benbangerter

<p>I see virtually no difference between the two images you posted, using a color-managed browser (Firefox). Should I?</p>

<p>I would not use Epson VFA for portraits myself. Or for anything where I wanted to hold fine detail, for that matter. If you prefer a whiter base color than Ilford GFS, try Epson Exhibition Fiber, which has a finish close to that of GFS and also takes photo black ink. A really nice paper for many purposes. (You will want to install the PixelGenius ICC profile for EEF, as Epson does not supply their own: <a href="http://www.pixelgenius.com/epson/">http://www.pixelgenius.com/epson/</a>).</p>

 

<p>After you enter your text, set the font, size and color, apply the desired effect (emboss, bevel, etc), then reduce the opacity of the text layer. Voila!</p>

<p>Yes, Eric Chan provides the most detailed and generally useful information relating to use of this printer. It is frequently referred to in discussions of the SP3800 on this forum.</p>

<p>Alan - interesting explanation, but you need to check your math ;) 0.006 inches is about 0.15 mm. My impression is that, for 35mm film, a COC value of 30 microns, or 0.030 mm, is often cited. This corresponds to 0.01 inches when the image is enlarged to a (minimally cropped) 8"x10" print. When such an 8x10 print is viewed from a distance of 12 inches, this about 0.05 deg (or 3 minutes) of arc. Visual acuity is a complicated subject, which depends on many facors. Call it what you will...</p>

<p>Without becoming involved in discussing KR <em>per se</em> (even a blind squirrel may come up with an acorn once in a while), most people would I think agree that seeking simplicity in nearly every aspect of life is a virtue. Of course, that is often not possible (there is probably no simple way of putting a man on the moon, if that is what you want to do, but I digress). In photography, simplicity may slow you down and make you think more about what you are trying to accomplish, which I think is often a good thing (though maybe not at an NBA game or NASCAR race).<br>

But the idea that "one (fixed focal length) lens is all you really need" is completely absurd. As Matt Needham has pointed out (above), perspective and field of view (or cropping of a scene in camera) are separate considerations that come together in making a photograph. Ideally, a photographer would first choose his or her perspective or viewpoint, then select the focal length (lens or zoom setting) needed to achieve the field of view desired. If you set out with a single lens of fixed focal length, you must choose one and give up the other. Alas, "zooming with your feet" is an oxymoron - it simply can't be done (and attempting to do so while standing on, say, the rim of the Grand Canyon might prove risky at best)!<br>

Setting out with a single fixed focal length lens may be a very useful thing to do, not because this will result in better photographs, but because it will educate you in the characteristics (and limitations) of that focal length for the kinds of photographs you are trying to make. You might quickly conclude that a 50mm lens is not ideal on an African safari, nor a 400mm lens for family photos in the living room.</p>

<p>We're drifting a bit here, but - my father's b/w negatives from the 1930s and his Kodachromes from the 1940s are in great shape (the Ektachromes, Anscochromes and other E6 stuff are not). However, my research data from the 1970s on Dectape, 1980s on 800bpi magtape, 1990s on MO (magneto-optical) disks and 8" floppy disks are effectively unavailable to me, as are all the data sitting on the 5 MB and 16 MB removable disk platters. Converting all this stuff to the newest media as each arrived over the years might have taken as much time and effort as collecting the data in the first place! It is hard to beat properly processed and stored film (well, b/w now that Kodachrome is gone) for long archival life.</p>

<p>Christmas in Connecticut</p><div></div>

<p>Season's Greetings to all<em> photo</em>.<em>net</em>ers!</p>

<p>If the colors are lovely and the slide looks like it might have been taken last week, it's Kodachrome!</p>

<p>What Alan said. When you have an untagged image and you know or suspect what the color space is, you can assign a profile, so the image can be used in a color-managed workflow. If you know what color space an image is in, you certainly don't want to assign something else. It is fine to work in ProPhotoRGB as long as it is 16 bit. If your printing setup is correct, you should get a good match printing that 16 bit ProPhoto image. If not, something is set wrong. If you want to convert the image to a smaller color space before printing, e,g. AdobeRGB or sRGB, do the convert to profile step before reducing the bit depth. To get more help, you need to provide more information (printer driver and Photoshop settings, monitor calibration, etc.)</p>

