old, standard, slow speed Adaptec SCSI internal card on a desktop , and connect using standard SCSI cables, carefully secured, using the steps outlined elsewhere here. I use mine on a Powermac G4 and OS9. Microsoft killed off SCSI support with SP2 of Windows XP, and that combination is much more flaky.

August 27, 2013

An excellent question. I think the best answer really depends on how you perceive your clientele and how focused you are on "classy".

In my experience, with different kinds of clients (but not Weddings, where the appearance of "classy" trumps all other considerations, which is why I don't do them), the KISS principle kind of rules here.

Dropbox has become a standard for efficient sharing of images. You get a slide show type presentation, security to create a folder for all images intended for a client (or set of clients), and you can tell them to send feedback comments via email on a filename basis.

Clients for whom that is not enough- either they don't know what a filename is, or they want more handholding- are ones I usually don't deal with. My common sense feeling is that proofs are just that- they are not suitable for a finely dressed presentation, any more than raw fabric would be for dressmaking.

I have successfully used Dropbox with all kinds of clients, and find that most are happy to work with a quick no frills environment, in today's fast-paced environment.

September 5, 2012

I've been using an SD1 for about a month now, and there are a couple of points that are hinted at by the above discussions, that are worth mentioning:

1. The SD1, like previous Sigma cameras, is not an ideal all-purpose workaday professional camera. The sluggishness (which evinces itself in many ways) and many other drawbacks guarantee that. As the flagship in the Foveon line (and now a much more realistic value at a price recently under $2K), it's a grand experiment and fine luxury for those who are able to use more than one pro camera. It can be superb in particular for landscapes and cityscapes, still lifes, and formal portraits that do not require the response necessary for fast-paced studio fashion work. As such the IQ, when everything goes right, competes at this point remarkably well as compared to, for example, my Canon 5D Mark II and similar cameras, revealing detail greater than those though not quite at the level of the big $ medium format cameras. And then of course there is the tangible you-are-there quality of Foveon cameras that some people seem to experience more than others.

2. Based on the very lengthy and typically thorough and intelligent dpreview results, most people are in fact finding that the SD1 operates best at ISO 200, not 100. There is more highlight headroom, and less noise, at 200, a welcome surprise. For the landscape shooter, this is a great pleasure after all those years of Velvia 50 and then 100. Also a very usable ISO for street and general handheld use.

The whole discussion pro and con about Sigma cameras can become somewhat heated, and for those inclined to be technical, quite complex. Certainly SPP has come a long way, but it's a shame it's the only game in town for SD1 raw images as of this writing. If SD1 devotees are a cult, count me in, but only because it's such a pleasure to go back and forth between Sigma and Canon systems, and get the best of both worlds, which is what from personal experience (using multiple bodies in both systems) I would recommend.

February 27, 2012

I think your question relates to larger issues of what is meant by professionalism, the role collaboration plays in your work, and the relationship to art and your photography. Although you don't use the A word (Art) in your question, you do write you "love what you do" and "magic" which seems indicative enough. In my experience, the kind of issue you bring up really does relate to who is paying whom for what, and how large a role an exchange of money plays when you say "offer portrait services". In the often cutthroat and demeaning world of charging for photography, it is almost always difficult if not impossible to reconcile a paying customer's perceived right to get what they want, and a photographer's desire to practice and advance their art and craft. In my own experience, I have after decades found a way to resolve this by practicing a combination of charging, paying, and trading, depending on the circumstances. And I've found that collaboration, and trying to educate as necessary my clients in the difference between the initial image and where it is headed, are very satisfying and flexible in that context. If the overwhelming goal is to earn a living, then the kind of photography I sense you describing is not only likely ill-fated, but an approach that most photographers who consider themselves true "professionals" scorn. But if you can separate your professional work from your personal work, and not charge for projects that are primarily personal artistic ventures, you may be able to resolve this inherent conflict. Some are good at that, some not. One practice that has helped me immensely is to simply and explicitly refrain from any of the "professional" practices that I find hateful- weddings, bar mitzvahs, publicity gigs, "step and repeat" professional or student "portraits" (discussed here earlier), etc. Just because you may like sex is not a reason to become a prostitute. I always recommend to aspiring photographers interested in the medium primarily as fine art to avoid trying to earn a living at it. It is a more promising approach, if you are a true lover of what you do, to find a better paying and more financially promising career, and allow your photography to grow in a more unfettered way with the energy and time you have left from that. Then the kinds of questions you bring up become easier to handle.

