mac_hordam

<p>Launch Elements and go to the Editor then open both of the files you want to work with. <strong><em>Make copies of these files to work with so that you don't do anything you might regret to the originals. Just use Save As and give them a new name (you might for instance just add "Blendcopy" to the title). Now close the originals.</em></strong> With the copies open you'll see they each occupy a tab at the top of the work area window so that by clicking on the tabs you can move between the two files. With one of them in view select the whole image (use keyboard shortcut Ctrl-A). Then copy what you have selected (shortcut Ctrl-C). Go to the other tab for the second of your images and get that into view and now use shortcut Ctrl-V and the first of your images will be pasted as a new layer over the top of the second image. At this point it will obscure it so you'll only see the top layer. You don't need the image on the other tab open any more so you can close it.</p> <p>To blend the two you need to gradually remove parts of one to reveal parts of the other. This can be done by adding a layer mask to the top layer and adding a gradient to the mask layer with the Gradient tool (shortcut G to select the tool) If you have a fairly straightforward sky from one image and foreground from the other then you may get a pleasing result quite easily.</p> <p>With the gradient tool selected and black to transparent chosen in the gradient picker just click and hold at the top of the picture and drag the mouse downwards to a point where you think the effect will be needed and then release. You can assess the impact and modify the technique by dragging in a different direction (at an angle or from the side) you can vary the tool opacity to reduce the effect, you can set the opacity low and do multiple gradient passes in various directions to affect the areas where it is needed.</p> <p>Depending on which way round you have your two image layers you may find you need to drag from the bottom upwards to get the right result. You can also work with a Brush to paint on the layer mask with either Black to conceal or White to reveal and this can also be done at varying opacities. You can go back over areas that have been revealed too much to obscure them a little if you overdo it, just change between black and white to get the effect you need. Build up the effect gradually, i.e use low opacity settings, rather than trying to get it all done with one hit. Use a brush set to Zero hardness or the effect will be too coarse and vary the brush size to suit.</p> <p>With Elements you'll probably need to have your images in 8 bit before you work on them, I don't think Elements supports 16 bit with layers but you'll find that out.</p> <p>All the shortcut commands are for a PC but using Cmnd instead of Ctrl with a Mac I think gets you the same result.</p> <p>Take a look here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml and here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml for a more detailed overview of the general technique and some further refinements.</p>

<p>So many Uni Loc/Benbo videos, I didn't know they existed. Now I don't have to go out in bad weather to get my tripod wrestling fix.</p> <p>He's using the Benbo #1 in this video which is the bigger of the two that I own and I would steer you to the Uni Loc Major if you can find it, it's refinements make it worth going after.</p> <p>I use an old Linhof 2 section tripod when I want something light to carry yet sturdy but if I know I'm wanting the ability to set up in almost any situation then the Uni Loc is worth carrying especially my medium height model which does make it a bit lighter and more manageable. I prefer to work fairly low a lot of the time so the nearly eight feet height of the large ones isn't a big drawcard for me. Of course it does have a major advantage if you want to lower it over an edge and have the camera come up to working level as you stand above it. One size doesn't fit all in the tripod world.</p>

<p>You can see from that video what I mean about everything going floppy when the locking lever is loosened. Any weight on the column head (big camera) makes it all a lot more of a struggle than the video shows to get things to where you want them to go. Add to that, one leg standing in muddy water, another on a moss covered rock and the third trying to find its way into your trouser pocket and it can all get interesting.</p> <p>As a tripod to have on hand for a few times per year I would unreservedly recommend it because it is so versatile. For full time use though you'd have to be a bit dedicated if you're only previously used to adjusting a leg at a time.</p>

<p>Three perfect answers, my only advice would be to stop reading any more answers and go get that free scanner.</p>

<p><em>"..... (e.g. the ability to open a file in the program from the desktop)."</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>That's another of the niggles that happened with mine too. I sorted that one out but I can't remember what I did now, only that it is fixable. Not a lot of help but maybe slightly encouraging.<br> <br> <em>"I'm in the Mac world..."</em><br /><br> <em> </em><br> ....and I look forward to you rendering unto Caesar :-)</p>

