john_wheeler6

<p>I think these will fit you need: http://www.printfile.com/35mm-negative-pages.aspx</p>

<p>Since your example only counts to 10 strips I believe (not 12), I think this product from ClearFile will do what you want:<br /> http://www.clearfile.com/10Bnegativepage25pack.aspx<br> If I miscounted somehow it may not fit the bill for you.<br> <br /> Hope that helps</p>

<p>Hi Leonard<br> You posted the same question in October and posted basically the same question this month. However, you provided no more details on your needs so it is very difficult to give the best recommendations without more specifics.<br> <br />I will assume that you are going to use the printer in low volume, you are not selling the prints, that printing speed is not critical, and that you are fine with the papers that come are supplied by the printer manufacturer. I will also assume that you do not need a wide gamut color printer. If any of these assumptions are off-base, then please add clarification to your question to get better answers from the forum.</p> <p>To meet such needs I suggest that you can pick up any low end photo printer from Epson or Canon. Most support 4x6 papers as well as 8x10. You can cut down from an 8x10 print for anything in between.</p> <p>With about zero work at the computer and if you want good colors, make sure you are using a monitor that is precalibrated to sRGB color space and that your computer is set to use sRGB. You will need some sort of photo editor to at least adjust the tone of the image. Make sure you are editing in sRGB color space. When printing, make sure the photo editor is printing is sRGB, that the printer driver is also set assuming the color is in sRGB space, and you are only using print paper from the printer manufacturer. This should minimize your time in front of the printer to meet basic needs and have reasonable match of colors from your monitor to your prints without much work such as soft proofing (since you indicated minimal time in front of the computer was your priority)<br> web links:<br> Epson https://epson.com/For-Home/Printers/Photo/c/h120<br> Canon: https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/printers-all-in-ones/photo-inkjet-printers</p> <p>Again, if you have other needs, just be more specific in your questions. Hope this information is of some help.</p>

<p>I think the only thing that gets damaged is one's ego :)</p>

<p>Answering the first question yes the image is crooked. Vertical can be pretty easily determined by the flag pole and the evergreens trees which typically are vertical. <br> <br />Here is my take on the image:<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-wTSVsLc/0/O/i-wTSVsLc.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hi Jackson<br> I upgraded my 2008 MacBook Pro last year and you will be delighted with the improved performance no mater what you pick.<br> Key question is if you want portability or not. If you want portability then there are two options<br> 1) iMac and another either a MacBook Pro or Mac Air<br> 2) Get a MacBook Pro and for large screen usage you just tether a larger screen into the thunderbolt port.<br> I went with option #2 and got a MacBook Pro with both the 16G memory and the 1TB SSD drive. There are many good large displays to choose from and they don't have to be from Apple. No regrets on my end.</p>

<p>Hi Sergiy<br> From my perspective, the after image show in your video looks better than the before image so I do not sure why you think the calibration and profiling was done incorrectly.<br> <br />Do note that the color of TFT type display panels (vs IPS displays) are very sensitive to the angle which the image is viewed. TFT displays on laptops with the vertical movement of the tilt of the display panel has a huge difference on how it looks to the viewer<br> <br />I suggest a few things<br> 1) Always view you screen from a 90 degree angle both horizontally and espectially vertically (tilt)<br> 2) Your video did not show the ambient light measurement you did so make sure no errors were made there<br> 3) tilt your screen back just a bit so the there is a firm seal around the edges of the Xrite Color Munki display and the display panel itself. If there is any light leakage due to a poor seal, then the calibration will not be done well<br> 4) I do not see any issues with the steps you took yet her is a video from Xrite for reference http://blog.xritephoto.com/2012/07/calbrating-profiling-your-laptop-x-rite-colormunki-display/#sthash.71zgVUPS.dpbs</p> <p>Again, your after images did look better to me so not sure about your concern.</p>

<p>My try:<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-5BXJb5S/0/XL/i-5BXJb5S-XL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Glad the fix was that simple.</p>

<p>Impr pht may need to clarify yet there may be a related issue going on per the same OP's post here: http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00dwNv<br> The cropping with Smart Objects may be part of the issue causing sharpness issues so that needs to be resolved as well.</p>

