joelclarke

<p>Bill / Mark, my apologies for the delayed response to your questions. I should have included my workflow and reasonings along with my initial post. Better late than never though and thanks to non-destructive workflow I've been able to quickly re-create the steps I took.<br>

Firstly, before I start any work on an image I ask myself these questions What's the end purpose of the image? What's it trying to say? What does it need to say? How is communicating this to the viewer and what if anything does it need to do this better?. This sets the framework for everything that comes afterwards. I don't make a final decision of what I want it to look like at this stage, just the message.<br>

For this image, the message is obviously the "Be Brave and Shave" slogan but at first glance this wasn't an image that was communicating anything brave. There were also the issues of the distracting elements of the fittings on both the bricks and tiles, not to mention how the joins in the mirror tiles cut right through the subjects face.<br>

Inspecting all the elements though, several details began to emerge that could help communicate the "brave" message by creating a somewhat scary environment. Half-hidden faces in the background for-instance - especially the one showing just a nose and eye to the (viewers) right of subject, the security camera in the mirror top-right and those eyes.<br>

Decision made, and referencing the look of a D-grade slasher movie / film-noir (Bill re the red overlay - partly for the slasher movie look and partly to attract viewer attention as I'm assuming this image would be used in advertising) I've done the following; all in Photoshop CC.<br>

<br />Open image<br>

Levels adjustment > set highlights and shadows in each channel using sliders while pressing the alt (command) key. (I find this the quickest way to correct any issues with colour balance and will always start with this step.)<br>

New blank layer > select layer > clone stamp and patch tool to remove the wall fittings<br>

Crop image to tighten composition and remove the distracting sink fittings.<br>

Double-click on background to convert it to a layer > Group layers > convert to smart object<br>

New gradient adjustment layer > Green to Red overlay at 100% opacity > change blending mode to Vivid Light > select gradient mask > brush tool > black brush > opacity 15% > paint on the mask to burn in the subject's reflection in the mirror and selectively change the lighting on the rear wall by revealing the original image (creating both tension and diagonal lines that draw the viewers eye towards the subject in the process)<br>

New blank layer > select layer > clone stamp and healing brush > fix three distracting areas highlighted by the previous step 1. shadow across chest 2. top lip 3. to the right of her thumb<br>

New blank layer > fill 50% grey > change blending mode to overlay > paint on the grey layer with 10% opacity brush with white to subtly burn in the subjects eyes, security camera, faces, mirror joints<br>

Still on grey layer > change paint brush colour to black > opacity 10% >paint on layer to create a vignette around the frame and improve the contrast on the brickwork.<br>

Group all layers > create smart object > duplicate smart object twice<br>

Select layer copy 1 > run high-pass filter set at 1.4 > apply an inverted layer mask > paint on layer mask using a soft, white brush set at 10% to selectively sharpen areas in the image, text, etc. building up the effect slowly if needed by repeated strokes<br>

Select layer copy 2 > apply gaussian blur fliter at 2.7 > apply an inverted layer mask > paint on layer mask using a soft, white brush set at 10% to selectively heal any remaining destractions (these where mainly on the head and due more to the quality of the JPEG file than the editing process. I doubt they would have been there from a RAW base image.<br>

Save as > JPEG ><br>

Done!<br>

This whole process took less than 10 mins time, longer than it took to write this. The process is completely non-destructive and also contains the editing history as any point in the chain can be jumped into at any time....even a far future time.<br>

Whether or not it conveys the intent as defined in the first step, well, I'll leave that up to you to decide.</p>

<p>I have a CanoScan Lide 700F and can thoroughly recommend it. It has an <strong>optical</strong> resolution of 9600dpi, a wide colour gamut (accept ICC profiles), an infrared channel, is very quick and quiet and outrageously inexpensive.<br>

You can use the supplied Canon software which gives better than average results (after some tweaking I might add) however when you use Vuescan with it as I do, it really sings. I bought it specifically for scanning film and while it doesn't have some of the automatic features of some of the more expensive models, i.e. batch scanning, the quality of the scan more than compensates for this. I've found it to be right up there with the best of them.<br>