<p>Jens, the Uni Loc and Benbo are so adjustable that it would indeed be possible to set them up such that a heavy weight at the end of the extended column would overbalance the tripod.</p> <p>That said I use mine with a GX680 (no lightweight) and by staying within sensible operating limits I haven't had a major collapse so far. Owners of these tripods quickly learn to operate like they have three arms because as soon as you loosen the locking lever everything goes floppy and that third arm is needed to support it all before relocking.</p> <p>Not everybody's cup of tea but if you know someone who has just bought one it can be fun watching the first few attempts at using it. Even now I'm often quite glad when I'm out in the landscape that I'm not being observed because you can sometimes get two of those legs just where you want them but that last leg, even though in theory you can bend it to just about anywhere, always seems to want to be going somewhere over your shoulder.</p>

<p>Works on Win 7 64 bit (and Win 8 and 8.1 64 bit should you want to upgrade) but there are some issues such as when small confirmation windows don't appear on top and the program seems to have seized up. Hiding the main PSCS window reveals them and you can then click and proceed. Other little niggles occur sporadically but in the main it functions correctly.</p> <p>@ Michael B<br /> Right click your CS2 launch icon and Run as administrator. When the request to register pops up just say No thanks or whatever the choice is and it will remember it in future. (No need to log on as admin after that)</p>

<p>Uni Loc and Benbo as mentioned above are very versatile in the way they can be adjusted with the legs all at random angles to each other. I have one of each, the largest Benbo and the heavy duty Uni Loc Major in the medium height range.</p> <p>They are quite similar in function but, of the two I have, I veer towards the Uni Loc unless sheer height is required. The ability to put the legs anywhere seems great but can be a struggle to get everything lined up and still be able to orientate the camera just where you want it.</p> <p>Maybe with a ball head on it would be easier but I'm not fond of them so occasionally struggle with my Manfrotto 804 pan and tilt head. Sometimes it just isn't possible to adjust without either the pan handles or some other part of the head or even the camera body getting fouled on the centre column.</p> <p>The Uni Loc excels here because of its 180 degree joint in the arm and the column can be shortened. The Benbo column sometimes prevents you getting as low as you would like as it sticks out like a fourth leg.</p> <p>Another point is when used low with the legs spread wide the load support is not as good and can tend to creep. Again the Uni Loc has an advantage in that the locking handle tightens plates that are serrated and grip onto each other better.</p> <p>The usage points above all relate to their use in landscape photography where it is often useful to be able to position the legs in very unnatural alignments in natural environments with tight working space restrictions. Plus the legs are sealed so can be immersed in water without concern.</p> <p>Overall my vote (of the two) would be Uni Loc. </p>

<p><em>"If I upgrade my lightroom but not my photoshop when I go to "edit in" will it work or no?"</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>No it won't. Or rather yes it will but you won't retain the alterations done in LR5 if you're using PV2012 the latest process version engine. That's because the camera raw for CS5 isn't on parity with LR5 and will revert to PV2010. So to work around this you need to Export (not Edit In) your files to photoshop. And all will be well.<br> <br> I refer you to this quote from Andrew Rodney where he explains it in another thread )I've emphasised the most relevant bit in bold).<br> <em>"IF LR and Photoshop are on version parity you can do this. ACR and LR have identical processing engines when on parity. So in theory, you could apply some metadata edits in LR, then open the DNG in ACR (in Photoshop), do more work, go back to LR. I'm not sure why you'd do this other than maybe to use a Smart Object in Photoshop that is a raw. But it is doable. IF the two are not on version parity, not a good idea. <strong>For example, if you use LR's new PV2012, the sliders are different than PV2010 in ACR 6 (Photoshop CS5). In such a case, if you're ready to edit pixels in Photoshop, all you do is export from within LR (a TIFF, JPEG, PSD) to a size and color space you wish, then just open in Photoshop like any other TIFF/JPEG/PSD."</strong></em><br /></p>

