steve_bingham

<p>Again, that's why I do NOT use them for backup! I repeat, "I would never trust archival to either DVD or CD." Looks like we agree.</p>

<p>Unless you are using Mam-A gold type discs, CD archival is questionable. A simple sharpie would work but not sure about archival. I can speak for over 6 years. Now all by photos use a triple backup. One external (1 TB), one in the computer, one on the internet. Should any ONE of these fail, I would immediately secure a third source. I would never trust archival to either DVD or CD.</p>

<p>1- What OS are you using? You might be limited by the OS.<br />2- PS CS4 has a limit of 300,000 in the largest dimension (300,000 x 300,000) but ONLY with TIFF or PSB files. Otherwise the limit is 30,000 in the largest dimension.<br>

More importantly, you would never want to feed a file this large to an Epson 3800. Even scanning at 720 will produce a monter print at 360 on the Epson.</p>

<p>1- good lighting to start with<br>

2- post processing in PS CS4 and probable use of a commercial filter to alter the tonal curves, smoothness, etc. There are many ways to do this.</p>

<p>YES. In ACR simply select Auto when converting from raw. You will be close. Your 'Levels" adjustment is terrible. If you are asking if the camera can do this in JPG the answer is a flat NO.<br>

This such an easy image to correct in PS CS4. 2 seconds. Done.</p>

<p>Ah, the continuing question. I use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) as a converter. It works in Adobe Photoshop CS4, Adobe Lightroom, and even the inexpensive Photoshop Elements.<br>

There you go. $600 vs $200 vs $80. Be aware that the version used with PS CS4 has a few more whistles and bells - which as a beginner would only confuse you.<br>

My recommendation: Start with Photoshop Elements 7, Walmart for $79.95.</p>

<p>Not really a problem - but a matter of perception. Yes PS CS4 will take your 6 mb image and uprez it to 100 mb. The detail will be sectioned, and sectioned again. Nearest neighbor will substitute for real resolution. Lots of math - done automatically.<br>

The result? You get a bigger image with a lot of detail averaged or assumed from "nearest neighbor". In any case, it matters not as detail is 100% relative to VIEWING distance.<br>

Your great 13" x 19" print can be made to look great at 13' x 19' . . . on a billboard viewed from the street.</p>

<p>Why?<br>

I use a NEC MultiSync LCD 2690WUXi2 (wide gamut). After careful calibration I see 99% of the aRGB color spectrum. Then I print aRGB on my Epson 3800. Awesome results - almost exactly as I see them on the monitor. My entire work flow is aRGB. Do NOT switch back and forth! You want pro results? Think like a pro.</p>

<p>Hey Larry. Tell me how you are loving PS CS4 64 bit on the Mac. Have you noticed that it is over 100% slower than the PC version? UPgrade to a Mac? I don't think so!</p>

<p>Geoff - here is a comparison I ran a few years back. Take a look. <a href="http://dustylens.com/d200_vs_d300.htm">http://dustylens.com/d200_vs_d300.htm</a><br />Here, also is a 100% image from a D200 and a Tamron f2.8 28-75. Is this enough quality for you? Click on for a 100% image.<br /><a href="http://dustylens.com/Perry-1478-C.jpg">http://dustylens.com/Perry-1478-C.jpg</a></p>

<p>Try this. When you first click to load CS4 instantly hold down control/alt/shift all at once. If this is done fast enough you will get a message that asks if you want to set PS to the default settings. Click on YES. This will cure 99% of PS CS4 problems.</p>

<p>TWO giant problems: I owned two Kodak SLR/n cameras. Kodak did not use an AA filter. This produced moire WAY too often. A bigger problem was the color control with a LOT of Nikon lenses. You would get a sky that would go (subtly) from magenta to green to magenta. Or then from Green to magenta to green. Boost the saturation just a tad and it would look terrible. Off color skies. Off color wedding dresses. Off color clouds. Etc. You are better off with an entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR. Or any other brand.</p>

<p>Old hat. Trite but perfectly acceptable.</p>

<p>I use Eye-One (i1) Three. Works great and I do serious soft proofing.</p>

<p>Call Adobe. You will be fine.</p>

<p>I repeat from another thread: Photo editing? I would suggest a wide gamut monitor such as the NEC Multisync LCD 2690WUXi2 . . . whish gives 99% aRGB when properly calibrated. Around $1,050. This is about as good as it gets without spending a lot more money. More importantly, it is great for soft proofing!</p>

<p>A 16 x 20 print? No problem if done correctly. I have an old 4000 which I gave to my wife.</p>

<p>Photo editing? I would suggest a wide gamut monitor such as the NEC Multisync LCD 2690WUXi2 . . . whish gives 99% aRGB when properly calibrated. Around $1,050. This is about as good as it gets without spending a lot more money. More importantly, it is great for soft proofing!</p>

