Date   

Re: Camera Raw Settings

dbernaerdt <bernaerdt@...>
 

Andrew,

At risk of beating a horse that is already down...

While the math all sounds good, let's have a closer look at
the "expose to the right" advice.

I get the opportunity to hire photographers outside my market roughly
a half dozen times a year, work with supplied images daily, and
create original photography daily. What I see is either a trend that
photographers are more sloppy than in the past and/or perhaps more
more people are calling themselves a photographer without a clear
understanding of the tools they are using. I even hear/read advice
to "throw out your light meter" now that the industry is mostly based
around digital capture. Consistently I see at least one channel blown
out in the highlights of many images I receive.

Lee Varis had some excellent advice to test your camera to determine
an Exposure Index. Why? (I just shot a series of test images to
confirm what I saw in the past - shot on a Nikon D2x if this matters
to anyone.)

The composite histogram on the camera's display will change depending
on whether sRGB or AdobeRGB is selected in the camera. It also
changes if the tone curve is changed. It changes again depending on
the white balance setting on the camera.

The camera's histogram does not match the one I see in ACR with it on
its default "out of the box" settings, using Auto check boxes or zero-
ing the settings. Doesn't match in Capture One (C1) either.
Performing a custom white balance in the raw convertor changes it
again. (Keep in mind that ACR and C1 ignore all but the WB setting on the camera.)

So how are we supposed to "expose to the right" with precision?
According to which histogram? Determining your E.I. is starting to
look pretty good now, isn't it?

The understanding of this "histogram disconnect" is fundamental to
producing top notch work, yet how many image creators understand the
implications with regards to your color correction options later on
in Photoshop?

Andy Klement - in a post yesterday you mentioned a disconnect between
the JPEG preview in C1 or LeafCapture and the RAW file. Can I get a
little clarification? I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you're using this software in a tethered shooting situation. If
so, C1 is using a TIF preview generated based on your parameters such
as white balance, exposure, etc. This should match your file as it is
output and opened in Photoshop. As this is getting WAY off topic,
feel free to e-mail me separately.

Darren Bernaerdt


--- In colortheory@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Rodney <andrew@...> wrote:

On 2/7/07 11:39 AM, "Hoffner, Randall N" wrote:

While I think his conclusions are correct, the Luminous Landscape
piece
doesn‚t really explain what‚s going on at all, or why it‚s
going on. It‚s
pretty glib, and the details are not there. But then, he isn‚t
a mathematician
or a scientist, is he?
Michael no, Thomas yes of course.

So here's the deal. You've got a sensor that is a photon counter and
produces linear encoded data. If you have a six stop dynamic range
from
highlight to shadow, using a 12-bit capture, that results in 4096
steps from
end to end. Half that data (2048 bits) describe that first stop of
highlight
data while only 16-bits describe the last stop of shadow data. And
the
shadows are where all the noise lives. If you expose properly (to
the
right), for the highlights, you can place the best 16-bits in that
stop of
shadow data but if you under expose, that results in fewer useful
bits (and
more noise).
<snip>
Andrew Rodney
Changer of the Raw versus Render session of the future...


Re: (Side by Side Comparison) Hiraloam Sharpening

Stephen Best
 

--- In colortheory@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Marsh" <samarsh@...> wrote:

John Ruttenberg wrote:

Sounds like a side-by-side challenge would be appropriate.

MARK SEGAL:
While I find the discussion of Hiraloam of some technical
interest, instead of going to any of this trouble I use Photokit
Sharpener Pro, developed out of basic principles for addressing all
these issues about which Bruce Fraser has written extensively. <<

Unless I am mistaken, regular sharpening and the Photokit "plug" is
not the same sharpening that Dan is talking of with HiRaLoAm (the
closest Fraser method is midtone contrast sharpening, which uses much
higher radius and smaller amount than what Dan is talking of).
Maybe Andrew can speak up, but I believe the hiraloam equivalent in PhotoKit Sharpener is
Haze Cutter. I think it's equivalent to Contrast Mask in the original PhotoKit product. I don't
use either of these. There's also the Haze Reduction routines in the TLR Sharpening scripts/
actions available for free download from here:

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/photoshop-tools.htm

All these appear to be variants of the same theme, with Blend Ifs to limit the effect in the
highlights/shadows.

Stephen Best
Macquarie Editions


Offset: How Good Are You?

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

This is a question for those who prepare files for offset.

