randallfarhy

<p>Take pictures of a clear blue sky or monotone background void of pattern or detail and look for signs that the sensor might be marred or dirty (blotches, linear mars etc). Also do this at various shutter speeds looking for horizontal lines or other signs that that the shutter might be starting to fail. One symptom or manner of shutter failure I experienced: In 2nd curtain sync (both camera and flash setting adjusted properly) the camera started to function and report as though it were in 1st curtain. HTH-R</p>

<p>Is the banding that you're referring to in the large smooth areas of the sky? If so, this has more to do with digital renderings of tonal transitions. I can't speak technically about this, but suffice to say it's similar to how graduated backgrounds will sometimes display.<br>

I've found that when converting TIFF files for FB (and Pnet for that matter) using pixel dimensions between 1,000 and 2400 on the longside with quality at high (10?) seems to work out fairly well. It's quick, with sharpness and quality more than enough for intended use. This is accomplished using the "save for web" function in the file dropdown menu on PSE9.</p>

<p>Grr-correction- OS are Windows 7 64bit, not Vista. (Shop's P/C is using Vista)</p>

<p>Keith, I guess that's what makes relying too heavily on comparisons an iffy proposition. While reliable sources absolutely help, they're not the be all end all for decision making. I'm certain the manufacturers understand this concept, which is probably one of the reasons why the images used for promotion ALL look so highly polished. Matching individual files to a camera would be difficult at best at that level. <br>

Thank you for taking the time to respond in depth with examples, you've really opened a window (at least for me) on how to squeeze the most out of those files. I have countless white bird shots that are not nearly as blown out as these appear to be. I'm looking forward to more experimentation with the LR4 converter (tight schedules have somewhat dictated the current workflow with little time to explore alternatives). Also surprising is the level of detail you pulled out of that one image, I've yet to be able to do so without the use of plugins, which can have a somewhat artificial look at times. Everything I've tried using just the LR4 tools (including the brush) still leave me with the feeling I just don't "get it".</p>

<p>Les, thank you the help is appreciated. Up until that recent LR4 update, I hadn't been experiencing any issues, and my lab never once mentioned having to make major color corrections.<br>

Any suggestions for something reliable, somewhat easy to set up and adjust? (I am technologically challenged) I see from postings that Color Munki and Spyder Pro V.? seem to be favored. System consists of Lenovo/HP Towers w/Vista 64bit OS, HP laptop, Dell 24inch Ultra sharp monitors and an Epson R3000 printer. -R</p>

<p>Hi Les- I know I'll catch grief for this, but this one is not calibrated (has been working and printing just fine, though once I updated LR4 with the prior patch, images did get wonky with green shifts) Monitor is a Dell Ultrasharp 24", brightness set at 50 in Adobe RGB color space. I know that if I look at this image on my HP24" at work, the shift won't show as much, but that monitor tends to be a little more contrasty.</p>

<p>Hello again, hoping someone can offer tips/techniques for cleaning up unwanted tints and color blotches in whites and shadow areas without giving up details. The linked image was taken with a 7D, ISO 800 and under exposed by about a third. (overcast day with ever changing light values). Normally I can control these shifts with White Balance adjustments or the color sliders available in LR4, on this particular image (and others like it) doing so yields unwanted green/yellow casts or a loss of details.<br /> Workflow: RAW> zeroed TIFF in DPP, then Denoise 5. I have been using LR4 for all of my post work, including the Topaz plug-ins.<br /> Assistance and ideas appreciated. -R <img src="../photo/16505853" alt="" /> Ok, have been trying to link my image on Pnet using the insert link function-doesn't show up and it won't copy/paste into the field- Aha-Dragging it worked.<a href="../photo/16505853&size=lg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16505853-md.jpg" alt="_MG_0401FBr1-Tern-Oct1" width="680" height="525" border="0" /></a> <img src="../photo/16505853&size=lg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Keith, in my eyes it's amazing how well rendered the details on that White swan are. I shoot with the 7D and know for a fact had I taken a shot with that much contrast it would have turned out as a white blob on a dark background as you described, and likely struggled with the post work to recover that much detail in the highs. Your post is a prime example of why people that write reviews and make detailed comparisons not only need to be technically acute, but also well versed in post processing techniques. -R </p>