<p>I use the advanced mode 100%. After proper monitor calibration I simply use the default. Rarely do I need to tweak it. I use Ilford, Gallerie, Smooth Pearl. This would include over 200 fine art prints. Actually, I have found that I get identical results with InkJetArt microceramic for much less money AND they provide 17" x 25" paper for a perfect 1/2" border around my 16 x 24 images.</p>

<p>I tried to edit the above but ran out of my alloted 10 minutes. So here is the edit version.</p>

<p>Well, you will need the following:<br />1- At least an average skill level with post processing - preferably with PS CS4<br>

2- You would do well to have your own printer. For outstanding B&W work I would suggest the Epson 3800/3880. Use the advanced b&w mode.<br>

<br />3- Use a decent paper with good dmax (deep blacks). I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl<br />For a period of 50 years - yes 50 years - I had my own darkroom. I taught b&w photography for 32 years (college and some high school).<br>

I am now retired and LOVE what I can now do.<br />No more multiple enlargers (ala Uelsmann), no more fine tuning of secret chemical formulas, no more following elaborate notes on dodging and burning every print, no more wasting 20 sheets of 16 x 20 paper to get THE print (or the hours and hours it took).<br>

<br />MOST importantly, my Epson 3800 prints are better than anything I ever did in my darkroom (and I considered myself a master printer using many advanced techniques). And I had a half dozen shows with my fine art prints. I am getting old and slow (73) but I can still crank them out.<br>

To go first cabin you should:<br>

1- Take a class from your local CC in Photoshop CS4 - or at least Photoshop Elements<br>

2- Invest in a good monitor for precise color and tonal management. I use the NEC 2690WUXI - which is a wide gamut monitor. Then calibrate it with Eye-One Three (or similiar)<br>

3- Invest in a good printer. The Epson 3800/300 prints on 17" x 25" paper - ideal for 16 x 24 stunning b&w prints.<br>

Total investment - $2,500 to $3,000. However, you do NOT need hot and cold water mixer, huge sink, numerous trays, film developing cans, shelves of chemicals, controlled dust environment, drying cabinet, enlarger, lenses, lens boards, electronic timers, thermometers, fans, paper holders, drying racks, ferrotype plates, etc, etc, etc.<br>

There, convinced?</p>

<p>Well, you will need the following:<br>

1- At least an average skill level with post processing - preferably with PS CS4<br>

2- You would do well to have your own printer. For outstanding B&W work I would suggest the Epson 3800/3880. Use the advanced b&w mode.<br>

3- Use a decent paper with good dmax (deep blacks). I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl<br>

For a period of 50 years - yes 50 years - I had my own darkroom. I taught b&w photography for 32 years. I am now retired and LOVE what I can now do.<br>

No more multiple enlargers (ala Uelsmann), no more fine tuning of secret chemical formulas, no more following elaborate notes on dodging and burning every print, no more wasting 20 sheets of 16 x 20 paper to get THE print (or the hours and hours it took).<br>

MOST importantly, my Epson 3800 prints are better than anything I ever did in my darkroom. And I had a half dozen shows with my fine art prints. I am getting old and slow (73) but I can still crank them out.<br>

There, convinced?</p>

<p>The 50mm f1.8 should not be used at f2. It is not that sharp wide open. At f4 it is much better!!!</p>

<p>The last one is pretty much a full blown pseudo HDR.<br>

Keep in mind HDR really means 3-6 separate exposures that are then tone mapped. However, there are lots of software filters that make it easy to do pseudo HDR with a single exposure. All those I have posted fall into this single exposure pseudo HDR.</p>

<p >Subtle:</p>

<p >http://ghost-town-photography.com/Valdez,-Colorado.jpg</p>

<p >http://ghost-town-photography.com/Gleeson---1-PM.jpg</p>

<p >http://ghost-town-photography.com/Segundo,-Colorado-x.jpg</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And pushed a little more. This is on the edge of being too much.</p>

<p >http://ghost-town-photography.com/Dead-Bottles.jpg</p>

 

<p>Nathan, the trick with HDR is to make them look natural rather than processed! Take a look at this - very natural with a little HDR added in select areas. Yes, you don't have to do the entire photo if you are good with Photoshop. <a href="http://dustylens.com/Monument-Valley---South.jpg">http://dustylens.com/Monument-Valley---South.jpg</a></p>

<p>Scott Ferris is correct.<br>

A pro service will always have a RIP that takes the file to whatever it needs. Just give them the file! I print my own on Epson printers so I first select resolution of 240 (yeah, native for the printer is 360 but 240 works perfectly). Then I select print size. 2' x 3' from Nikon D700 is pretty damn sharp at 2' viewing distance. Your size from the D700 would look great from 3' away! Not sure about Canon, but if you started with a raw you should be good to go!</p>