<p>If you select the area that the letter is in and increase that with transform-scale you'll be introducing a size distortion over the whole of the selection which may or may not, but most likely will, be noticeable. He only wants to increase the A. To do it least noticeably just selecting the letter would look best. But I still think he stands a good chance of being able to superimpose a new A over the old which will blot out the original. Unless of course it is still on a type layer and then my first suggestion is the only sensible way to go especially if he wants to make it go from 10 to 14 exactly.</p>

<p>Is the lettering still in place as a Type layer? If so just select the layer and with the type tool highlight only the letter A. It might take a couple of stabs with the tool to select the letter without it looking like you've started a new type layer. Once the letter is highlighted just change the size in the tool bar.</p> <p>If there is no type layer you could probably just create a new one and type an "A" of the size you want and then hit V on your keyboard and move it around with the mouse or the up-down keys to cover the existing A. Or use the magic wand to select the A if it's well defined from its background and use Transform-Scale to enlarge it. Or clone out the existing A and then type a new one and move it into place.</p>

<p>Consider that perhaps it's not so much about the lens per se as the location for successful panoramas. Sweeping across a large vista isn't always going to give an interesting photograph and the distortions can be ugly. Just saying give more thought to the location and the process than the hardware.</p> <p>And if you're not planning on printing and selling the pictures you could save a lot of money and effort by getting a Sony camera with its "sweep panorama" setting, makes it all a breeze and perfectly okay for web or monitor viewing.</p> <p>Just thinking outside the box here not trying to ruffle feathers.</p> <p>As a generalisation it's probably best to avoid the ultra wides when stitching, but you've still got to match the focal length to the required scenic result so there isn't a single lens that will do the lot. Well maybe an 18-200mm would do most of the time but you may not be satisfied with the lens quality so back to the drawing board. Oh and shoot vertically (the camera) i.e in portrait mode if you're doing wide views, those narrow slit panoramas are non too attractive after a while. (Personal opinion not a rule)</p>

<p><em>"There is no digital output that can compare with a well-crafted black and white silver print from a film negative"</em><br> <em> </em><br> Yes, I think I've seen that in the <strong>"Authoritative And Irrefutable Book Of Photo Answers"</strong> so it must be true and not just an opinion. Harumph.</p>

<p>If the printer has been sitting all this time waiting for the new ink I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't reset itself causing it to eject the paper. </p> <p>Why not make sure you have a replacement ink on hand for your next cartridge that's running low and try letting it run out part way through the print do a quick changeover and see if it carries on flawlessly.</p> <p>You can get quite a few more prints from a cartridge after it suggests replacement and before it says ink is out and it will not harm the printer in any way.</p>

<p><em>"If you actually ran out of ink i.e. no ink, rather than printer thought you had no ink"</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>Isn't it the case that if the printer thinks you have no ink it will stop you being able to print any more. That's how my Epson 3800 works, you get a warning that ink's running low but you can carry on printing but once it decides the cartridge needs changing that's it you have to change.<br> <br> The seamless continuation of the print is one of the delights of the printer. I've never had to leave the print waiting until I bought a cartridge having always had the necessary one(s) waiting in the wings so I can't say if a day or two sitting there waiting would be seamless or not but if it's just for how long it takes to change the ink over then they are always seamless. Whether this also applies to the R1900 I can't remember, I had one for a while and it did run out of inks of course, often, (because of the small cartridge size), but I have no memory of what happened in the middle of a print, it was all back in the dim darks.</p>

<p>You can still download the driver software here's the link<br /> http://download2.konicaminoltaeurope.com/openmind/technic/kmphdwl.nsf/ftsearch?openagent&ch=CAM&dist=BEU&ui=EN&dg=sw&prod=DIMAGE%20SCAN%20MULTI&dsg=&os=Windows%20XP&lang=English&ml=0&rid=C1256AE800480E96&sub=&pcat=&pcc=0&fr=0&frs=<br /> If that doesn't work go to <br /> http://www.konicaminoltasupport.com/<br /> and select Product Overview in English then navigate through to Dimage Scanner Series and select the Multi 1 then Software and you're at the driver download page.</p> <p>Just a note to other Minolta scanner users, this link also leads to drivers for all other models too.</p>