October 15, 2011

Ekaterina,

This forum's response to your question is a good example of the mistake people make thinking forums like this are the best way to learn. Photo.net is a great place, but it's still all too often the blind leading the blind.

There is a simple, widely used Photoshop technique for doing what you want. It's the "liquify" filter, which can be used for all kinds of things, not just slimming. The best way to avoid having to scramble around for answers in places like this is to start by actually reading the full 800 page Photoshop books, or going through a full video tutorial course on Photoshop, or take a college course. That way when the subject comes up, you will probably remember which tool to go for.

There are lots of video tutorials on the liquify filter, e.g. on Youtube, of varying quality, but the basics are very simple once you get there. We use it in our portrait/fashion studio all the time, not so much for slimming (models are so often already stick thin), but to help give that perfectly fitted look when outfits don't fit quite right, even though we often clip them to be more form fitting, or even just to reshape a particular body part that is angled to look unflattering. You can also use it to flatten slightly crooked noses, get rid of very prominent bony protrusions (like acromio-clavicular joints, a chronic problem for runway models), etc. Used properly, the results can be both powerful and natural looking.

The other methods people have suggested hark back to an era before the liquify filter, or perhaps to earlier, more crude versions of it. It certainly works great in CS5, and you can store the results in a separate layer, so it's also non-destructive.

And of course it's always a good idea, as people suggest, to use light, positioning, etc. to get the best possible image before you head for processing. And I also agree with people who write that you may be fighting a losing battle; this is one of the chronic problems, for example, with wedding photography, where brides typically just don't look like the ones in the magazines.

Best luck!

February 22, 2011

Perhaps this is off-topic, but I am seeing a loss of links to my most recently submitted photos for critique. I don't care about the most recent forum posts ( as I understand #2) but I would think that links to a few recently submitted photos as part of the workspace would not put a strain on the server. As it is I need to manually remember exactly which photos I submitted for critique, and I'm getting too old for that!

December 14, 2010

I am surprised no one has mentioned that the major reason, in practice, for bumping the ISO is to avoid motion blur. It's obvious that flash is an alternative if getting a 'correct' exposure is of primary importance, but there's really not much you can do about motion blur if you prefer natural light and shoot at too slow a shutter speed. At the same time, there are all kinds of things you can do about luminance and chrominance noise, as is evidenced and discussed here a lot. I used to be hesitant about shooting at very high ISO until I got my 5D Mark II and at about the same time began using PS CS5, which has much improved RAW noise reduction capability.

October 22, 2010

The Canon and Sigma 1.4 are both great lenses optically, and there are many around, especially the Canon. As always, the Sigma is perhaps not as mechanically robust (i.e. easily knocked around) as the Canon, so a used Canon 1.4 is also perhaps a good choice. I have used the 1.8 and it would just be a steppingstone to one of the others, so not even a good investment for you, IMHO. You did not mention what body are using, and whether you are using a full frame. Many of us like a 50mm as a portrait lens either way, so again it is a win-win situation, even if you have a form factor now and will be moving up to a full frame body later.

October 17, 2010

The 5D is a terrific workhorse camera, and I agree with those that favor FF. However, not to be a spoiler, but the upgrade to the 5D Mark ii is huge. If you are comparing to a Bronica MF then the Mark ii really comes much closer to the kind of quality you are looking for, IMHO, and more comparable to the MF Digital cameras against which you are competing. There have been some great sales on the Mark ii, and it has been around long enough now so that you might find a used one more affordable than you think, and well worth it. Just an opinion. Also for architectural photography done from a tripod, stitching in Photoshop CS5 is wondrously easy at this point, and would help you accommodate your obvious desire for high technical quality.

October 16, 2010

The most clearly overstated images you will find easily are the landscapes here on photo.net, as well as similar ones that adorn the nature calendars in every bookstore. I go to the top rated landscapes here intermittently, and am invariably appalled. I really don't like to be negative, but you have raised an interesting subject.

By contrast, just browse through the fine art nature photography by the world's renowned nature photographers in any library.

