Allan Mee wrote:
> You guys are wizards with PS et al.
> The differences you make are outstanding. I think I'll have to really get to
> grips with PS. When I was a full time programmer - we (programmers) spent a
> lot of time hand-editing images (usually computer generated rather than
> photographs) but it's not something I've really done (editing images I mean)
> for a long time. I think the software tools nowadays are amazing and I know
> it takes a lot of skill and talent to get the best out of such tools.
>
Some are really easy to use. Perspective correction like Chuck and I
just played with is quick and easy in PS, and I assume in other editors.
There are other functions in PS that are in effect shortcuts for
multi-step uses of a series of other functions
> So it's kinda weird for me - I've been working with digital imagery of some
> kind or other since 1981 - but I'm new to digital photography and editing
> digital photographs............ But I admit, I'm a million light-years
> away yet from what some of you can do with PS et al.
There are some things in PS that I doubt you ever did, but that are
really easy to use. The Shadow/Highlight control, for example, lets you
expand the tonal range of the end(s) of the histogram while smoothly
integrating it into a slightly tonally compressed middle range, With
controls for amount of effect, tonal range over which it operates and
how it operates at the detail level, a little time with sliders can work
magic that would take forever without it.
PS also has a macro facility, which they call Actions, so that things
that you do often can be quickly reproduced. Have a bunch of images with
similar characteristics and that you think will take quite a bit of
work? Turn on Record and do your work, save the action and repeat it on
the other images.
> But it is weird because
> I've written software that manipulate bitmaps - rotate them, invert them,
> emboss them, convert to grey-scale (and metallic), convert between formats,
> enhance a little (sharpen or blur, etc.), enlarge, reduce, etc. etc. But at
> the moment I wouldn't have a clue how to do in/with PS, PTLENS, etc. what
> you guys do.
>
You'll easily understand the primary functions of PTLens. The thing it
exists for is lens distortion correction. The developer simply wrote it
to take simple parameters to correct barrel and pincushion distortion.
Then he had users send in images shot with various lenses and focal
lengths of zooms of linear grids, like buildings and such. From them, he
measured the distortion parameters. A limited, but very important and
well implemented function.
PS is much more complex, but the parts of it needed for most normal
photo editing is not nearly as large.
> ...............
> I was going to scan 1000s of images from negatives - but the scanner doesn't
> give anything like the results I want.
Your images show real problem(s) with scanner and/or software and/or
(don't be offended, please) operator.
At the price of the PrimeFilm 1800, one does have to wonder how good it
can be. Others have been know to lie about their real DMax, but the
specs I found didn't even mention it; that's not good. Did you mention
trying VueScan? With a little learning curve, it should enable you to
get the best possible out of the scanner.
It is certainly possible to get great scans without spending a fortune,
but I wonder if the PrimeFilm 1800 is the way to do it. 1800 dpi isn't
bad, but you will get more real, usable detail closer to 3000 dpi. Also,
if you have the 1800u, rather than the AFL, the process of loading and
setting up each frame will get old very fast. I know. :-)
To me, a project like that should only have to be done once, so I would
be sure I was getting results good enough that I would almost never want
to go back to do a better job on an image. To that end, I suspect you
need a better scanner. Assuming all those negs are in strips, you at
least want one that will scan each strip automatically.
Another thing to think about is dust. Individually cleaning off dust
spots gets old really fast. With 1,000s of images, you could lose a
significant part of your remaining life expectancy just cleaning dust.
Better scanners have the capability to do a second scan using IR and use
the difference do find the dust and some other flaws and correct them.
And it really works.
If I had that project, I would likely get a Canon 9950F flatbed scanner
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_1.htm>.
It will scan 5 strips of up to six frames apiece at once, has IR dust
removal capability and will do much better scans than what you have now
will do. $350 here in the US. There are alternatives, but that's my
current quality/capability/cost choice for an archiving project. In
fact, it's on my wish list for my similar project, but hasn't risen to
the top yet against other bits of photo equipment. In my case, though,
it's easier, as I have an excellent 4000 dpi film scanner already, so
doing current work or an old roll that catches my fancy isn't a problem.
If, like me, you happen to have some MF and/of LF film to scan, a
flatbed like the 9950F can also do a great job with those.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|