<p>Joseph's reply is spot on - candid, direct, and a bit blunt. You take offense rather easily, it seems. You are trying to split hairs with your analysis of final image size and ppi. What you really need to do is sell prints.</p>

<p>I shoot raw, use automatic white balance, and in Camera Raw or Lightroom, virtually always adjust white balance. Your choice is to use what the raw converter's software designers (whether in-camera or in say Lightroom) have decided is "correct," or use what your eyes and brain prefer. The white balance choices in the pull-down menu are for the most part very approximate. For example, "Daylight" illumination varies greatly with time of day, time of the year, latitude, and other factors (such as green grass or other foliage reflecting some of the light on the subject). Shooting a grey card or color-checker chart can be very helpful. The big problem is mixed, non-uniform lighting. Good luck with that...</p>

<p>Dave, I am unfamiliar with the calibration software that supports the Spyder 3. I use an Eye One Display 2 with NEC SpectraView II software (NEC LCD2690WUXi monitor) and target luminance is one of the parameters that may be set. By the way, some very nice shots in your portfolio. Prague is a photographer's dream, isn't it? Judging from the variety of dates for your photos, you must live there...</p>

<p>Keep in mind that "prints too dark" generally means "monitor too bright." Many people favor a monitor luminance of 100-120 cd/m^2, though with my setup, 90 cd/m^2 works best. As Tim has pointed out here, and as Andrew Rodney has stressed elsewhere repeatedly, monitor luminance should be set so that an image viewed on the monitor is a close match to the print viewed under some standard conditions of illumination in a side-by-side comparison. Of course, as a practical matter, ultimately a print is generally viewed under a wide range of illuminations rather than in a standard controlled lighting situation, which complicates things.</p>

<p>With those requirements and that cost constraint, I would say you are pretty much out of luck. That is, unless your $500 cost figure applies to the printer itself, and not the combination of a printer and the ink that comes bundled with it. A year ago I bought a refurbished Epson SP3800 for $900, which came with $450 worth of ink...</p>

<p>Better with the sound off, unless you fancy bad ©rap "music!"</p>

<p>Since dead pixels are black, how do you see them in an exposure taken with the lens cap on? Do you mean hot pixels, which are colored?</p>

<p>Lower left hand corner of the image corresponds to the upper left hand corner of the sensor, as the sensor is viewed from the <em>front</em> of the camera, assuming the camera is held top side up. i.e. lens removed, mirror up, shutter open, in "sensor cleaning" mode.</p>

<p>Here is a 100% crop of the posted image. Pretty, but not what we want to see!</p><div></div>

<p>I just made a dark exposure similar to yours: 5D taken from a 65 deg F room, turned on, 180 sec exposure taken at ISO 400 with body cap on. Raw exposure, converted in Camera Raw to 16 bit image in PS CS2. With no additional adjustments, I can just barely discern a faint red glow along the right edge of the image (which essentially disappears if the image is downsized to ~600x400 pixels). Making a SEVERE curves adjustment reveals the hot spot anomaly, as shown in this (downsized 8 bit sRGB) image, in pretty close to the same place as the one you see. Viewing the camera from the rear, this would be about 1/3 of the way up on the left side of the sensor. There must be a nearby component, or perhaps circuitry on the CMOS sensor itself, that gets quite warm. Only Canon know, and they are not talking! I suspect the result you are seeing is not typical.</p><div></div>

<p>Another nice example Mary, though the two images are not directly comparable. The one on the right appears to be a toned monochrome (I know, an oxymoron) image.</p>

<p>Here is an example of a page created with one of the Shutterfly templates:</p><div></div>

<p>Shutterfly has downloadable templates for Photoshop that can be used to create books incorporating photos and text. I am involved in a project using these templates, but have not yet finished and printed the book. The creation process has gone well so far. Here is a link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.shutterfly.com/digitalscrapbook/scrapbook-design-specs.jsp">http://www.shutterfly.com/digitalscrapbook/scrapbook-design-specs.jsp</a></p>

 

<p>Thanks for brightening a dreary CT morning. Cute cartoon from 1966.</p>