tom_mann1

<p>My thought, JDM, is that the orange does indeed make the photo more visually interesting, but if there was no light pollution (likely from Na vapor street lights), the color of the clouds would be the color of what is illuminating them, so they would likely be somewhere between the green color of this particular aurora and the color of a cloudless night sky. </p> <p>I regard changing their color as somewhat analogous to removing blemishes on a portrait of someone. The usual guidance is that if the blemish is temporary (eg, a zit), you can remove it, but if it's permanent, leave it alone. So, the question is whether light pollution is temporary or not, LOL. </p> <p>:-)</p> <p>Tom M</p>

<p>Since some people prefer more of a burn-your-retinas, tell a fish story type of rendition of the scene (LOL), I turned the orange areas to green (using ACR and Color Mechanic), and then added lots more local contrast (aka, "structure") to the scene using Topaz Adjust and came up with this ...</p> <p>Tom M</p><div></div>

Also, the exact spectral response of the emulsion (i.e., beyond the basic pano- / orthochromatic distinction) combined with any filters he used, the warmness vs coolness of the ambient light, and the important colors in the scene will selectively darken or lighten different areas leading to the possible misinterpretation of these changes in tonality as simply different levels of contrast. IMHO, the only way that gives one even a glimmer of hope in reproducing this phenomena today is either by exact duplication of his materials & processes, or by starting with a color image & using tools such as PS's multi-color BW adjustment layer. Just my $0.02. Tom M

JDM - IMHO, your recommendations are right on the mark. They are in line with the recommendations made by the National Archives, the Visual Resources Association and other organizations for the (digital) preservation of raster images. This page lists documents describing various relevant recommendations: http://vraweb.org/resources/cataloging-metadata-and-data-management/best-practices-and-procedures-guides/ Now, if we can only convince people that it is important to follow such recommendations, we will be in good shape. Cheers, Tom M PS - FYI, JDM, I retired from academia last year and am having a great time hiking, backpacking and otherwise getting back in some semblance of shape ... of course, I'm not going to mention the increase in length of the honey-do list, LOL.

<div></div>

This is one of the funniest photography threads I've seen in a good while. Good one, JDM! I'm trying to figure out exactly where Spiratone lenses should be placed -- minus 3 for quality or +3 for humor & historic value, eg their right angle mirror lens. Tom M

Re replacing a single blown channel with the contents of the other two channels, my understanding is that this is exactly what the "highlights recovery" slider in ACR used to do when it was first introduced several versions ago. My understanding is that this functionality was then incorporated into the tonality sliders in ACR to provide a more seamless experience. Some of the other raw converters also provide the same functionality. Tom M

I've done a lot of backpacking since the 1970s, and I personally have found it very difficult to integrate serious photography (and its associated equipment) with the conventional backpacking aspects of the trip. For example, whenever it has come down to deciding between adding, say, 10 or 15 pounds of DSLR-level camera gear (i.e., including a tripod, extra batteries/film, a second lens, etc.) and bringing some more water (especially in parts of the west), the serious camera gear got left behind and was always replaced with whatever was the smallest reasonable camera of that era, eg, an Olympus XA for many of my hikes back in the day, a Canon G12 then a G16 for hikes/backpacks in the last few years, etc. Also, unless I'm hiking alone, I've never found *anyone* (including good friends who thought of themselves as "interested in photography") who would want to wait around with me for the clouds to move / clear / the fog to move in, or camp at / detour to a good location for photography at the expense of making miles or camping in a spot which was closer to the core route, had a nearby water source, was less rocky, etc. So to feed my photographic needs, what I've always done is to either take day hikes without backpacking gear, or once I even went so far as hiring a packer & a couple of his horses/mules to drop me and my equipment off at a remove basin off of the PCT that I had previously scouted, and then pick me up several days later. With respect to weight, for example, even these days with lighter gear, many people still have a hard time getting the base weight of their pack under 20 lbs (i.e., weight excluding consumables such as fuel, food & water), Add those in, and you are likely up around 30-35 lbs (even for pleasant summer weather trips), and then add another 10 or 15 lbs for serious DSLR camera gear, and you could easily wind up schlepping around a 40-50 lb pack. Unless you have the strength of an ox, that amount of weight will decrease the enjoyment and route options available to many people. I obviously don't know where you are going, if you are doing an overnight or a 6 month track on the AT, how experienced you are at backpacking, the tolerance of any companions who will be with you to photography, etc.. So, I guess my advice would be to consider these other factors very carefully in your plans. You may want to consider picking up a much lighter and smaller modern mirrorless system, or even dialing your photographic aspirations way back and just bring your phone (which can serve many other functions, eg, GPS backup to your paper maps). Anyway, you probably have already thought about such matters, but just in case you haven't, they are some thoughts to consider. Have a great time, no matter what you do. Cheers, Tom M PS - ...and w.r.t. a suitable camera case, definitely take a nice long training hike with the same pack (weighed down to 35 lbs or so), but with your present camera clipped between your shoulder straps, with a camera attached to your waist belt, slung around your neck, etc.. Personally, I find these attachment methods very awkward and annoying. The camera will be banging into your chest or legs, every time you take the pack off or put it on, the camera (if left attached) can easily swing into something, can interfere with anything else around your neck (eg, your glasses), hinders cooling, etc. Again, this speaks to separating the backpacking (i.e., the transportation aspect) and the photographic aspects of the trip (which can be done once you get to some interesting spots).

