Recent Posts

John,

I he'd a very similar situation where I had put windex under the head for an extended period of time. I had total drop out in PK and LK. I believe what I had done was to suck all of the ink out of the head. From there,I continued to run cleanings and power cleaning and would let it set overnight between them. Every day I would pick up a few more jets. It took almost two months to get back to all gets working.

I am sure there may be a short cut to getting it back, but, for me, it did come back.

Jeff

I did say in an earlier post...

"The way this relates to the OP is that I think you can use a 28mm on APS-C and get pretty close to what you'd get with a 50mm on FF except the thin DoF at the widest apertures. The way to try and match the DoF would be to live with the different framing and reduce the camera to subject distance."

But I wasn't replying to that post but one where you mentioned keeping framing the same.

Not that I'd want to try and teach anyone to suck eggs but most people here would probably know that using a smaller format means using wider lenses to maintain the same FoV and that this will alter the DoF. My point was that if shallow DoF is your aim you can get it by reducing your camera to subject distance (or using a longer lens) if you can live with the different framing.

If shallow DoF is your aim, use a bigger sensor or wider aperture is the better suggestion as moving closer gives you a different picture. Possibly one that doesn't work for example - if doing head shots and you want a shallow depth of field and try and move in close, then the perspective you get may then be unsuitable for a head shot.

Personally I think that the DoF argument regarding CSC has been done to death and is almost certainly not as big an issue for most people as posts in forums would suggest and of course there can be advantages in using a smaller format... you can get about the same DoF (equiv to FF at something between f2-2.8 ) if not exactly the same look with wider apertures that allow the use of lower ISO settings and/or faster shutter speeds

The difference between FF and the next sensor size down is quite marked, even more so with the smaller formats when it comes to DoF. And despite what you say, it is very hard to make smaller sensor shots look like FF, particularly with non-telephoto shots.
Unless you actually alter the optics such as is done with the metabones speed booster.
I'd take some shots to demonstrate the difference, but I gave my crop sensor camera away after it gathered dust for several years. And it didn't get used because the difference between it and my FF camera is in fact very marked, obviously not in a good way.

One warm line.

[did continue]

Let's re-state the obvious - Adobe did continue to offer... blah blah - and do continue to offer... "While Adobe Creative Suite® 6 products will continue to be supported and available for purchase..."

The recent announcement was that -- "... the company has no plans for future releases of Creative Suite or other CS products".

I thought the subject of this thread was LR and CC....and Jeff's reference to the LR Journal posting 

I cannot comprehend what your post is trying to communicate.

To me it looks more like a drawing to illustrate a magazine than a photograph, that's what I meant by I don't like the style. (I expect there will be plenty of people who do like that style.)

Maybe it's the sharpening? Maybe clarity?

Just so. Not necessarily a bad thing! I wonder how this was processed.

I like how the ridge leads us in and the second ridge keeps us between the luminous clouds. Good catch.

1) Adobe felt they had a cash cow with photoshop, and felt no reason to innovate while they were deeply entrenched.  User expectations were matched to the (limitations on) possibilities as marketing by Adobe.

Funny as each version of PS I've ever used has been much better than previous versions and I've used it since PS 3.0

[Reformation]

Since work of just this sort is being done for GIMP 3, it might be worthwhile to look in on that discussion. 

http://blog.mmiworks.net/2012/01/gimp-full-gegl-ahead.html

I did just that and thought this was of note.

However, at the moment, you quite often see the following: ‘if you want this feature, you’ll have to use it on its own, extra layer.’ This is layer abuse. I get misquoted on this so let me clarify: users never abuse layers, developers do. Here are some examples of layer abuse:

the only way to do a non‐destructive operation is via an adjustment layer
only one vector shape per vector layer;
only one block of text on a text layer;
the output of a filter plugin is always put on a new layer;
the result of using a toolbox tool is always put on a new layer.
The problem is with ‘only,’ ‘always’ and ever more layers, whether users want them or not.

Reformation
The abuse listed above is straightforward to fix. Quite a bit of it has to do with enabling users to redo or revisit the image manipulation. That is solved by the operations dialog.


Furthermore, there can be as many vector shapes and text blocks on a layer as one likes. Just show them—and stack ’em—as sub‑layer elements in the layers dialog. And when then one of these sub‑layer elements is allowed to be actual pixels, then it is clear that the whole notion of special vector/text layer can disappear:

Layer abuse has to stop. Developers should never force users to use another layer. Only users decide how many layers they want to use, purely as their own personal way to organise their work.

Two things struck about this part of the article
1 - Keeping these things discrete is not actually a bad thing and can be 'solved' by using layer groups in PS.
2 - The alternative which looks no simpler and seems to replicate Layer groups - which did I mention this? - are already in PS.

Now I've seen nodal workflows like this many years back in video applications and thought them interesting, but they always struck me as something that would confuse the heck out of many people.
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of real estate they take up.

Very nice just the way it is, Jeremy.

Eric M.

120mm Macro is sold...

AF 35mm is now $675

AF 55-110 is $375

Take both lenses for $975