<p><em>"The OP did ask about "exhibition printing" if I remember</em> correctly"</p> <p>No he didn't, that was another thread. That said I can now see some of the motivation for the direction of your answers in this one if you thought you were still answering the previous thread. But that brings me back to tailoring one's answers to the question in hand...in hand:-)</p> <p><em>"There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800, and the OP did ask for the higher level of quality. Costco shouldn't be considered for exhibition printing"</em><br> <em> </em><br> The OP didn't specifically ask for higher level of quality, he asked about the difference between his 3880 prints and those he might get from a pro lab. Now you may consider your services to be those from a pro lab but I don't for one moment think he would be thinking of the high end of pro lab you appear to be, more likely the sort of pro lab where cost considerations are paramount and certainly not one where endless test prints might be made in search of the perfect print.</p> <p>If you have gained the idea that I was suggesting Costco as a source for exhibition prints (remember we weren't talking exhibition prints in this thread) then you have failed to understand that I was talking about the spectrum of print quality that various people who appear on this forum or elsewhere for that matter would settle for, particularly those who, as I said, have "...<em> no need of such aspirational levels of printing..."</em></p> <p><em>"I am one of those people who was able to create excellent results in the</em> darkroom"</p> <p>With the same degree of repeatability as with inkjet printing? Come on now be honest.</p> <p>Time's short haven't any left to respond to other points at the moment, I expect I'll feel the need to participate some more though.</p> <p>There's something to look forward to.</p> <p>Before I go could you answer for me <em>"There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800" </em>is that a disdainful way of referring to making a print on a standard/basic/good enough printer or do you also describe prints from your Rolands as having been "pulled off"? Just curious, I like to keep up with the techy terms.<br> And on the topic of disdainful <em>"If the forum participants sincerely only want to hear comments relating to a lower level of photography, then I will just be on my way"</em> Probably 90% or more of participants here will be doing photography at the "<em>lower level" </em>(some even lower) and whilst it is interesting to hear about experience with the cutting edge of technology they quite likely don't want to hear their own work characterised as lower level. We don't all have access to the very best of equipment but that doesn't mean we can't be every bit as serious about what we do and strive for the very same type of perfection you do but within the limitations of our supposedly inferior tech. I for one wouldn't wish you to be on your way as it does add to these discussions having input from a variety of sources, perhaps a little humility wouldn't go amiss when addressing the proletariat though.</p>

