steve_bingham

Hmm. Let's try this way.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00MKLe&photo_id=6324586&photo_sel_index=0

I use PS CS3. Image - Adjust - Black and White. This converts any color image to b&w using pre-set filters or your own fine adjustments. Here is a sample: http://dustylens.com/Born-Jan-1901-1.jpg

Mr Z.,

I read my e-mail daily. I would be happy to dedicate as much of my time as is necessary to help and improve the system. It's why I joined photo.net many, many years ago. I have a love for photography - as evidenced by a MS in the subject and 35 years of teaching (high school and college). If someone wishes me to spend serious thought, time, and labor helping I would be happy to do so at no charge. My e-mail is valid and I check it multiple times daily. Obviously this can't be done on a web forum - which is probably your point.

Bart, your images have always been inspiring. I am glad they are there so others can learn from them - even though few see them.

 

And for Mr.Z, I have yet to see any photographs from you so I can neither be inspired nor bored - you simply write. As for "opting out", this is simply an avoidance of the problem (or perceived problem). Kind of like people not voting in a general election because they have "opted out". (By the way, you are no longer anonymous - at least to me. Not that it matters.)

Exactly. The rating system is pretty meaningless. Most agree on this and then say either "so what" or "it can't be fixed". Yet, it is this very anonymous rating system that directs beginners and students who are looking for examples of outstanding work. They go to some form of Top Photos and take a peak, hoping for inspiration or some other form of learning.

 

It's too bad that "we" can't come up with a better system for inspiring photographers - or has the site become just another place for people to dump millions of snapshots.

 

There are two photographers on this site that are recent Black and White Spider Award winners (THE international award for B&W work). These are works that are hung in art museums - and yet both photographers are practically unknown on this site. One had only 3 comments and 5 rather low anonymous ratings - TOTAL - until I mentioned this fact on this forum some time ago. The point being that "the system" as it now stands buries excellent work under millions of snapshots. There was a time, a long time ago, when a crew of "elves" sought out good images to show as examples. Am I being too idealistic to expect this site to have some manner in which really good photography is fostered?

 

You see, it is not the rating system that needs fixing, it is what it is used for (in its current form). Before I pulled it, my "Old Man" photo garnered 2.4 million views (as I recall) and yet it was a pretty average photo. Why so many views? Because it made it to the top of Top Photos and therefor it must be good. It wasn't! It was average. So Google Images picks up on this and rates it #1 (for 3 years) under "Old Man" (amoung 17 million choices). So guess what? After I pulled the image from Photo.net Google no longer places it as #1 (it took a few months). The photo was breeding! I was responsible for promoting mediocre photography! This image was also stolen at least a dozen times - to my knowledge - because it was #1. In this case, the thieves got what they deserved.

That's why newspapers won't publish anonymous letters. That's why ratings based

on a "bot" casting votes simply doesn't work. Result: Pretty worthless ratings.

So why even have a rating scale - or Top Photos, etc? What is the purpose?

 

I can log in as Joe Smuckhead or Harry Sixpack (or both) and rate every single

picture at the speed of light - alternating between 3 and 4, and produce

hundreds of worthless ratings every day. Better yet, I can have a bot do it -

every day - automatically.

 

Suggestion: Make every rating be accompanied by a comment and have a name

attached. Simple. Put some real meaning back into ratings. Please!

 

Ah, shucks, who am I kidding. Nobody really cares. Phillip used to but that was

back in the dark ages - when he really cared about photography. Now it's

strictly click count. I average 2.7 million clicks a month on my site (the last

2 years) and I have zero advertising. Barely my own. There is more to life than

money.

 

I have a feeling I am about to be banned! Let's hope not. Now excuse me while I

try to get off this soapbox without hurting myself.

PS from 6 on.

Image - Rotate Canvas - Arbitary. Select angle of rotation (type in) - such as 1.03 degrees counterwise.

I am first on the waiting list. I was informed that actual availability would be sometime in 2037.

Good question! I'm watching! I sure would like to move things around within folders.

