Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »
 51 
 on: Today at 11:00:05 AM 
Started by William Walker - Last post by Isaac
Hmmm... ambiguity... must be street photography then Wink

"Do we look for precise technical qualities, superb composition and a story the viewer can take away, or do we allow for ambiguity and multiple story lines in photos that simultaneously transport the viewer and force them to hold up a mirror?"

Ambiguity and Teaching with the Photography Robert Adams

 52 
 on: Today at 10:59:19 AM 
Started by jerome_m - Last post by jerome_m
It doesn't depend on input pixels alone. It also has to do with the acuity of human vision, which is also depending on distance

Nope. I want the public to be able to examine the print with a magnifier, mm per mm if needs be. Why do you think Canon and Epson make printers capable of fine art print on 60" / 150 cm rolls? The printers will sustain a linear resolution of at least 300 ppi on the full length of their bed. That is a feat of engineering and comes with a price tag, yet that price tag is smaller than your average MF camera. You want me to feed that miracle of technology with inferior data? Forget it.

Besides: if I limit myself to lower quality, there are even larger printers available.

The printers are there, I want to use them to their full potential. I want the public to watch the large picture from the distance, then move closer and closer and discover more and more details. Have you been to a gallery or museum presenting really large prints recently?

 53 
 on: Today at 10:58:26 AM 
Started by jerome_m - Last post by BJL
Well... 432 million pixels on 24 x 36 mm implies pixels of 1.33 m (cell-phone size...). 432 million pixels on 53.7 x 40.4 mm implies pixels of 2.24 m. I am pretty sure that the second one gives a more usable aperture for the diffraction limit.
Only in that the 36x24mm format would require an f-stop of about f/2 or lower to control diffraction, while the 54x40mm could control diffraction equally at about f/3 and lower --- with each having the same pathetically shallow DOF when diffraction is equally controlled. So about 420 million of those pixels would be OOF and so wasted as far as resolution goes.

The larger format would have the lens design advantage of needing less low f-stops. For example:
- an 80mm lens for 54x40mm format that is "430MP sharp" at f/3
is probably an easier lens design goal than
- a 50mm lens for 36x24mm format that is "430MP sharp" at f/2.

But do either of these lenses exist?


The iron trade-of between DOF and diffraction means that these massive pixel counts probably need focus stacking with anything but distant landscapes that have no foreground needing to be in focus.
And as Bernard will surely remind us, when you can do focus stacking, you can probably to stitching too, and the lenses have a better chance of giving adequate resolution at those low f-stops.

 54 
 on: Today at 10:57:47 AM 
Started by Alexander Svet - Last post by deejjjaaaa
I see the smartest way to work is to create a catalogue to import images into you want to work on, even if you only want to work on a few images at a time. The import process in C8 is very fast, so it's hardly any slower than loading a single file.

nope, the smartest /for "us"/ way is the way like ACR works - you do not bother with "creating a catalogue", you designated once what do you want about sidecars, etc and forget it.

Then you can return to them and re-work/export them whenever you like in the future.

somehow I can perfectly do this with ACR, with SilkyPix, with RPP, with Iridient, with whatever... and all that w/o "catalogs" or "sessions"... and no - I do not mind having "sidecar" files.
 
Using parametric editing like this is surely one of the great advances in digital photography workflow, rather than being stuck with having to work at individual images.

dear, every raw converter is parametric... every single one (even for example the old versions of ACR that were modifying some raw files / the content, of DNG, like destroying the embedded thumbnail written by camera's firmware / w/o warning), you will be hard pressed to name one that is not /I dare you/

 55 
 on: Today at 10:55:56 AM 
Started by fastbilly - Last post by adamideas
I am having this exact problem, you described it perfectly. I have also done everything you stated to fix it, apart from uninstalling and reinstalling the printer driver (which I was about to do). I also printed test sheets of solid colors and gradients and 2 of these strange vertical lines (parallel with paper feed direction) always seem to appear about 1" from the right edge of the block of color no matter where I put the color test blocks on the paper (I've tried it on the left, center, and right. top & bottom).

I have even set my paper width to thicker and platen gap to wider, and my drying time up to 35.  No change at all.  I am using PS5.5 and Windows 7.

Anyone else ever encounter this?  This printer is now 3 years old and out of warranty.

 56 
 on: Today at 10:54:52 AM 
Started by Dave Pluimer - Last post by KMRennie
Hi Dave
I would be happy to have produced either but I prefer the cooler version.
Ken

 57 
 on: Today at 10:54:34 AM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by BartvanderWolf
What would be a good tool for deconv sharpening?

The script file will offer a simple one-pass deconvolution when sharpening is initially set to '0' or less (negative sharpening amounts will blur).

For superior deconvolution quality you can use a PS plugin like FocusMagic. But you can also use TopazLabs 'Detail', for detail enhancement when there is not enough native resolution to challenge the printer.

Remember, deconvolution is basically a restoration tool, so it can restore some of the seemingly lost resolution, but it does not invent new detail (unless pushed too far where it will start producing halo artifacts). Topaz Detail does not produce halo artifacts, but it selectively boosts detail amplitude to mimic resolution, which perceptually is very effective due to the absence of halos.

Then there are tools like 'Photozoom Professional' and 'Perfect Resize' which add detail and effectively increases resolution of edges to higher levels than available in the source image. Care must be taken to not exaggerate the edge resolution because that will look artificial when there is no structural/surface detail to match the edges.

Cheers,
Bart

 58 
 on: Today at 10:52:27 AM 
Started by stamper - Last post by Isaac
Placing the rail out of the corner would make it less dominant.

 59 
 on: Today at 10:47:38 AM 
Started by bcooter - Last post by alatreille
Makes me want to put my clubs on a plane...
Great shot Jim

 60 
 on: Today at 10:39:07 AM 
Started by Chris Calohan - Last post by Chris Calohan
Ah, my stepsister just rebuilt an old homestead on the lake in Hawthorne. Great old church there in town with good old fashion hoe-downs every Friday night. Good fun for a generally older crowd.

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad