evanlberent

<p>I've been wondering, would encrypting metadata with your own code, be problematic while editing them and moving them around before you send them off to the ether? Could the encrypted metadata be extracted by someone trying to "steal" the work?<br>

If the answer is no, how do you go about encrypting the metadata?</p>

<p>I would think, this would be a great precaution for those worried about theft and other actions labeled as "piracy." Should you ever find your image else where, just download it and decode the encryption which can hold your personalized metadata.<br>

I've tried looking this up but haven't found much. Any articles you may have, send them my way!</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Oh no no no, Webster and Mayes, I'm aware of that (mentioned it in my last paragraph).</p>

<p>West, I am going to have to ask for a breakdown of how to do all that. I'm still pretty new to PS. It seems that everytime I look for one way, someone has a completely different way of handling it, yet it's good practice, trying to make mself somehwat versed in Photoshop. So if you could just go over what and where I'd appreciate it. Thanks for lending a hand.</p>

<p>Hello Thar!<br /> You'll have to excuse me if this has been answered (as I've come across many post about reducing glare in the digital editing process). However, I am a little new to the editing jargon, so I can't seem to make these reducing glare techniques work.<br>

Here's my issue. I am looking for a way to reduce glare. (if you need an example, see the photo below) But not by using the clone stamp or healing brush, since I feel this is more tedious than just having the plug-ins select the bright-white areas for me.<br>

I've come across many different ways to select the glare and to add darkness: add noise, burn, color the image... However, how do I use such tools to turn it into my own shades... NOT greyscale. It seems tools like adding noise, only produce black and grey etc. How would I go about turning these greys into a tone of my choice, i.e. peach skin (see photo)<br /> If there's a post/page/site that answers this, by all means send me too it. I don't mean to cause a headache.<br>

Thanks for your time.<br>

P.S. The shot was meant to show glare. I was explaining about overexposer with a friend (man in the shot) and afterwords decided it would be a good photo to practice reducing glare... (when it should happen... hopefully rarely).</p><div></div>

I would say I've learned some techniques with photo editing software but that is far from what I've seen possible, and how much I've

forgotten. I am currently using Gimp for Mac and am in need to some help as to what to use to do any sort of editing! WHile trying to find

my own way, I get discouraged quite quickly for this tool won't select or this is too strong, or I can't even find that thingy that does those

really good stuffs... I have included a few photos to give you a reference as to where I should be lead.

I've been trying to use GIMPguru.org but have found I've only used one guide so far ("Creating a contrast mask.")

Here's the original,

http://fc31.deviantart.com/fs35/f/2008/300/8/c/3025___Sail___by_Phosphotovescence.jpg

and here's my edit,

http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs34/f/2008/310/1/8/Maccabee_Washout_by_Phosphotovescence.jpg

I've been trying to keep the water from the original while bringing down the washout I received from the sun, while lightening up the two

figures and the all the rest in the foreground.

Any tips? Any good websites for guides, tutorials and the like?

Much appreciated.

Yes they are Freshly printed photos, sorry about that. Posted this just before I fell asleep around 4am! (didn't realize there

was a "digital darkroom" either, pardon me.)

I'll try to double check for anything moist when I rescan. Thanks.

Hi guys,

I have ( technically my father's...) a Epson 1660 Scanner which I've wiped down twice with a "wet" lens cleaning cloth, and see no

smudges, scratches etc where my developed photos are scanned. Except, when I finish scanning, i receive the following, these odd, seemingly random grey spots trickled throughout. I've also wiped the photos themselves,a nd checked to see any fingerprints... nada... I'm

pretty sure I've done it with all the photos.

This shot contains them in the sky,

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs32/i/2008/232/0/0/Seaside_by_Phosphotovescence.jpg

Third "yellow light" up from the bottom has a much smaller grey streak,

http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs32/i/2008/232/b/7/Focused_by_Phosphotovescence.jpg

The hand, and the face in the BG has similar spots,

The odd part was after rescanning certain images, the greys changed. Possibly it is physical, or maybe its some odd scanning

malfunction. Could it be these NEWLY (Only a few days old) developed photos have gotten some kind of dirt or oil on them?

Tell me what you can and if I can do anything about it.

Thanks!

Okay thanks a lot guys. One last question.

If most of these new AF lenses are going to have a "short" focus ring for speedy AF, where,/which lenses can I buy for my

Canon XTi which will have a nice size Focal Ring for manual Focus. I prefer even this to be manual.

Any suggestions or tips would be appreciated.

Ah, Okay. Thanks.

Another simple question, do they sell strictly manual lenses for DSLRs or are we talking about the old manual

lenses from Film SLRs?

I just entered the digital realm of SLRs and picked up the Canon Rebel Xti with a Tamron 28-75mm 1:2.8 Macro lens. Although fairly new, I

was surprised to find the turning of the focus very very short, almost takes one sixth of the diameter. I was surprised because when

focusing on the Nikkormat camera (Film) the lenses gave me room to micro-adjust the focus. Is this typical of Tamron, or DSLR Lenses

or...?

Also was wondering what your thoughts were on the lens I have (Tamron SP 28-75mm 1:2.8 Macro). Of course I am looking to purchase

another lens but when and which is only a matter of time.

Thanks.

Just an update,

I actually brought my lenses to B&H. The Non-auto Nikkor lesnes do not seem to fit on the D60, however the D80 they fit without a

hitch(although maybe a click). Although I didn;t try comparing similar lenses (auto digital to my manual) I think I found my DSLR, now time

for me look for a good price!

Thanks everyone.

Pardon me if I sound so dumb, but the reason I wish to get a DSLR is to have what I had on my Nikkormat except in

digital. I WANT manual adjustment for all the possibilities, which I had to do with film. When you guys speak of the DSLR's

manual vs. autos, am I missing something if it is not just focusing, aperture and the like?

Thank you so much guys. I've been dying to get a DSLR but am very tight on money, and it is more of a hobby then a job

and it seemed the Canon Rebel XTi would perfect (around $600) and I am contemplating what lens to get. If I can hold off

on that and use my old lenses which apparently I can, then I could save a few bucks... just a few.

As Vierimaa pointed out, would it be easier (for the lenses to fit properly without an adapter) to stick with Nikon?

Oh and D N, no thank you, I'm planning on buying a surreal tripod, I've been told it's out of this world!

Pardon me if this has been answered, but all I can find are specific answers to this lens with that DSLR body and so on.

Feel free to redirect me to the post which may answer this.

What are the basics for using Film Lenses on DSLR bodies?

For specifics, I have been using a Nikon, Nikkormat with a Vivitar 70-210mm as well as a Nikon lens. I have been looking at the Canon

Rebel XTi. Feel free to use these as examples.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.