<p>Tom, that looks fine to my eyes- if it has an "artificial" look about it, it's that the details are too well defined for passing through a fogged lens or filter approach, a little diffisuon or gausian blur and I think you have a good representation of the effect your after.... jm2cw-R</p>

<p>Short on time, I worked from a single layer using only the filter presets with tweaking-<br />Sand filter- No Grain, center set to 0, forget what amount of effect was used.<br />Heavy Gausian blur (3 choices L M H)<br />Sunlight filter in an attempt to blow out the edges and create more diffusion. Redused saturation slightly with that filters settings.<br />There is also a soften filter but didn't try that.<br />While this softened and desaturated the image, it does not create the flare effect. perhaps using layers and brushes in combo with these effects (as Lex and Patrick suggest) might bring the effect closer to what you are after.</p><div></div>

<p>Tom, the program I'm referencing is <a href="http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod3430246&cid=catalog20038&segid=1258&storeKey=us&languageCode=en">http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod3430246&cid=catalog20038&segid=1258&storeKey=us&languageCode=en</a> There's a free trial avalable according to the link. I did not have time to fidget with it last night, and probably won't until Sunday the way my schedule looks right now. Anyhow, I think you will find the tools handy- R</p>

<p>Tom- I'm at work right now so I can't play with the image, but I'm pretty sure Corel put an adjustable fog filter in their old (as in no longer updated) X3 program, not sure if Paintshop X4 offers the same filter or not. (X4 does have the white vignette tool, though I believe the effect is different.) what's nice about their tool is that you have more control over the area being affected, it does not have to be center frame oriented.</p>

<p>It was the (*&^)! paper surface. After spending another 2 hours tweaking elements, playing with blend modes and proofing each step, it turned out to be the surface of the paper causing the issue on the combined file. The car image prints just fine by itself on a luster paper, as does the frame. Don't know why, but when the files are combined, that green cast rears it's ugly head. During the proofing process I switched over to glossy because I ran out of luster and was too aggravated to cut more. Everything went fine until I popped in a larger sheet of luster and awaited the final result. ........ I then tried a larger sheet of glossy, and it looks as it should. It's not a bad batch of paper, I printed a known to be good file on a sheet it and it's fine. Guess it's just one of those "things". :/ </p>

<p>Reconstructed the entire image in the RGB color space (only choices in Elements 9 are grayscale, bitmap and RGB). Imported the Car image as an sRGB Jpeg. Saved as HQ Jpeg and printed- same raunchy results.<br>

Next step:<br>

Took each graphic element and raised contrast by 30 units, Flag, blue starburst and medallion. Then I constructed the file (same as a bove), added the car image- Results are the worst of the bunch-including the car. It seems as if there is an issue with the constructed file, but I sure can't figure it out.<br>

Since the car part of the image is underneath the red border and emblem layers but above the flag and blue field, I decided to hide the emblem and border and print it that way-same results.<br>

What was that definition of insanity? </p>

 

<p>Scott: Frame/ Element Document space are Adobe RGB as was the LR export (car image). I did use the hard light blend mode on the flag and blue starburst patterns, though I've used this before without any issues. The graphics files are native Jpegs, so that might be the root cause-though again, I've done this before without a hitch. I believe elements works in an 8 bit space when doing PSD's (it automatically converts the LR exports when combining). That said, you've raised a good point- Tomorrow night I will reconstruct the entire image in an 8 bit sRGB space and see if that makes a difference. I just don't understand why it wouldn't show this much of a variation on screen (monitor is sensitive to sRGB/ Adobe RGB conversions, especially in the blue and green channels.)<br>