The contrast is startling. As someone who previously spent a lot of time with landscapes, I think the modern trend, to oversaturate, oversharpen, and over "pop" everything, is disheartening.

July 27, 2010

There are certainly a lot of misconceptions floating around in this thread. I do agree that most of the problem with the cited original photos has to do with poor digital technique versus careful and well practiced film technique. It's a little bit like comparing a $50,000 vinyl-based stereo with using a cheap CD player and receiver (which has been done ad nauseum). One issue worth pointing out is that, while it is true that you can expose for the highlights, and then use a fill slider, let's remember that the RAW information is inherently Gamma 1.0, and has MUCH more information in the highlights than in the midrange or low tones. So (at least in theory) it's more potent to allow the highlights to appear blown out initially, and then bring them back with the Recovery slider in ACR, rather than going the other way. What you are shown onscreen (usually Gamma 2.2) has little to do with the original digital information. It's worth studying the theory behind all that. In practice, the problem I've run into is that, while magically recovering enormous amounts of apparently blown highlight information, one can also alter color balance in ways that can be unpleasant. Of course it's a tradeoff either way, but if you use RAW, ACR, and the Recovery Slider, without pushing that over the edge, you may be amazed how much highlight information is actually there and quite usable. And of course a careful balance between both methodologies is necessary in order to create a well crafted digital image. All this is similar to what we oldsters had to learn and work hard at with film, chemicals, paper, and toners in our wet darkrooms. There is just no substitute for studying theory and working hard at applying it, though it's a lot easier just to say that digital sucks. Of course the alternative is to shoot JPG and throw away not only highlights but also create artifacts and destroy much of the rest of the image information; when doing that, it's certainly illogical to complain about the resulting IQ.

July 6, 2010

I have tried both, and found the 35mm f/1.4 was fabulous, and seemed much better than the f/2. On photodo you can see reviews on both lenses, with the 1.4 getting a higher rating than the f/2 (4.72 to 4.05), but of course there is no definitive answer from one source.

If you are very finicky about IQ, and/or hope to make exhibition quality prints, I would highly recommend the f/1.4. Otherwise get the f/2 if convenience and/or price are more important.

July 4, 2010

IMHO I think the two things that would be most effective would be:

1. Upgrade to full Photoshop, CS5. There is usually a way to do that without the full price, if you are a student, etc. Elements has always been a poor substitute, and while many rightly find it painful for the original purchase, there is so much power there, there shouldn't be a need for buying more software. 2. Look at some of the books and especially videos available on portrait retouching, repeatedly if necessary. I like all the Julianne Kost ones, but there are a variety of styles. If you're serious about quality portrait retouching, the only way to do that is by hand, not with a formulaic add-on. Unless you need that for quantity and speed rather than quality.

July 3, 2010

Jeff- Adobe does a patient and useful analysis here:

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html

Per Adobe, "Photoshop CS5 and CS4 leverage the graphics display card's GPU, instead of the computer's main processor (the CPU) to speed its screen redraw". On the link above, they list functions which are directly accelerated by the GPU, many of which are fundamental operations. It's a good read. What would make another interesting thread is the fact that Photoshop hasn't always correctly implemented the instruction set of every GPU properly, which has led to some bugs along the way. Details would be off topic here. But then, what would Adobe know about Photoshop, anyway?

July 3, 2010

The following site is good for benchmarks. Most computers without dedicated cards use Intel chipsets, which are included here (on the low end): http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ The most technically detailed specs will be found on sites usually by and for gamers. When you get into heavy duty Photoshop, and you want to use the (very nice) openGL enhancements, you wind up with some of the same needs as the gamers: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-4500MHD-GMA-X4500MHD.9883.0.html For those not inclined to visit these sites, even though I have already posted Windows' own benchmarks (3.0 for 4500M, 4.0-4.2 for 4500HD, 5.0+ for dedicated cards, note these are exponential numbers), here is a meaningful excerpt using industry standard 3dMark numbers:

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="3">3DMark 05 in comparison</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-500-GMA-500.12614.0.html">Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 500</a> (min)</td>

<td>

137

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-X300.2172.0.html">ATI Mobility Radeon X300</a></td>

<td>

994

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Radeon-Xpress-X1250.6946.0.html">ATI Radeon Xpress X1250</a></td>