<p>It may be best to post your questions on a forum with macro photography experts (I am not an expert). So you might want to check that out.<br> <br />Also, if you are trying to get the entire ring (and not just the diamond) then there is another option to help reduce focus steps and that is a tilt / shift macro lens. This allows you to title the plane of focus so it may require fewer steps for focus stacking. The downside is that such lenses typically don't get to 1:1 magnification if that is a concern. That is pretty expensive</p> <p>To answer your question about if a full frame would be better the answer is possibly.</p> <p>To the first order, going from an APS-C body to a full frame body with the same Aperture setting, then my calculations show it is a wash assuming your are doing no cropping in either case. The circle of confusion is larger with full frame body (image does not have to be enlarged as much) so this is a positive. However, to fill the full frame you have to use a larger magnification (with the same lens you will need to be closer to the subject) which is a slight negative for DOF. <br> There are a couple positives for the larger frame body. If you are using an aperture which is at the limits for diffraction on the APS-C body, you can stop down one more stop with the full frame body (since you need less magnification with a full frame body, for the same amount of diffraction you can stop down one step). This would give you a slight DOF advantage yet only if you stopped down one more step with the full frame body. I am no canon expert yet as I understand it, the lens you indicated you are using is not really useful on the full frame canon so that would need to be addressed too if my assumption is correct.<br> The other advantage is that for a given ISO setting, you will have less noise in a full frame body using same generation sensor technology. This only helps if you have noise and using noise reduction techniques which makes objects softer.<br> <br /><br /><br> Those are my thoughts and again, I strongly suggest posting to a forum with macro experts as I am sure this is a common question.</p>

<p>Hi impr pht<br> Not all filters in a Smart Ojbect play well when you crop. You could duplicate the file, flatten and then crop as one of the last steps and you should not have the issue. At least that is one way to address the issue.<br> <br />Hope this info was of some help.</p>

<p>Hi impr pht<br> Let me give you my take.</p> <p>I will assume that when you back up from your subject (the diamond) you are also then cropping the image to create the same subject size in the final viewing medium.</p> <p>The net effect of using a lower magnfiication (moving away from the subject) and then cropping does give a larger DOF, just not as much as you may think.</p> <p>The DOF equation for macro is ~ 2*N*c* (1+M)/(M^2)<br> N is aperture number<br> c is circle of confusion<br> M is magnification</p> <p>If you are at M = 1, the DOF is 4Nc<br> If you move away from subject and are at M= 0.5 and then crop by 2X (makes c half as much), then DOF = 6Nc So a 50% increase in DOF so the number of focus stacking steps could be reduced by 1/3 or to 66% the number of steps.</p> <p>You would still also have the issue of softening from using 1/2 the pixels and 2X the diffraction</p> <p>So if you used fewer focus stacking steps than 66% or your original steps, you would have a worse result. In addition to my previous comments, being further away from the subject also increases any vibration noise blur yet a good steady tripod should do the trick yet thought it was worth mentioning.</p> <p>Hope this is helpful or at least stimulates to look at this more closely.</p>

<p>Hi Robert<br> Are you changing the sharpening through a preset or just by the slider in the Detail panel. Any intervening step before or after applying the sharpening before going back and checking the clarity slider?</p>

<p>Hi Patrick<br> Here is what I believe what is going on.<br> 1) Lightroom will send it over in 16 bit RGB which triples the size right there.<br> 2) Since you are sending a Smart Object, you effectively have to double the size. 1 copy for the orignal image (which with the adjustments commands) and a second copy which is the rendered version which is used as the PS Layer<br> 3) When saving the TIFF file, a third flattened copy is created and inserted in the TIFF file as well. So #2 and #3 gives you another 3X factor by itself..<br> <br />So without trying anything even adding additional layers you all ready have a 9X factor growth. Getting a little more then that with Layers is not hard to imagine.<br> <br />Not sure how you don't get a large jump using a PSD either unless you changed the workflow to opening the file as "original" without LR adjustments.</p> <p>Hope this helps some</p>