1- Send your camera in to have the IR filter removed. $300.

 

or

 

2- Use a deep red filter and expose for extremely long times - sometimes as long as a minute

 

or

 

3- Buy PS CS3. Take any color photo. Then use Image-Adjust-Black and White. Select the preset Infrared. Instant.

The latest version of Adobe Camera Raw is 4.1. It will be available at the end of this week - and will work with PS Elements 5.

. . . and then some of us consider Adobe Camera Raw 4.0 the best. You will need CS3 or PS Elements 5.0. You will also need to download the latest version of Camera Raw for the D40x to work.

 

Might I suggest buying Adobe Elements 5.0 as a good starting point. It will basically do everything a beginner can think of!

Having an educational version does NOT preclude you from using it for professional gain. It is identical in all aspects as the regular version. When you go to upgrade to the next version, however, you will find the upgrade price is the same for all. I teach it at the local college and have a pretty good understanding of how this works.

 

Good luck - the learning curve is very, very long. But fun!

Do a search for Camera Raw.8bi and you will find it. I would NOT delete it, but simply drag it onto your desktop for future use - or rename it with a ~in front.

 

Reinstall Capture and it will once again become the dominant raw converter.

After doing pretty extensive testing using DriverHeaven Photoshop Test action on both CS2 and CS3 I see no difference in speed. None! It does load slightly faster, however. I use the new Core2 Duo x6800 cpu and 4 gigs of ram.

 

On the other hand, ACR 4.0 as offered in Bridge 2.0 offers a lot of easily to understand adjustments - with preview! A real bonus.

 

There are some new features in CS3 that the beginning user will probably never use. The most interesting is the Image/Adjust/Black and White which gives you an automatic channel mixer with 6 "channels" and tint. It also includes 10 presets - including Infrared. This gives you a LOT of options when converting color to black and white. Far, far superior to the old channel mixer.

Somehow this got posted in the wrong question! Sorry.

After doing pretty extensive testing using DriverHeaven Photoshop Test action on both CS2 and CS3 I see no difference in speed. None! It does load slightly faster, however. I use the new Core2 Duo x6800 cpu and 4 gigs of ram.

 

On the other hand, ACR 4.0 as offered in Bridge 2.0 offers a lot of easily to understand adjustments - with preview! A real bonus.

 

There are some new features in CS3 that the beginning user will probably never use. The most interesting is the Image/Adjust/Black and White which gives you an automatic channel mixer with 6 "channels" and tint. It also includes 10 presets - including Infrared. This gives you a LOT of options when converting color to black and white. Far, far superior to the old channel mixer.

You said "and edit it" and then save as. This requires you to give it a new name (add a -1) or else it will rewrite over the old file and slightly degrade the original image. Example: Name, Name-1, Name-2, etc. It is a good practice to use the same name, only add a very short suffix, number, or letter to the adjusted file.

I use Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster or Ilford Classic Pearl. Ilford Smooth Pearl also works. Unfortunately, Wilhelm has not tested the new papers with dye printers. The "word" on the street is that Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster is the same as the old Colorlife. Maybe?

Healing brush - click, click, click. Done. PS CS2 or 3.

Yes. But not until later this year. But at 35 pounds it is scary! One big lens. Sigma zoom.

Use Bob's chart. Or . . . this explanation.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

Your files on the crashed HD are probably recoverable - at great expense! I would suggest turning the two HDs over to a company that specializes in this. I do know it is terribly expensive and maybe not worth the cost. There are two places in Phoenix that do this and a good half dozen in Los Angeles. Prices will vary and they will need BOTH disks.

 

I do all my work on a mirrored array for that very reason. I found the striped array way too scary - unless you backup your images daily and even then you could lose a day's shoot. Of course Raid 5 basically does this same thing. I also found that the striped array really was not that much quicker - less than 10%.

How about 2:3 :^)

I have both good taste and money - and I choose my porn quite differently from fine art. Because . . . well, never mind. One inspires, the other gives me an erection. Or as a good friend once said, "Don't f**k with art. It is what it is."