Recent Posts

Hi Doug

I don't own one as yet, what I'm really looking for is how to find out the number of pixels on the CCD? With cameras it's usually clearly stated but for some reason scanner manufacturers like to play with words.

[you'll be able to use products for 3 months (99 days) even if you're offline]

So the local utility (electric and/or cable) hiccups (yesterday we were down for what was probably 5-10 minutes tho it seemed like hours) and I lose everything I just did? No thanks.

Once more, Adobe Creative Cloud FAQ --

You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If you have an annual membership, you'll be asked to connect to the web to validate your software licenses every 30 days.  However, you'll be able to use products for 3 months (99 days) even if you're offline.

Scan a resolution chart. See where the lines deteriorate.

Usually it's not even as high as the "actual" resolution, and is always far less than any interpolated resolution.

You can use this website as a verification of your visual analysis of the test chart: delt.ae.

Any other answer assumes that manufacturers specs are what they say they are. Sometimes that is the case; often it is not.

Courtesy of our experience with image capture for cultural heritage.

I too love the BW's from this camera.  Although, I am still learning how to handle the files.

Hi

can anyone tell me how to find the actual resolution of any given flatbed scanner?  They usually state X number of PPI but don't state how long the CCD is, am I missing something?

From this article:

"Q.  A lot of nonprofessionals have walked by federal buildings and been stepped for taking a snapshot.

A.  Absolutely. If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it.

There are permutations. I tell photographers, if you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort."

In this article, Osterreicher is very uncertain about the legality of Svenson's photos.  He, by no means, says Svenson is on safe ground.  In the closing comment he seems to side with the residents whose pictures were taken surreptitiously with his "your home is your castle" comment.

In this article, Osterreicher makes much more firm statements in opposition to what Svenson did and in favour of the right of privacy of the residents.

It's not about Svenson being "on safe ground". Osterreicher also says that an argument can be made that people who live in glass walled apartments have a shaky defense if they don't draw their blinds. The point is, he would certainly have counseled Kravetz against filing a suit with such a poor chance of winning. Your points ignore the context of the situation. People who choose to live in a fish bowl, which is essentially what that building is, are inviting spectators if they don't draw their curtains. It's not your typical apartment building by a long shot. The outside is all glass. Everything is wide open to everyone on the street and in the facing buildings, unless you draw your curtains. Kravetz has an uphill battle against legal precedent. That, plus the fact that the people in Svenson's photographs can't even be identified means she'll probably lose.

Tim:

Sorry for not noting that: CS5!

Alan

Interesting colours. Great shot.

I am now convinced the the choice to Render Using Lightroom causes lightroom to do exactly that, creating a tif that is passed to PS. Also, that the Render Anyway choice sends the raw file to PS along with the parametric version of the settings and the image was rendered in PS. It looked somewhat like the base image but without the radial filter.

Just for clarification what version of Photoshop were you using?

[their own proprietary]

To be clear, their own proprietary channels, layers and masks right? You can't open a Photoshop created document with those elements and further edit an existing layer right? That's proprietary Adobe processing (meaning any other software you move to, you now hook into their proprietary processing).

The DP Review article didn't mention that as far as I could see. 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) also don't support Photoshop legacy data which is proprietary unless I'm missing something.

Actually, to a certain extent, adjustment layers in a PS document can be read and recreated by Photoline.  For example, an adjustment layer stack with curves, hue/sat and levels adjustment layers created in PS and saved to a PSD file (PSCS6) will open in Photoline (v17.53) with all of those (supported, or analogous) PS adjustment layers intact and applied to the background image.  There are some discrepancies - I noted that, for example, if I applied a gamma and white point levels adjustment to the RGB channel, it was interpreted correctly by Photoline; however, if, in that same levels adjustment layer I also applied a gamma and white point adjustment to the GREEN channel, that was not preserved by Photoline.  Interesting.  I will contact the developers and see if this is a "bug" or something intentional.  I am guessing it is a bug, as the curves adjustment layer, per channel, is preserved as well as the hue/sat, per target color range, is preserved.  I have not looked into the fidelity of the translation in terms of color numbers, etc.

Layer masks are also preserved although I am not sure if they are fully registered with the image.  It appears that the layer masks created in PS are displaced or have their left bounding box margins justified to the left of the image space in PL.  Maybe?  - will need to experiment with this.

I assume that if PS has a layer adjustment that has no mate in Photoline, it probably will not be preserved.  (EDIT - an unsupported adjustment layer comes in as a fully transparent layer with no mask in Photoline - for example, I applied a LUT adjustment layer with a painted mask to the PSD file in PSCS6 - upon opening in Photoline it was in the layer stack, but as a transparent layer, with no mask.

Anyway, pretty interesting.

kirk

EDIT - attached is a screenshot with the comparison.  Although cyclocross races can be hellish, these adjustments were arbitrary and were made so that they were obvious.