|
Pompous Rhombus posted:So anyone care to guess how bad a $2 18"x24" poster would be? I'd expect it to be pretty good: a press like that should be capable of good quality print. There is one caveat though - it's not good for continuous tones. So, a picture of a tree should look pretty good, but a big, flat, blue sky might not be so good. It's worth a try though
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2009 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Toupee posted:Not sure how much you guys use presets for Lightroom, or how accurate these are to what they claim to emulate, but I stumbled upon three fairly sizable collections of film presets all done by the same guy. Cool, thanks for that. I will definitely give them a try. Oh hey! Joy of joy, they have FP4 and XP2. Yay.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2009 04:38
|
|
|
brad industry posted:No it won't. Just open the catalog file and you should be good to go. You might need to tell LR to look at the new drive letter but it's not going to have to rebuild the catalog or anything like that. You won't lose anything. LR is pretty awesome, isn't it. You have to seriously screw around with your file structure to get it confused, else it just gets on with the job without you noticing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
The Fomo posted:What's the best way of emulating a particular film's colorspace in Photoshop? I've been looking to reduce the "digital" look of my photos lately but I have no idea how to approach that problem other than actually shooting film. If you have Lightroom, then there are some excellent, easy to use and free presets for film. (Don't know about PS, sorry)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
The Fomo posted:I do have Lightroom 2, where can I find these presets? http://www.presetsheaven.com/ I've been playing with the Black and White ones and they are very impressive (the autotone versions give the most dramatic matching) Download them to your desktop, then open LR and go to the Develop module. Right-click on the left column somewhere and import presets.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2009 03:43
|
|
|
Hot Cops posted:Does anyone know how good of a job Lightroom does with finding files? I'm planning on doing a rather large backup and it would be pretty rad if it was able to figure out that my files went to a harddrive. It does it spectacularly well. I routinely swap my catalog file from place to place and it happily finds the right folders, regardless of the change in drive letter or location. I've only confused it once (split a folder into two, then moved the catalog to an unsplit copy) and even then, I think there was a way around it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2009 07:57
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:Okay. And are you using "printer" as meaning the device? Or as a place? Printer = device (bet Brad Industry beats me on this) If they can't give you a suitable profile for their specific setup, then it's pretty much going to be something of a crap shoot. You could try sending a set of test prints to them and see what they come up with, then adjust accordingly when you send in a second set. Of course, for this cunning plan to work, you have to hope that they are consistent with their colours and the operator doesn't decide to tweak the colours on each run to what he thinks looks best (guess who got bitten in the rear end, in the past)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2009 02:38
|
|
|
plaguedoctor posted:Woah, thanks both for the info. That's pretty much what I figured the situation was -- like soft proofing CMYK. You can learn from my mistakes: I wanted to do a bunch of prints, so I took 5 representative samples and had them printed at 4 different shops. I examined the prints and picked the shop that gave the closest to what I considered 'accurate' colours and then sent the big batch to that shop. Unfortunately, I didn't hang around to observe the operator hammering on the '+5 Magenta' button because he felt that my pictures would look better if they all had a lot more red in them. So much for that grand idea!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2009 05:46
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If I saw him working as a button-pusher in a print shop it would in no way surprise me. Well, there were no tripods in the shop and they didn't know what to do with RAW files, so perhaps they were related.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 04:21
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:You know, I still feel your pain for this every time I pass a photo shop, even though it's been a long time. In fact, I am thinking about buying a negative scanner for a shoebox full of negs, solely because of your experience. plaguedoctor posted:Jesus Christ, this thread has taken a depressing turn. Or should I say, more like "as expected". Well, on the mitigating side, you'll probably be giving them a digital file so the worst that can happen is that you get a crappy print (and a virus on your flashdrive) - so you won't suffer the same pain as PR did. You work in the print industry: have you considered buy a six pack for the prepress guys at your printers and getting them to run them out on their inkjet proofing machine?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 05:09