I really like the tonality of the pix you posted -- very controlled contrast with lots of detail in both the highlights and shadow areas.. I also remember the same thing that Kenneth pointed out, i.e., many reports of natural skin tones. What is your experience with this? Did you make any major changes to the tonality using either LR or ACR? Definitely nice images. Tom M

I use both of these programs. My workflow is that I first move the files from my camera / card over onto my workstation using Photo Mechanic. In this step, I almost always apply keywords, assign star and color ratings, add the copyright notice, add contact and contract / job info, add location and model release info, etc. etc. My second step is then to import the resulting files into LR. All the IPTC data that I added using Photo Mechanic just sails along flawlessly. Could you give some more details about exactly what you mean because I really don't really understand your question. For example, the IPTC data for an image is not stored in some sort of database in Photo Mechanic. Rather, it is stored either in the image file itself, or a sidecar file, so one doesn't "copy IPTC data from PM to LR". LR just gets the IPTC data from the files themselves. Tom M

Thanks, guys. I like the idea of the test cake. That's something they will understand, and, of course, I'll have to figure out a way to dispose of it (.. which shouldn't be too difficult, LOL). Tom M

I have a client who wants to put one of my photos of a piece of equipment (lots of small details) on cakes for a major corporate event. They have previously used this image with great success in numerous other ways, eg, in promotional mailings, invitations, on their web site, on T-shirts, etc., but I have absolutely no experience printing on cake and would like to know if anyone has any tips on preparing a file to send to the bakery. For example: - Is it somewhat like printing on canvas, i.e., it sucks up colors so add a bit of saturation - What about increasing the contrast a bit? - I'm sure this process is low resolution compared to inkjet printing on paper, so should I do anything like add a bit of edge sharpening? - The image they want to use has lots of detail that I expect will get lost, so should I suggest they use only a cropped portion of the original? - From the small amount of technical info on the subject that I could find on the web, it appears that they use non-conventional inks (dyes), so I expect color shifts, but I don't expect to find a printer profile for the process, LOL. So, any general observations / suggestions, eg, the reds are very weak, etc. - Any other thoughts / advice? Thanks in advance, Tom M PS - I spoke to the bakery that has the contract for this event. and they were worse than clueless. They wouldn't even give me the name of the mfgr of their equipment. I have a feeling that they are used to producing novelty birthday cakes for kids using cell phone images and their clientele is happy with whatever they produce, so I'm probably overthinking this and shouldn't expect to interact with them the same way I would with a large volume offset press printing plant.

A 2" aperture, very low f-number, germanium lens (for the mid-IR) cooled to near absolute zero to minimize its thermal emission in a scientific experiment (radiometer). (Sorry - couldn't resist, LOL). Tom M PS - As I recall, it also cost more than almost any conventional lens.