<td>

1089

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-9700.2169.0.html">ATI Mobility Radeon 9700</a></td>

<td>

1200

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-4500MHD-GMA-X4500MHD.9883.0.html">Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 4500MHD</a></td>

<td>

1227

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-FireGL-V3200.2346.0.html">ATI Mobility FireGL V3200</a></td>

<td>

1250

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-X1300.2166.0.html">ATI Mobility Radeon X1300</a></td>

<td>

1333

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-Go-7300.2145.0.html">NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300</a></td>

<td>

1448

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

As above the Intel 4500MHD is equivalent to one of the older, slower cards listed. Typical newer cards like the Radeon 4550 etc. now register about 7,000 3dMarks (also listed on the same site above), which is a 5-6 times multiple of the best Intel built in chipset.

In a more concrete vein, if you are using, for example, the healing brush tool scores or hundreds of times to carefully rework a complexion, there is a HUGE difference between instant response and waiting 1-2 seconds per instance...

July 3, 2010

I absolutely agree with those who think a dedicated graphics card (and GPU, yes) are important, not because of theoretical reasons, but because of direct experience. Onboard graphics chipsets may or may not be enough to handle Lightroom (which is known for its sprightliness), but I am talking about the more demanding CS4 or CS5 tools with large RAW and mutli-layered PSD files. Having said that, I don't think the poster will be buying a $1500 laptop without a decent graphics card. A more important thread here seems to be color calibration. It is easy to do hardware calibration twice, once to get a profile (.icm) file for the laptop, then again (having saved the original file elsewhere), for a larger external monitor. Then you take the original .icm file, put it back in the correct Windows directory with a distinct name. Then, you can easily set the profile to the desktop version when on the road or visiting clients, and set it back to the external monitor profile when you are in home base. If you do that right, your photos will look correct both ways. It is true that up until a few years ago, high powered dedicated laptop graphics cards ran hot- but not true today. ATI and Nvidia have made huge strides, and it's no longer an issue. Finally, the issue re: weight has become easier to deal with. I had a Sony Vaio with a 17" screen that worked great but was a real pain to carry around. Again up till fairly recently the image quality of smaller screens wasn't good enough to make smaller and lighter laptops feasible. No longer true; for example, the 14" and 13.3" models are very lightweight and can have excellent screens. Finally, I don't recall seeing any mention that it's even better to have it both ways. I have a home office with a desktop, and an office at the studio with a monitor and keyboard which attach to my laptop. Obviously it costs more for that kind of setup, but I would bet that is a scenario many are using.

July 2, 2010

I carry a small hard drive with me to my office, home office, and to meetings, so using that with a laptop works really well. The GPU is at least as important (or more) in determining whether a laptop will do the trick. 6 gigs is plenty, as is the i7. A dedicated graphics card with as much memory as possible is a very important help. The built-in typical Intel 4500HD chipset is barely adequate. If you can physically test out your machine, on Windows 7, an Experience Index for Desktop Graphics of 3 is inadequate, 4 is sluggish, and 5 or better is fine. I always use a separate keyboard and monitor, with an extended desktop. Also it is important to create two hardware calibration profiles, one for the laptop, and another for the accessory monitor, and use the correct one for the situation in which you use the laptop. Given all that, I say go for it. I also have several desktops, but a high powered laptop is wonderfully versatile.

May 12, 2010

If you're already shooting film (in my case, for landscapes especially, Large Format), then it doesn't make sense NOT to scan, especially if you have a high quality, e.g. drum, scanner. Once you've scanned a LF transparency or negative, for example, you've got the extremely high resolution that arguably exceeds that of a medium format digital back (there are no high speed LF digital sensors that I am aware of). Then, by scanning, you can get a 1Gb native TIF for Photoshop to start with. There is no more powerful combination for extremely large displays or prints that I know of.

May 6, 2010

Bob thanks, you are very clear, and you are absolutely correct in pointing out that photo.net will never be able to satisfy everyone. I just looked over the obvious portrait, fashion, and nudes categories. There are some great images in all those categories. I will follow your advice and submit it in nudes. Frankly, I think people aren't going to care whether my model was clothed (she was) or whether I tend to prefer 'nudes' that don't show "private areas" (I do). The bottom line for me is that photo.net is still the classiest, best, repository and exchange site for photographers in many different categories, including critiques. That's why I DO care about how people judge (up to a point). Again thanks all for your astute help!

