john_wheeler6

<p>+1 on Williams response<br> <br />I am on a Mac and do recommend keeping the old Mac to control the Microtek scanner. I doubt the issue would just be the USB to SCSI cord in getting it to work and be stable.<br> I am assuming you want to interface to the Microtek either for cost savings or you are very familiar with the model and like what you have.<br> If cost is not as much of an issue you might want to consider a newer scanner as the original Microtek 2500 (not 2500f) is 13 years old with limited resolution of 2500ppi only over the high resolution area of the scan region and a more limited dynamic range than more recent scanners. Even the best mechanical devices wear out and specs such as dpi can degrade as the mechanics become not as "tight". A great scanner for its time yet technology has greatly improved even for scanners over the years.</p>

<p>Hi Ken<br> A few comments (some overlap with others)<br> 1) Banding is easier with slow changing gradients in 8 bit mode.<br> 2) The circular pattern of the banding most likely is because the lens has vignetting with darker falloff to the edges<br> 3) The third factor is I suspect based on the image color space is you took images in JPEG with Adobe RGB (8 bits). The Adobe RGB has a wider gamut yet one of the downsides is that to accommodate the larger color gamut, all the normal colors are compressed down into a smaller range of color numbers exasperating the banding when in 8 bit mode.<br> --------------------<br> What would help some is keeping the image in 16 bit mode (raw images) until the very end when you save to JPEG. If you still have banding, adding about 0.5% to 1% noise to the background or using the Photoshop spatter filter for the background helps.<br> Just some quick thoughts and hope they were helpful.</p>

<p>Hi Michael<br> Sunsets especially with the sun still visible are very high dynamic range. I do not know what type of post processing software you have (if any), yet Photoshop (and many others) can combine images from several exposures to allow more adjustment latitude where you can have less blown out colors near the sun and have much less noise in the darker areas. Just a thought.</p>

<p>Hi Ken<br> The color gamut of your monitor is not that different from sRGB.<br> However, the gamut of most printers is not the same as sRGB.<br> To preview a better match between monitor and print<br> 1) Have the luminosity of the monitor set similar to the viewing conditions of the print (already mentioned)<br> 2) Turn on soft proofing with Photoshop where the target profile is the profile for the printer/ink/paper combination<br> --------------------<br> This issue could also be having the wrong settings in the print panel or the printer driver yet thought the above two steps would be a good starting point. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>You're welcome Red and glad that worked for you.</p>

<p>Hi Red - Yes there is effectively a the equivalent of an alpha channel controlling the transparency of the pixels yet Adobe does not make it as easy to access. Here is an easier way to do it then duplicating Layers and Merging and I will assume you are not using a background Layer and also that you have not used the Layer Mask as of yet (if yes then there is a little more work than below)<br> - Use Layer > Layer Mask > From Transparency This effectively moves that alpha transparency and moves it over to the Layer Mask. If you disable the Layer Mask then you will see the pixel Layer at full opacity.<br> - If you need to change the transparency in the Layer Mask from very transparent to more opaque, select the mask and use the image adjustment Curves (other other adjustment approach) to make the mask more white instead of dark to make it more opaque.<br> At least that is one way to do it and hope this helps. BTW - only tried this on CC so am assuming it is the same on CC 2014</p>

<p>Two other spec considerations to the above<br> - Non-interpolated resolution of the scanner. It needs to be high enough for your needs<br> - Dynamic range of the scanner. Once you have chosen 16 bit the real limiter in bit depth is the dynamic range contained in the image, the dynamic range of the scanner, and the labs ability to do the scan to extract that dynamic range from the image.<br> ----------------------<br> You did not mention if you need high quality scans of a couple films or high volume, nor what type of film you are scanning, nor the end target prints you desire over the long term, nor the cost range for scanning you would want to consider. There are a wide range of services depending on your needs with a commensurate range of cost. Going with a lower cost service that does not deliver the scan you need is not good yet neither is overspending on a scan that is a quality level way above what you need or is possible to achieve for the film/image you are using.<br> <br />Hope the incremental information is helpful.</p>