This is a pretty accurate review <a href="http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/scanners/266443/canon-canoscan-lide-700f">www.expertreviews.co.uk/scanners/</a> you might find helpful. The only part I disagree with is the last paragraph regarding negative scans. You do need to set up the driver correctly to get the results I've spoken about....or use Vuescan.<br>

You can pick one up new for around AU$150 if you hunt around.</p>

<p><img src="/photo/17881675&;size=lg" alt="" />Hi all, my first entry into these challenges.<br>

Like many here, my initial reaction to this photo was mild, to say the least. Turning it into an arresting, or even interesting image seemed futile, however that also presented itself as a challenge.<br>

This is the end result of a bit of lateral thinking. You guys be the judge, but I think it shows why one should never give up on or dismiss ones own images out of hand.<br>

For the record, although quite a dramatic shift from the original, this was a pretty quick edit...once I'd decided on the direction I wanted to take it...around 10 mins actual work. Just goes to show that some of the simplest techniques can have the greatest impact.<br>

Interested in hearing your feedback.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17881675&size=lg</p><div></div>

<p>As photographers, we use precision instruments, software and methods all the time, which we then update - debating with others before we do so as whether those updates are an improvement - because presumably we are seeking to perfect what we already have.<br>

Language is also a precision instrument and should be treated with the same respect.</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with you there Andrew about the billion colour malarke. For starters, the human eye just isn't a sensitive enough instrument to make those sort of ultra-fine distinctions, much like it can't physically see the difference between 8bit and 16bit images.<br>

What I look for in a monitor is the broadest possible reproduction of the Adobe RGB colour space along with a separate, mode for sRGB emulation as calibration alone will not give your that. The ability to be able to reproduce blacks and have an even gradation across the whole gamut is also obviously important. These last two point especially are where a lot of the cheaper monitors are lacking.<br>

Even illumination is a must, internal LUT's prefered but not a deal-breaker as long as you have a good graphics card capable of handling multiple profiles. A non-reflective matt surface is also important but be careful as some coatings I've noticed being used produce a colour cast.<br>

Another point I completely agree with Andrew on is that having a simple, push-button system for switching through different calibration targets is a must.<br>

Drift? Well it's not so much of a consideration anymore with these newer monitors (even the cheaper ones) but that doesn't mean you won't have to calibrate. There's always a burn-in period and if you're calibrating to a specific target you'll always need one....apart from it just being prudent as a regular check-up.<br>

Getting all of this in the one unit at a realistic price is obviously the trick and in relation to a previous comment regarding Dell monitors, I've had a lot of success with their U2410 panel, which, if you completely ignore the hideously broken Custom Colour mode, is a very good, accurate and reliable unit that does almost all of the above. They were only about $600 AU at the time, not sure if you can still buy them new.<br>

An excellent resource for technical analysis of monitors is http://www.prad.de/ Somewhat more impartial than some of the others but you'll have to translate the site.<br>

I actually haven't checked if they've reviewed any of the HP monitors yet but you'll find plenty there that they have. <br>

Hope some of this has been useful.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

From what I've researched, you might want to check out the new HP DreamColour HP Z27x. Specs are bang on and it's going for around $1500 US. They have a 24" version available also for around $600. These are the next generation of the original DreamColour monitor developed in conjunction with Dreamworks Studio and what was the worlds best and also most expensive monitor (by far) at the time.<br>

Today's prices on them seem pretty reasonable though so hopefully they'll have a similar ticket on them when they arrive in Australia as the give both NEC & Eizo a lot to live up to. I'll be getting one for sure if that's the case.<br>

(I'm not affiliated with HP btw.)</p>

<h1 > </h1>

<h1 > </h1>

<p>Hi Scott, LR has come a long, long way since LR3. Easy to organise now with collections, star ratings, metadata, etc. I shoot a lot of weddings and use it for the bulk of my heavy lifting on a daily basis. It is by far, the best overall system that I've tried. It won't work on network drives however so you may want to rethink your workflow there. I keep a dozen or so catalogues (I use a separate catalogue for each wedding) locally while I work on them and then transfer them to my archive drive) once I'm finished with them. I only have to transfer the catalogue files (very light) and place them inside my external backup of the original images. LR will reference the filenames correctly then so if you need to go back at any stage and revisit, you can pick up just where you left off.<br>