<p>Hi Cedric<br /><br />Yes you can get very close to the same image with a few changes between a full frame and a cropped sensor. I will assume a 1.5x crop factor and skip the “why” detail on the math<br /><br />1) To get the same "perspective" in the image you must keep the distance from camera to subject the same<br /><br /><br />2) To get the same angle of view on the sensor of a cropped sensor, you need to move to a focal length 1/1.5x or 2/3 of what was used on the full frame camera e.g. 75mm on full frame you would need a 50mm on the cropped sensor camera<br /><br /><br />3) To maintain the same Depth of Field for the image you need to increase the aperture size (decrease the aperture size by 1.5X). If you were using f/6 on the full frame you would need to use f/4 on the cropped sensor camera. This works well for subject distance > 10x the focal length and for closer in subjects the aperture would need to be increased a bit more (not going there with the math though)<br /><br /><br />4) Since the aperture number is reduced by 1.5X on the cropped camera, you have to adjust either the shutter speed or ISO for the same expsosure as used on the full frame camera. You would either need to reduce the ISO by 1.5^2 = 2.25X or increase the shutter speed by 1.5^2 = 2.25X Reducing the ISO by the 2.25X factor with a similar sensor technology would yield about the same noise as the full frame camera because the full frame sensor is 2.25X the area of the cropped camera and to the very first order, the amount of noise at a given ISO setting scales with the area of the sensor. If you chose to change the ISO instead of the shutter speed, then the shutter speed could be left the same on both cameras.<br /><br /><br />5) Using the above steps 1 thru 3 interestingly enough keeps any diffraction noise the same as well.<br /><br /><br />The above is all the academic stuff, bottom line after that though is that camera bodies and different lenses have somewhat different characteristics and you will not get a perfect identical match yet you can get the main image characteristics to be very close.<br /><br /><br />Hope the above information was helpful.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Hi impr pht<br> I believe without seeing a screen shot that that is the point at which the image (if rotated) will rotate around. That crosshair should be movable to change the rotation point to where you desire.</p> <p>This is the same rotation point you see when doing a free transform as well.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew<br> Trying another Raw Converter may do a better job so that is a great first step. <br> That the Moiré almost goes away at 100% viewing is an indication that you are seeing a false Moiré at lower magnifications causes by the display resizing algorithm and for the most part does not exist in the image at all. </p> <p>Not sure you need to make any changes as the Moiré at first glance would not be seen by the vast majority. One can make it stand out by looking at the Luminosity channel and putting in a very high contrast curve to amplify this subtlety.</p> <p>However, trying to fix the image using your compressed JPEG would not have a chance with the approach I mentioned before (if it would work at all in the first place) because the color components are highly compressed. Reverse engineering your 100% crop has a signature that you had a compression setting of 69 in either Photoshop Save for Web or on exporting from LR. Not enough color information left to attempt a recovery using the mentioned technique.</p> <p>If you want to post a download link to a 100% quality JPEG compression or better yet the Raw file, I could give it my best shot at correction. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi Andrew, a couple things are needed to help you with the Moiré<br> 1) You and we need to be looking at a 100% crop of your original image in either an uncompressed format or max quality JPEG. I am assuming you downsampled your image and not only will this often remove the Moiré, it can also set up some false Moiré patterns as well. The forum members could very easily be chasing a red herring</p> <p> 2) You need to view the image at 100%. Observing at other magnifications can introduce resizing artifacts that are not actually in the image data. Your Moiré patterns certainly could be there, yet there is no way to tell about the content of your original image without these two conditions</p> <p>If with the above conditions met, if what you see is a Moiré pattern with color striations, then there are a couple techniques that are worth trying</p> <p>a) Use a variety of different raw converters. Some are much better than others in avoiding Moiré in the first place through the demosaicing process.</p> <p>b) Second to "a", if you have not already, try this technique in the link and remember you must do the adjustments at 100% magnification or multiples higher and using the original Raw file in 16 bit is best: The blog on the same topic gives several examples of removing Moiré with that technique: jkwphoto.blogspot.com It does not work in every case of color striations yet has worked about 90% of the time for me. Keep in mind that once you have repeating structures that go below the resolution of the pixels in the sensor, there is not way to recover the detail and you will see artifacts of some sort.</p> <p>If the Moiré is there yet it is not color striation Moiré, the the described technique is not the one to use.</p> <p>Hope this information is helpful.</p>