<div></div>

From your post, you sound like an experienced photographer. In this case, just Go through pix of cities & flowers that u have already taken and pick out the ones you like the most. Look at the EXIF data and see what lenses you used. Bring the same ones. Amsterdam is no different than any other city. Just my $0.02, Tom M PS - if you happen to use Lightroom, there is a very nice way to automate this process. Just let us know.

Just to be sure we are on the same page, using the group shot you posted as an example, can you be more specific than just saying, "substandard"? For example, which of the following attributes don't you like: posing, expressions, lighting, focus, colors, contrast, no details in the bright areas, no details in the shadow areas, cropping, his attitude / people skills at the event, not enough or too many special effects, the prints don't look like what you see when you look at the electronic versions on your computer, something else, etc. etc. Also, how do the shots he provided you compare to shots he showed you to attract you as a customer? In what way are they different? Tom M

<div></div>

<p>Any suggestions for a good replacement for Picasaweb? Especially an alternative that allows the photographers to set things up the way they want and easily upload and manage albums/images, but makes it easy for casual, non-photographers (...think family members, not customers) to browse a fairly large (a few hundred albums, 30-50 pix per album) historic collection.</p> <p>Picasaweb had a nice little ecosystem going with Picasa plus all the different apps available for phones that allow one to download and cache (on your phone or iPad) Picasaweb albums that one might want to show around, especially when one doesn't have a broadband connection.</p> <p>In addition, as you probably know from all the unanswered complaints about Google Photos (especially, if you are reading this thread, LOL), Google Photos is missing some important functionality that Picasaweb had. </p> <p>One example of this is changing the sort order of albums (aka, "collections"). Not everyone wants one specific algorithm to determine the album sort order. In the past, one could work around this by renaming / dating albums in Picasaweb and the changes would be reflected in Google Photos, but when Picasaweb is gone, we won't even have this work-around. There are many other examples of missing functionality.</p> <p>It looks like another "least common denominator" business decision by Google.</p> <p>TIA for any comments,</p> <p>Tom M</p>

No, i find that for most ordinary starting images the local contrast is too high and needs to be reduced before thresholding. If you don't do this you will often wind up with much too complicated black and white patterns after you threshold it. Give it a try both ways and you'll see the cleaner lines it produces. Also, realize that I am talking about local, not global contrast. Cheers, Tom M

<div></div>

<p>1. Lower the local contrast of the image substantially. You can use the "clarity" slider in ACR, Topaz Details, or many other methods. In addition to reducing the local contrast, you may also want to do some actual smoothing of the image to minimize tiny features like grain, pores, etc.</p> <p>2. Convert to B&W</p> <p>3. Threshold it.</p> <p>4. Put a color fill layer with a suitable color on top of the layer stack and set its blend mode to multiply.</p> <p>5. If the result of #4 is too complicated or has too much detail in certain areas, go back to step #2 and do some burning and dodging to force certain areas to black and other areas to white.</p> <p>Done</p> <p>HTH,</p> <p>Tom M<br /> <br /><br /><br /> PS - The Wikipedia image that I used to demonstrate this process is licensed under Creative Commons for many uses including, "remix" (ie, to adapt the work) as long as it is attributed. The photographer is Gage Skidmore. Details about this photo including the general license granted for this use are here: <br /> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg</p><div></div>

Since it appears that the OP is already using a light tent, the use of a polarizing filter on the camera lens is a good next step. However, as Alan pointed out, this can only reduce reflections if the reflective surface is a dielectric (non- conducting) material, and even then, it's effectiveness depends dramatically on the exact angles involved, and often the reduction in reflection is quite small, especially when using a light tent. An even better approach is to also place polarizer sheets in the path between the light source and the object, not just in the path between the object and the camera (i.e., in front of the lens). One sets the axis of polarization of the source polarizers to be perpendicular to the axis of polarization of the one in front of the lens. In this configuration, one can achieve almost complete suppression of reflections for both dielectric (eg, plastic, glass, paint, etc.) as well as metallic surfaces. I have photographed similar sized objects using sheets of polarizer taped to the front of two small softboxes placed close to the product, and have had great success removing annoying reflections. In fact, the problem can be that too much suppression of reflections looks unrealistic, so you should also take some shots of each piece with less than maximum suppression. HTH, Tom M