<p><em>"I would disagree"</em></p> <p>That's ok but I would still maintain that there is a dependence on the technology which we can not ignore or just accept.<br> <br /><em>"The technology is just technology"</em><br> <br />And <em>"a photographic vision"</em> is just "a photographic vision" and remains so without having technology to make it a reality. That's what I mean by the person working hand in hand with technology. Let me rephrase your comment as I would see it :-</p> <p><em>"the technology is just marvellous"</em></p> <p>I have no problem acknowledging the debt owed to the technology for my own ability to create prints I could not previously (i.e with darkroom technology) have created. I'm happy to say I work hand in hand with technology and my own vision of what the print should be.</p> <p><em>"It isn't particularly repeatable"</em></p> <p>As far as repeatability goes my comment refers to the post processing work on the image where all the dodging/burning work that may have taken place under the enlarger is built in to the print file and is repeatable for each print in a run. Not something that was possible for many, if any in the darkroom.</p> <p>Your Kozo test print if it came out requiring some recalibration for the particular circumstances of the day would eventually print to your satisfaction and presumably on that day from that point you could print any number of prints with repeatability and no further need for test prints. The technology is giving us this repeatability because we can rely on it. Maybe not 100% day to day with high end printing but within any printing session there has to be a window where all prints will match.</p> <p>Thing is this is a forum for enthusiasts/amateurs/professionals/novices so whatever anyone says is going to be more relevant to some than it will be to others. There are very few who will be printing at the high end or indeed who have the need of prints from the high end. It may in fact be totally inappropriate to refer to such levels when answering the majority of the types of questions that get asked here. So although it's nice and esoteric to dabble here with people who do high end, it might be that the <em>"good enough"</em> printing of some will still be better than the majority would be satisfied with and often times will indeed be ... "good enough", particularly if good enough is used without a pejorative nuance.<br> <br />I note you clarify the <em>"vision"</em> reference to define it as someone else's vision not yours. In my mind this puts you in the role of a technician rather than say artist/creator. I say this not as a slur, I would personally be delighted to be held as a master technician of digital printing but you can't get away from the fact that everything you do to an image to realise this other person's vision is done using technology. The artistic/creative/vision side of it is done by the photographer. It may be revealed by the technician but unless you are doing other than the photographer requests the vision side of it is just instructions to you to use the technology to arrive at the print.</p> <p>If I were a photographer having prints made for me for an exhibition I would be glad to say that I have a master printer who creates my prints exactly to my specification. I wouldn't be happy to say that I pass my image files over to him and let his artistic vision work wonders on them for me. This is where I see the role of a printer as being that of technician, no artistic input into my work. There is artistry involved in the print making but it is the artistry of commanding the technology and not the creative artistry of the photographer.<br> There's nothing wrong with using technology but it doesn't need to be diminished by mystique and mystique it is when presented as the holy grail of printing within a context of forum readers/responders who have no need of such aspirational levels of printing for the majority, or indeed any, of their work. A Costco print works just fine for many/most.</p> <p>And just to be clear I am not questioning your levels of knowledge or ability. What I am questioning is the relevance of these sort of responses to questions in this kind of forum. The OP asked a question in which he refers to his 3880 prints and mentions his own satisfaction with them and asks for opinions versus pro lab prints. We know precious little about what he's actually doing, he says he gives the prints to his clients. I suspect he sells them to them but they may indeed be given as part of a more complete service package - who knows. Whatever the answer it's drawing a fairly long bow to assume he may require the absolute high end in print services, the clue is in the fact that he is personally happy with his 3800 prints made by himself. Somebody asks "I want to buy a camera please advise" we don't all just pile in and tell them to get an Alpa because, "well, I can't really stand Nikon because of their after sales attitude" or "Panasonic don't make real cameras they make televisions". We tailor our response to the way in which the question is asked.</p> <p>Have to say it makes for more interesting reading though and it's nice to know someone's getting the work where they can fully exercise their technological skills.</p> <p>Finally <em>"....have you learned anything during your time here..." </em>yes I have, I've looked up Kozo paper and whetted my appetite to give it a try.</p>