Thanks for the input. -R</p>

<p>Tried a global adjustment-after comverting the layered PSD to a TIFF, I added 75 units of contrast, then converted it to HQ jpeg. The onscreen image displayed the appropriate adjustment, harsher transitions and bolder colors. However...When I printed this version, it was even muddier in the shadow/black areas (translucent sickly green cast, very similar to arc lighting color shift) with stronger magenta overtones in the brighter neutral areas. I'm lost. -R </p>

<p>element 2</p><div></div>

<p>element 1</p><div></div>

<p>Hi, this has been driving me batty for a couple of days now, I wanted to exhaust combination possibilities before posting for help.<br>

I've created a layered file for use as a photo frame. Convereted to Jpeg and printed as a frame, it prints fine. However, when I add the subject element, the finished file looks as though several stops of contrast have been removed, giving it that translucent greenish look. At first I thought it was due to using the file as an overlay on the subject (center area has been removed using the magic eraser tool), but it doesn't matter which approach I use.<br>

Image file prints fine by itself.<br>

I've tried overlaying the image AFTER converting the frame to a TIFF, no visible difference to the one created from a full PSD (frame elements and subject).</p>

<p>Here's the frustrating/confusing part- The completed combined file (s) look just fine on my screen, as do the separate components. I've ruled out calibration issues due to the fact that the files print just fine separately.<br>

This has not happened before with different compositions, so I'm wondering if I'm missing something.</p>

<p>Elements 10 used to create the PSD, Elements 10 and LR4 used to create the Subject file. I'll post all three elements.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Puppy Face: You'd think I would have caught that, primarily shooting 7D's as I do-DOHHH! Thanks for correcting that flub, I think the reason I latched onto that is because my 60D uses the smaller card-though I'm fairly certain the review mentioned was from a Transcend/7D user.</p>

<p>Regards-Randall </p>

<p>That particular Transcend card mau not be compatible with your 7D, I recall customer reviews from the BH website that mentioned this. I took a quick look but couldn't find one (of course). I'm not the most technical person, but the description also states it's NOT compatible with standard SD, only SDHC and SD3.0 (no clue if this matters in this case or not).</p>

<p>I keep a RocketFish CRSwivel in my laptop case, it reads both SD and CF formats and works with my Sandisk branded cards. Can't recall for certain but I believe it was $39.95 or thereabouts. </p>

<p>It all comes down to economy of both your budget and your card wallet. An 8GB card takes up the same physical space as a 16GB card while storing half the images. You mention video, so I'd lean toward at least one larger card based on that.<br>

I keep both 8 and 16's on hand. There are times when I prefer to isolate a certain group of shots to a particular card, in these instances I'll pop in an 8 and take it out when the grouping is done. Otherwise, I'm using 16's. (RAW and LJpeg). I've experienced card failures (turned out to be due to a faulty pin in the camera) and will always suggest multiple smaller cards vs a single (or fewer) large cards, again in terms of economy of scale. One card acts up, you can take it out and store it away to deal with later. If that happens with a single large card, you're pretty much SOL for however long you are away from a computer or you lose images already shot by reformatting it so you can continue shooting. I would suggest a card wallet if you are carrying more than two cards, they keep them organized and easy to locate in your gear bag. Think Tank makes a handy one as do other makers. Tether it to the inside of your gear bag so it doesn't become separated or misplaced. Most of all, don't let storage capacity get in the way of enjoying your vacation! -R</p>

 

<p>Thanks everyone, the additional insight never hurts. I went with Jeff's Maha and the Lacrosse for now. The Maha arrived today, so it will see use immediately.</p>

<p>Larry- thanks for bringing up the Maha batteries, currently I'm using 2500mah Duracell's-they work well, but when it comes time to replace them it's good to know the 2700's will work as advertised. The better Duracell's (pre-charged, assuming they're an eneloop hybrid of some sort) have been difficult to find lately in local stores. The earlier type rechargeables are everywhere but I never had good experiences with those.</p>

<p>From Wall Stadium's season opener, Saturday night Sportsman feature.</p><div></div>