<blockquote> <p>However, it is absolutely possible to compare the effect of depth of field between multiple formats (the last part of Ray's question), because <em>all of the assumptions cancel </em></p> </blockquote> <p>+1<br> Thanks for that response. I was almost starting to believe that DOF was as illusive or illusory as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Big Foot and everything was becoming just one big blur ;) </p>

<blockquote> <p>The effect is minor enough at longer lengths that images don't tend to look weird, so we don't hear much about "telephoto distortion" and nobody talks about focal length when discussing the distance at which people view prints. Still, is this why <em>c</em> is supposed to be proportional to focal length?</p> </blockquote> <p>Via email Alan Marcus shared several references to that rule of thumb. Here is a quote from his email than lended some good info and insight:</p> <blockquote> <p>From Photographic Lenses by C. B. Neblette and Allen E. Murray first edition 1965<br />Page 24<br />"The diameter of the circle of confusion may also be expressed as a fraction of the focal length of the lens. This has the advantage of taking the degree of enlargement into consideration, since in this case the image will appear sharp whatever the degree of magnification, provided the print is viewed from the correct distance for proper perspective, i.e. the focal length of the camera lens X the degree of enlargement. <br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>So with the rule of thumb he presented, there is the built in assumption that the viewing distance is not constant yet should be scaled to the focal length lens used.<br> Most DOF tables/calculators used today as well as the DOF markings on lenses (mostly from times past) that I have seen assume as a baseline viewing assumption of 10 inches where the image on the film/sensor was enlarged to an 8x10 print (and so do your calculations).<br> Neither DOF approach is right or wrong, they are just different approaches that will yield different answers because they are based on different assumptions of viewing distance (fixed vs varying with focal length) from the print.</p>

<p>Great! Glad to hear it George.</p>

<p>Hi John - There are several post on the web talking about the same issue. So unless you originated those posts too, the posts indicates that there is a driver issue. Problems reported were when upgrading the driver for Win 8.1. If this were the case you might want to roll back the driver.<br> <br />If the driver is broken then it is a little uncertain what you can do to get by with that driver. What should happen is the monitor ICC profile that was used before should work with the new driver.<br> Your best bet is to roll back the driver to the previous version and contact Dell for a fixed new version.<br> BTW - the link you provided was 4 years old so may not relate to the root cause of your issue. If you follow those instructions you won't damage your monitor yet deleting the existing monitor profile is not advisable. If you take that path, make sure you have a copy of that Monitor profile so that it can be used if you roll back or when Dell provides a fixed driver. Just my opionino of course.</p>

<p>Hi Eric<br> It is an antiquated standard from the 1950's based on the outside diameter of a video vacuum tube whose internal video sensor is about 2/3 the diameter of the tube.<br> So divide out the fractional number e.g. 1/2.3 in = .435 in and that would be the size of that outside vacuum tube diameter to hold that diagonal size of sensor. Real helpful right.<br> For the actual calculations I have seen two different approaches used by manufacuturers (the best I can tell)<br> Approach 1<br> - divide out the inch fraction of sensor spec e.g 1/2.3 in = .435 in<br> - multiply by 25.4 to convert to mm<br> - divide by 1.59 to find the actual diameter of the sensor in mm compared to mythical round vacuum tube diameter<br> Approach 2<br> - divide out the inch fraction of sensor spec<br> - multiply by 25.4 to convert to mm<br> - divide by 1.5 to find the actual diameter of the sensor in mm compared to mythical round vacuum tube diameter<br> - This number actually represents the sensor diagonal if it were a square sensor with the same total area as the sensor in question<br> <br />------------------------------<br> Since there does not appear to be exact formulas that are an industry standard don't expect the numbers from each manufacturer to exactly represent the same think. The closest link for a reference that I have found is about Optical Format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_format <br> Hope his helps some.</p>

<p>Hi Ray<br> While I love the equations here are some short answers<br> - DOF does depend on subject distance<br> - The table below gives you a "generally" equivalent DOF for the same angle of view (same scene with shot from same location). Both the focal length and the Aperture scale approximately by the diagonal of the film size. <br> For the three film formats in question I show the ~film diagonal, the ~focal length lens for same angle of view (50mm used as base for 35mm film), and the ~Aperture for the same DOF (with f/8 use as base for 35mm film). <br> Hope that gives you a quick feel without all the equations:<br> <img src="http://jkwphoto.smugmug.com/photos/i-DN7WMJp/0/M/i-DN7WMJp-M.png" alt="" width="600" height="245" /></p>