<p>"....<em>great prints are made by people, not by technology, whether it be darkroom, alt process or inkjet technology."</em><br> <em> </em><br> <em><br /></em>There's a considerable amount of hand in hand going on between the person and the technology. For some people (self included) the current inkjet technology has brought about the ability to produce better and perfectly repeatable prints than were obtained with the darkroom process.</p> <p>For myself I can make prints using my Epson 3800/3880 printers that are far better than anything I could produce in the darkroom. (Note that I say <strong><em>I</em></strong> could produce, I'm not trying to argue that inkjet is better than darkroom just that the advent of inkjet technology has for some people opened up a means of producing quality prints that was not possible for them using previous methods).</p> <p>Whether the prints I make on my Epson are better than someone else's prints, be they darkroom, inkjet or external lab is another question. And one with a wide variety of answers. I look at my prints and I consider them generally to be as good as prints that I see elsewhere. If I look in galleries at prints I can't know if someone is making the prints themselves or getting it done for them but I can arrive at a conclusion about whether my prints stack up quality wise with the best of them. In the main they do. To my eyes. BUT I haven't seen ALL prints so maybe one day I'm in for a big shock and I don't doubt there are far, far better prints out there than mine but they must exist outside the circles I currently move in so, for now, I'm fine in my own sphere.</p> <p>I still fret over them though and will return to them to make adjustments as time goes by and improve the print quality. I suspect I get in the order of 80 to 90% of the full potential out of my printers the way they are currently set up so there is still scope for improvement in my prints. If I were to add a RIP and better spectrophotometer to produce more accurate profiles then there likely would be even more to gain but that's a cost I can't justify for a gain I can't quantify. These quality improvements though are often indiscernible to a third party which brings into question are they worth it. One's own situation will help answer that one, you might be the only person viewing your prints but are particularly fastidious about them and will always strive for that closer to perfection result. Technology improvements will push that goal further away and if you're approach is open to improvements too then you never stop learning so skill levels grow as well. There seems to be no end to it.</p> <p>I believe the original question has been answered for the OP already, he's happy with his 3880 prints. If his clients are also happy then he's getting the benefit of being in full control of what he does. The best way forward is to remain self critical to stay ahead of your own game - no doubt why he asked the question in the first place. Labs vary, individuals vary you've just got to pick one method that satisfies your needs. Needs vary....</p>

<p><em>"Not sure why you keep feeling inclined to respond to this thread"</em><br> <em><br /></em>I told you I kept clicking the wrong buttons :-)<br> <br> It seems though that my persistence has at least alerted you to potential pitfalls with cutting roll paper to use with the 3880, you seem to have abandoned that idea following my post.<br> <br> No, no don't thank me - you're welcome.<br> <br> And the real reason I keep responding - I'm the one trying the hardest to save you from yourself. And it's neither ... nor by the way.<br> (And don't start sentences with and, yes I know). Over and out.</p>

<p><em>"And if you do use the film camera (because it indeed can produce something the DSLR can't</em> match)...."</p> <p>There's the whole nub of this thread, <em><strong>can</strong></em> the film camera produce something the DSLR (or even something like the Sony a7) can't match at the size of print the OP is interested in. As you go on to question, any extra quality from a high end scan of the film probably won't show at A3(+) size versus a high end digital.</p> <p>The benefit of 100mp of true image detail I'm not so sure of. I use one of those dedicated consumer scanners, the Minolta Multi Pro, with 6x7 and 6x8 and I'm as happy with the results from my 16mp DSLR at sizes up to 16 x 20/24.</p> <p>In fact I'm quite stunned by the quality of print obtainable from my, now quite old, Panasonic LX2 10mp tiny sensor camera when printed to 16 x 24. I was reluctant to even bother printing it to that size but somebody insisited on wanting the image that big and I was quite floored at how well it held up.</p> <p>The point of mentioning all this is to highlight that the numbers don't always tell the full story. If the print is the final goal then looking at the prints gives you the answers. And there's just not that much in it quite often with an A3+ or thereabouts limit.</p>

<p>There's another question that could be asked. Here goes.</p> <p>If the OP wants exhibition quality prints, only wants them up to A3+ size and is put off by the cost of the higher end scanners and has been using digital for years why not upgrade the digital side of equipment to a later camera that would give those results with far less bother?.</p> <p>Scanning is one of the least rewarding sides of photography in terms of cost, quality, time and effort. So instead of dusting off the old film gear the easier way forward might be a digital upgrade.</p> <p>And a further heresy, selling the Mamiya 7 would go a long way to funding the new DSLR.</p> <p>Another thought re the use of a high end DSLR to "scan" the negs. Why would you use a film camera to take new pictures so that you could then photo them with a DSLR to get a digital file you can then use to make a print? Wouldn't you just go out and use the DSLR first? Technology has moved on there are easier ways of doing things.</p>

<p>Oops clicked the wrong buttons I was laughing so much.</p>

<p>preachy here again.....Lord help us!</p> <p>Cheap inks, cheap paper, correct color. Nope can't see a problem with that....</p>

<p>preachy here again.....Lord help us!</p>