It's only as good as your knowledge of how to use it though, so my advice is to give yourself some structured study time to learn the program properly, especially the catalogue management, rather than just jumping in the deep end straight away. That way it will definitely become your friend and cut out a lot of that slog-fest you mentioned.<br>

Regular upgrades too!<br>

Happy editing.</p>

<p>Hey John, you can always convert profile to RGB but you can't add information that wasn't there to begin with. ie. colour range.<br>

That's why starting with the wider gamut to begin with before you strip it down is better. The "s" in sRGB stands for "small" so there's the clue. It is the web standard though so any colours not in it's gamut won't display online hence why you'd convert to sRGB before upload.</p>

<p>Hi John,</p>

<p>It sounds to me like that your Working Colour Space in PS is set to a different profile than sRGB and you don't have the Profile Mismatch warning checkbox ticked so when you open the file you've exported from Dxo in PS, it's converting from sRGB into the colour space you've set for PS. <br>

If you want colours to match across all your applications you need to be using the same colour space in each so changing your working colour space in PS to sRGB should do the trick.<br>

I'd suggest as a matter of course though that you're better of working in RGB from capture and through your post processing as it's a wider gamut profile (has more colours to choose from). You'll end up with a better quality image overall and if you need to convert to sRGB for a particular purpose (web use or if your lab's printer profile is sRGB for instance) you can always do it at the end of the process. Mind you, this last paragraph is only valid if you are working on a monitor with a wide gamut display so you can view all those colours to begin with. If not, sRGB is the way to go.</p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br>

Joel</p>

<p>Lightroom 5 or 5.2 - use the Upright tool in the Lens Correction tab of the Develop module. It's essentially a souped-up version that combines everything that's described above. It uses the specific profile associated with the lens you used to give excellent perspective corrections. You will probably need to adjust the Aspect (found under the Manual tab of the same tool) to finish the adjustment.<br>

DxO Pro 8 will also do the same job....some say even better!</p>

<p>It sounds like the PSD you've created is still drawing information from the TIFF.<br>

You could try saving the PSD as a copy and then delete the original PSD. <br>

Alternatively, if, as you say, the RAW file is still sitting on the flash card, why don't you just use another computer to access it and make a copy.</p>

<p>I got in touch with Ed and while he did respond to my emails, I'm not sure if we got off on the right foot. He asked me to run a series of isolation tests to identify under what conditions the problem occurs (apparently "all the time" isn't one of those conditions) and apart from that showed little interest. Maybe because he was about to go on holiday had something to do with it.<br>

Hopefully that could change if a few more people got in touch with him describing the same issue. </p>

<p>I got in touch with Ed and while he did respond to my emails, I'm not sure if we got off on the right foot. He asked me to run a series of isolation tests to identify under what conditions the problem occurs (apparently "all the time" isn't one of those conditions) and apart from that showed little interest. Maybe because he was about to go on holiday had something to do with it.<br>

Hopefully that could change if a few more people got in touch with him describing the same issue. </p>

<p>I got in touch with Ed and while he did respond to my emails, I'm not sure if we got off on the right foot. He asked me to run a series of isolation tests to identify under what conditions the problem occurs (apparently "all the time" isn't one of those conditions) and apart from that showed little interest. Maybe because he was about to go on holiday had something to do with it.<br>

Hopefully that could change if a few more people got in touch with him describing the same issue. </p>

<p>If you have your own hosting space and can do some light coding, Coppermine would fit all your requirements with the added benefit that you remain in full control of your images at all times. <br>

You can also integrate clients proofing/image selection and a shopping cart.<br>

It's free too!</p>

<p>Whenever I use the Infrared Clean option in VueScan, the infrared channel is presented as a mirror image. </p>

<p><img src="http://www.distinctivephotography.com.au/scrapbook/VueScan%20Error.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Has anyone else experienced this or know how to fix it? What have I missed?<br>

I'm using a new Canoscan LiDE 700F and running Window 7 x64.<br>

Any help would be appreciated as I've exhausted all other areas of enquiry.<br>

Thanks</p>