<p>Hi George - Check the About Plugins > Camera Raw and check the ACR version. If it 6.0 that is probably your problem. The manual tab was introduced in ACR 6.1. The last version of ACR is 6.7 for CS5<br> Here is the manual download page for ACR 6.7 from Adobe:<br> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=5373&fileID=4999<br> Not sure this is you issue yet hope this helps.</p>

<p>Hi James - I will read posts more carefully in the future as I clearly misread your first post.</p>

<p>Hi James - Just because it says lens not attached does not mean it is not a serious failure. You did all the basics and that did not fix the problem. Recommendations:<br> 1) Do not pay the $150 to get it fixed. Go to the Nikon refurbished page and buy the same lens already fixed for $99: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Store/Refurbished-Cameras.page#!ptc_s:LENS<br> 2) By a zipper for you backpack :)</p>

<p>What effect are you referring to in this image?<br> And also, what camera and lenses to you have available?</p>

<p>Hi Ford - Apparently Replace Contents works slightly differently in CS6 than it does in CC. Here is an alternative approach that I did try in CS6 and hope it works for you<br> - In Preferences, General section check the box "Place or Drag raster images as Smart Ojects<br> - Select the Layer with raw version 2 smart object<br> - Use File > Place and select raw version 1, make changes as desired and open in PS to create a Layer of raw version 3 (Note, raw version 1 will be updated)<br> - If you created any Smart Filters or masks in raw version 2 Smart Ojbect Layer, then drag those to the raw version 3 Smart Object Layer<br> - Delete the raw version 2 Smart Object Layer<br> --------------------------<br> Works for me in CS6 and fingers crossed it works for you.</p>

<p>You're welcome Paul.</p>

<p>Hi Ford - Did you try my suggestion of "Replace Contents?" First post after you started the thread. Works great for me.</p>

<p>Hi Paul<br> - Here is another link with a bit more detail: http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/<br> - The number given and its background is the Optical Factor or OF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_format<br> A more simplified formula for the OF is the diagonal of the sensor in inches multiplied by 1.59. This number is then rounded to number or fractional number. Background of sizing comes from vacuum tube image sensors or CCTV cameras. <br> Why we still use the very old approach baffles me (unless there is some confusing marketing reason) :)</p>

<p>Hi Ford - Yes there is a way to do this in CS6<br> - Select Layer that has the Smart Object originally that came through ACR<br> - Use the command Layer > Smart Objects > Replace Contents and then choose the same image you were using originally. It will go through ACR again and update the original files metadata with the ACR changes<br> - If you use this a lot you could assign a keyboard shortcut<br> Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Hi Brooks<br> Not clear if you were just providing information or were actually asking a question?<br> Thanks for the links. If you are wondering about how long SSDs last, there is not a fixed answer just as there is not a fixed answer for HDs. Depends on technology used with the SSD as well as the manufacturing/testing practices. So you mileage may vary.<br> In general, HDs are more likely to die of a heart attack (suddent failure) where SSDs will suffer from dementia (greater and greater memory loss and mapout over time).<br> <br />Hard SSD failures are also subject to company practices. Data in an SSD is stored with error correcting technology. A manufacturer could if they wanted sell an SSD drive that has memory locations where it has bad bits in the word depending on the error correction. Problem with this is if the bad bit is contamination in the semiconductor, it can lead to a hard catastrophic failure. I call such approahces by manufacturers cheating yet may be seen as just good business to have higher yield/lower cost drives.<br> So again, it really depends on a lot of factors. Bottom line, it comes down to what the market will bear. Just my opinion of course.</p>

<p>You're welcome Ken.</p>

<p>Here area few reasonable easy reads for what you may seek (same web site):<br> Gamma encoding that you mentioned: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm<br> Bit Depth: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/bit-depth.htm<br> Posterization (from low bit depth): http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm<br> Raw file format: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm<br> Tiff and JPEG file format: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/imagetypes.htm<br> Each has a good number of embedded links for further details.</p>