<p>Hi Peter<br> I will take a slightly different approach since there is important information missing. You can scale from what I give appropriately.<br> <br />15,000 x 10,000 pixel image at 16 bit depth TIFF no compression would be a 900 MB file and I will round up to 1G per image to make the calculations easy. If you have 500,000 files, that ends up being 500TB so I can understand not wanting to have that much storage.</p> <p>I will assume that these images need no more editing or adjustments (if they do, then that is an issue with any further suggestions below)<br> <br />I will assume to start all you need is a 8 1/2 x 11 print size at 300 dpi for prints and that resolution would also be good enough for you to view on a monitor. At 16 bit depth you would need 50MB per file for that quality. <br> <br />Just that alone would bring your storage needs down to 25TB or about six 4TB drives. That would be simplest solution as some have already mentioned.</p> <p>Tread lightly going for further JPEG and further compression as here can be real trade-offs you need to decide</p> <p>I will assume these images are in ProPhoto RGB color space to capture the full color depth the cameras/scanners are capable then for your images then you need 16bits color depth anyways to avoid banding and you cannot have a 16 bit JPEG</p> <p>If you are willing to render down to Adobe RGB or sRGB, and lose the color gamut then depending on what your printer needs for bit depth, you could go to 8 bit TIFF and get down to storage needs of 12.5 TB or about three 4TB drives. Note that you can get some banding using 8 bit depth with Adobe RGB color space yet it is not frequent. yet depending on how your print, there are some printers paper combinations that now have a color gamut outside Adobe RGB. So it depends on your needs.</p> <p>Finally, if you are fine with 8 bit images (note some monitors are 10 bit so you cold again have some banding) and all above conditions mentioned, then going to JPEG at max quality compression would be the next step and would save considerable. JPEG compression at high quality compression hides the compression artifacts pretty well yet they they can raise their ugly head if you are going to do additional editing. This would most likely get you down to a single 4TB drive.</p> <p>If you don't care about the occasional artifact showing up with no editing, going for a light JPEG compression could easily buy you another 2X in storage space.</p> <p>If you need more focused recommendations, I think you would need to supply more information about if more edits will be done, required resolution, needed color space, and any HD constraints (e.g. total costs) to provide more targeted suggestions.</p> <p>Hope this is some help.</p> <p>Instead of your file size resolution you gave and 16 bit depth TIFF (no compression)</p>

<p>Hi Mark<br> <br />With the number of programs you may have open at the same time, 8G is too small. Personally I start at 16G to have some head room. You can always start with 12G yet I bet it won't be long before you upgrade.</p> <p>I typically have PS and LR open at the same time with several large images open on PS at the same time. No issues for me with 16G yet when I was at 8G, it choked.</p> <p>Note that the newer OSes gobble up more memory, as well as the newest versions of LR and PS. So the amount of memory you need is more with the most recent software just for software ans system needs before you add in and open image files</p> <p>Just my opinion.</p>

<blockquote> <p>In the case of a print, you can hold it close, or use a loupe, to look really close.</p> </blockquote> <p>I did not quite understand the last comment as the DOF is a function of your viewing distance and the relative size of the image. The closer you look , the less perceived DOF and the further away you view the image the more DOF. It has simply due to limited resolution of our eyes in determining what is deemed sharp.</p> <p>No question that the dark viewfinder when stopped down makes any DOF determination quite difficult.</p>

<p>While you can do several things to improve the image in your scenario, it would not be along the same lines as the Olympus 40M jpeg (or Raw). In the Olympus case they clearly state that this needs to be on a very stable tripod viewing a still image. Vibrations have to be low so the mirrorless body has an advantage that might be match if you locked up on a body with a mirror.<br> <br />Then they take 8 shots each moved by 1/2 pixel. Though they did not give details, the software must do a deconvolution algorithm to deduce what the luminosity and color of an intermediate (non-exiting) pixel would need to be.</p> <p>So to replicate Olympus, you would need to know how to shift where the camera point by 1/2 pixel accurately 8 times with less noise than 1/2 pixel (hard to do even on a tripod) and have the software to do the deconvolution (someone could come up with that part no doubt).</p> <p>So very doubtful you could duplicate that capability in the Olympus and have it be fruitful. Just my opinion of course.</p>

<p>Hi Chris<br> Bottom line it will give you a feel for DOF (maybe that enough) yet there are limitations.</p> <p>It also depends on the actual camera. I am assuming that you are referring to SLR so the size of the image scales with lens used. I am also assuming that the image in the viewfinder is near 100% of what the film is recording in my following comments.</p> <p>I agree with Kenneth that as you stop down, it gets so dark, ones ability to determine what looks in focus diminishes as the illumination in the viewfinder gets real difficult.</p> <p>DOF is typically based on how sharp the image from a given viewing distance. If you are viewing a print so that the print appears as it did in the viewfinder (same angle of view to the scene), and with the lens stopped down to the aperture for the exposure, then to the first order the DOF would be fairly representative. Here are a couple caveats</p> <p>1) The ground glass of the SLR upon which the image is being view has a limited resolution which is less that that of which you see in a print. This would make the DOF look slightly less than what you would see in a print. This is not a big factor and I believe more academic.</p> <p>2. A bigger real factor is if you are cropping your images. If you are cropping your images when prints are made, then the DOF will change. The image for a given size print has to be enlarged more and assuming viewing that image from the same distance as a non-cropped image, the DOF would appear to be less. </p> <p>Just some quick thoughts and hope this is helpful.</p>

<p>Hi impr pht<br> I would help to have an example image that you want to change as suggestions could better target your specific project.<br> In general, you could add a selective color adjustment Layer and set the color dropdown to black and slide the yellow slider to the left. That will make blacks move to blue.</p>