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I've almost gotten over it Honestly, I felt like crying in sympathy when I heard. That's one of the reason that I love digital- I can make as many copies of my 'babies' as I like without loss of quality quote:To be positive side/offer some productive input to the thread, did you try IQ Lab? I might give them a go - I walked within 20m of the office this morning and didn't pay it much attention. quote:It's not a bad idea to buy your own scanner, especially if you've got a bunch to go through (and some free time). Much as I love to buy new toys, I know that a scanner would be a single use item for me: once I've finished my collection of negatives, then I would probably never use it again. So perhaps sending them out would make more sense. I've said goodbye to film forever, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2009 07:36
|
|
|
Xabi posted:Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure where the trouble was, all I knew was that I saw the stuff in Lightroom. I'd suggest that the card reader is at fault, not the card itself. Do some experimenting and see
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2009 04:04
|
|
|
brad industry posted:DNG is an open standard, that is the whole point. It doesn't seem to have gathered much of a following. Looking on the Wiki it seems that only a handful of camera manufacturers support it and there's not much of a software following either. If nobody adopts it, isn't there a danger of it dying out - while the propriety formats go on? I can see more incentive for someone to support the well-used Canon format and skip a rarely-used open standard. quote:I have LR convert everything to DNG on import, I don't see any reason not to and there no downsides to it. I've heard too many horror stories about files that are locked up in proprietary RAW formats from back in the day. Out of interest, which formats are a problem? I have an very elderly Kodak digital camera and while the image format is unsupported now, I can still run the original software in windows and convert the images to jpgs/bitmaps
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It's still relatively new, every piece of software supports it (or at least I can't think of any that don't), most camera manufacturers will probably switch to it eventually, and I can't imagine a hypothetical future where obscure proprietary formats are supported but an Adobe promoted open standard isn't. Fair comments. Actually, I can imagine that in the future, the smaller camera manufacturers will all adopt DNG, while the 2-4 big boys will stick with their own propriety formats. It doesn't make to have a whole bunch of different formats for each of the smaller players (Samsung, Casio, etc) and I doubt RAW support would be available for all bits of software if they each adopted their own version - so having a open standard for them to follow is be great. However, there are a lot more people using Canon/Nikon RAW and I can imagine it will stay that way for some time to come and remain supported. So, if you are using either of those formats, I don't see much of a benefit to change On the other hand, I don't see much of a disadvantage in making the conversion - so even if your reason for doing so is pure paranoia (not saying it is), it's probably still not a bad decision and unlikely to bite you in the rear end. quote:A lot of old digital backs. Actually the ones I hear bitched about most are the Kodak ones. Are they complaining that the RAW format is unsupported in LR/PS - or is it that there is no software at all available (ie cannot convert to TIFF)?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2009 04:05
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Their files can only be opened by proprietary, manufacturer software that no longer exists and is impossible to get another copy of now. No LR, PS, Aperture, Bridge, whatever - there's literally no way to get the information out into another format anymore. Okay, now that seriously sucks and it would put me off Kodak forever. But is there really no way that they can use the software that was originally used for this process? Presumably it ran on Windows/OS and so would still run today and surely it must have an export to TIFF ability?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2009 06:03
|
|
|
raggedphoto posted:(2) internal 1 TB hard drives on a mirrored RAID (C drive on a separate hard drive) That's pretty similar to my workflow. 1) copy from card onto external HDD 2) every couple of weeks (or after an important shoot), dupe onto 2nd HDD and keep in wardrobe 3) once a month (approx), bring to office and dupe to 3rd HDD kept in office Plus, every 4Gb, export and burn to 3 DVDs ('home archive' 'home use' 'office archive') (so the RAW only exist on HDD and DVDs are jpg only) I think I have got myself covered okay in case of disaster. Obviously, I should close the time gaps up a little, but I think it's safe enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
HPL posted:But what about my negatives?! You could follow my secure negative storage process: All negs are carefully stuffed in a large, torn paper bag. This bag is precariously balanced on the top of the wardrobe in a room that is sometimes climate controlled and occasionally visited by various insects and reptiles (hopefully, one cancels out the other). Hmm, maybe I need to think about this more...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2009 03:00
|
|