You will often hear that it is better to use LR or ACR to do NR on raw files. This is absolutely true. The reason is because in a raw file, the information from each sensor in the array is available. With every step where data is merged, eg, generating pixels which contain all three colors / demosaicing, etc., the statistics of the noise becomes less easily distinguished from the statistics of the real image information. This is the way sophisticated NR algorithms work. Unfortunately, one loses a lot of the advantages LR/ACR (or DxO) provides if you use them for NR on anything except raw data files, i.e., on JPGs, TIFs, etc. In my experience, the effectiveness of the NR in LR and ACR then becomes very similar to the well-known NR algorithms / plugins for PS, eg, Topaz DeNoise, NeatImage, DENOISE Projects (the relatively new, very good German offering), Corel, Ximagic, Nik Define, Imagenomic Noiseware, DxO used on image (not raw) files, etc. Each of the above software packages has specific pros and cons with respect to the effectiveness and selectivity of it's noise reduction on different types of underlying images (eg, relatively smooth vs lots of random structure, vs lots of regular structure), and different types of noise (eg, digital noise, film grain, popcorn noise, etc.). Back 5 or 10 years ago, when I was digitizing my slides and negatives, like one of the previous posters, I strongly favored Neat Image. However, I haven't done any digitization of film in years, so I haven't checked to see if Neat Image still is the leader of the pack compared to the recent offerings from other companies. Before you settle on one particular package, at minimum, I would give "DENOISE Projects" a try on film. Although I don't use this particular feature, it does include an algorithm specifically for film grain. Good luck on your project. Tom M

<p>+1 to Michael's use of Photo Mechanic. It really speeds things up for me.</p> <p>I've been doing quite a bit of event work lately (ie, typically 300 - 600 at each event, usually one event every weekend or 2). I try to be selective in what I shoot to minimize later work at the computer. </p> <p>I use Photo Mechanic to transfer the images from the memory card to the computer. I have it set up to make one copy on one of my SSDs, and simultaneously make a 2nd copy on one of my external mechanical HDs for safety. Using Photo Mechanic, I also give each image a rating, and enter keywords + repetitive info like event name and location, subject names, copyright notice, info on model releases, etc. Photo Mechanic allows me to write the IPTC type of info into a sidecar file that can be read by LR and PS, so that the info doesn't get lost at the raw conversion step.</p> <p>I copy the top images from the event to their own directory, pull them into LR, and can handle 80-90% or more of the image adjustments within LR, while the remainder of the images (if I continue to like them) will get a more complete treatment in PS.</p> <p>I'm running Win 8.1, on a fast, new PC with 64 Gig of RAM, 3 fast SSDs and multiple mechanical HDs, both internal and external (for backup purposes)</p> <p>If I need to find and retrieve a previously processed image, I'll first do a search in LR among the top images from each event. If that doesn't find it, (eg, because I didn't put that image in the top group), I'll give Picasa a try, and if that doesn't work (which happens very rarely), go to Extensis Portfolio. </p> <p>I know that using different SW for the ingestion tasks vs the processing tasks vs image retrieval tasks probably sounds a bit offbeat, but I have found that this procedure works beautifully for me and is very fast / efficient.<br> <br />Just my $0.02,</p> <p>Tom M</p> <p> </p>

... Or using the money to purchase specialized software ( eg, Photo Mechanic) that can wildly speed up the process of captioning and key wording because it can store the names of all the players on your home team so that every time you type ##08 it instantly and correctly fills in the 30 letter long name of the Welshman on your team, LOL. Of course, any hardware upgrade will make an improvement, but think outside the box to see if some non-hardware item will give u more bang for the buck (as us Yanks are fond of saying). Tom M