May 6, 2010

Thanks for the responses, but I'm afraid this discussion has been made of limited value, since no one knows what image prompted it. I guess that is my fault; I just posted the image in my portfolio as the first image in the Keystone section, if anyone wants to look at it. Bob, re: bikini shots would normally go in glamour there is no glamour category. That is part of why I started this thread. I usually post in fashion, which to me is more of an attitude and style than an excuse to show off clothing, but many people disagree with my attitude. As info, the photo I uploaded shows a young lady from the waist up, B&W, with no private parts showing even slightly, very dramatic light, and a lot of negative space, expressive hands, and a sensuous aura. What I have found is that this kind of image is too unrevealing for the people who are judging nudes, not highlighting exotic clothing or settings enough for the fashion people, and too racy for the portraits crowd.

Again thanks for your ideas, more of which are certainly welcome!

May 6, 2010

I like the critique forum, and submit photos regularly. The problem I often run into is that many photos do not fit easily into the limited number of categories available. Here is a photo that is not really fashion, or nude, or portrait, or fine art, exactly. Where would be the best place to submit it for critique? Or do we need more categories, e.g. implied nude, or glamour, or whatever? Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

April 27, 2010

I have or have had the 24-70, the 24L, the 35L, the 28 1.8, and the Sigma 1.4. I do agree with the comments that you try to use glass before buying, since the "right" lenses for you will not be the same as someone else's. Having both the 24-70 and the 24L, I find I use the 24-70 a lot more. For architecture, I think you would find the added versatility of the zoom overrides the perhaps slightly better quality of the 24L at 24mm. Sneaker zoom is especially difficult for architectural photographs, because stuff gets in the way! The 35L (1.4) is wonderful, but I don't like that focal length much. The 28mm is not one of their better lenses, and I sold mine. I think the Canon 1.4 is at least as good and mechanically better than the Sigma 1.4., though they are both great lenses.

April 25, 2010

It's interesting that the most cost effective lenses are not necessarily among the cheaper ones.

My most cost effective for Canon DSLR has been my 24-70mm L 2.8, which I use on a 5D. I keep it on the camera most of the time, even though in theory I prefer prime lenses, and have only kept the half dozen or so lenses that I like the most.

The creative freedom and quality of this lens, at every focal length and aperture, and my tendency to prefer focal lengths that are not at the extremes, make it a true workhorse.

February 28, 2010

One more suggestion: if possible, for the kind of subtle tonal variation in the Vogue example, look at either using a medium format digital camera (very expensive), or stop using a Bayer Array camera (e.g. Nikon or Canon), and use either film or a Sigma SD14. Bayer Arrays, because each element of the array only reads one of the three primary colors, and then they use algorithms to "guess" the other two color values, tend to wash out delicate nuances in skin detail (among other misdeeds). That is part of the reason why diehard film devotees are still not sold on digital. I always use my Sigma with 3-layer Foveon array when I want maximum subtlety in skin tones. Filmmakers use an equivalent for professional digital motion picture quality.

February 28, 2010

My first suggestion is stop looking at youtube videos, and, if you like videos, get something authoritative, such as the Julianne Kost videos. The youtube equivalents vary enormously in quality, and can and do spread a lot of misinformation and cause confusion. But they are free, and you get what you pay for.

A practical suggestion first is that you are doing the skin blurring backwards. The professional way is to duplicate a layer, blur everything, add a mask (just click on the add mask icon), then hit CNTRL-I to invert. Then you can paint in only the parts you want to blur. You can do these with great control either by enabling and using a touch sensitive pad (e.g. Wacom), OR by varying the opacity of the brush you choose to use to paint in varying degrees of blurriness.

Alternatively, if you have to do this kind of thing a lot (I do), it looks even better to have a subject with difficult facial skin texture use makeup (a foundation) first. Then instead of the above, all you may need is to use the blur tool (again setting the strength as needed) to blur the worst areas. That is even more subtle. Of course that only works e.g. with serious, cooperative professional models or the like.

Hope that helps. Good Luck!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by macmoss