How many proofs do you expect to make per file prepared, on the average, to achieve good work?
Those of you who are among the best, would you expect to do the majority of
images in one proof? Two? Three or more?

I've got a calibrated screen and profiled proofer. I use the info pallet to tell
me what's neutral, white and black. Still, to *know* if an image is right, I have
to print it.

This is especially true for certain images. Why not all? I wish I had an answer for
that one. Some images preview pretty closely to the printed result, but some are w-a-y o-u-t.
This is especially true for CMYK work as opposed to RGB.

I'm confident, however, that when I make a proof, *that* is what I'll get. That's my
gold standard. If I didn't have a proofer to guide me, I don't think I could
prepare files for printing.

Are there any who are so confident that they don't proof? It could save you a lot of time
and money, but it also could cost you a lot more if you aren't (like me.)

I have been preparing my own files for off-set for about 12 years but I do not
consider myself *expert*. My business is seasonal, and I do get better with practice
but I have long periods where I don't turn a wheel on the proofing RIP.

My minimum is probably about 2 or 3 prints per file. However, sometimes it goes to 10 and beyond.
I typically proof scaled down, to save paper, ink & time. If necessary I will print
out a section at 100% scale to judge critical sharpening. It's not usually necessary, though, as
sharpening is not nearly as challenging as color and contrast, which proof just fine on a half page.

In summary, I would expect that working at this 40 hours a week (or more) at this would make you pretty good.
How good is that? If you are preparing magazine covers for big bucks, how hard is it to get it right?


Ron Kelly


Re: Camera Raw Settings

Richard Wagner <Rich@...>
 

On Feb 7, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

So here's the deal. You've got a sensor that is a photon counter and
produces linear encoded data. If you have a six stop dynamic range from
highlight to shadow, using a 12-bit capture, that results in 4096 steps from
end to end. Half that data (2048 bits) describe that first stop of highlight
data while only 16-bits describe the last stop of shadow data.
More properly, "Half that data (2048 levels, or steps) describe that first stop of highlight
data while only 16 levels or steps describe the last stop of shadow data."

A bit is a binary placeholder - with a value of zero or one. It is not equivalent to a level or step.

--Rich Wagner
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't."


Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians

dbernaerdt <bernaerdt@...>
 

Les,

I have to agree with your last statement. This has thread has moved
completely off-topic for this list. Unless there are any further
responses to Jonathan Clymer's original post (as it relates to the
objectives of this list), can we please consider this topic closed?

Thank you in advance,
Darren Bernaerdt
ColorTheory co-moderator

--- In colortheory@yahoogroups.com, "Les De Moss" <les@...> wrote:

Lee Clawson Writes:

"What I hear from many of the folks posting on this needless thread
is an
unwillingness to give anyone even remotely close to Allison the
time of day."

Lee, given the entirely of what's been said, I think that's a
little strong. I offered up a suggestion for someone like Alison (she
spells her name with one "L"...) that might overcome a unique
disadvantage such as hers. In my 30 years of hiring and interviewing,
I'm confident that most of the sloppy applications and resumes I
receive are sloppy out of carelessness, not because of extraordinary
medical reasons.
<snip>

I agree that this thread has moved completely off-topic.
I expected a moderator's warning following my last post.
To preempt... I'll make this my last post to this "needless"
thread.

Les De Moss


Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians

Les De Moss
 

Lee Clawson Writes:

"What I hear from many of the folks posting on this needless thread is an
unwillingness to give anyone even remotely close to Allison the time of day."

Lee, given the entirely of what's been said, I think that's a little strong. I offered up a suggestion for someone like Alison (she spells her name with one "L"...) that might overcome a unique disadvantage such as hers. In my 30 years of hiring and interviewing, I'm confident that most of the sloppy applications and resumes I receive are sloppy out of carelessness, not because of extraordinary medical reasons.

I may very well have overlooked a quality applicant like Alison, because I couldn't afford the time to call and ask "are there any extenuating circumstances that I should know about that resulted your submitting a poorly executed application?" Perhaps some people have the time available to root out these things. If I'm holding five other flawless apps in my hand, I don't have time to verify that the bad ones are in fact, truly bad. That's why I suggest that someone in Alison's address this right up front, so they aren't disqualified without consideration.

I think that I and others have presented the general reality of the hiring process. This is not a fanciful idea about how it should be, but rather, how it is. Those who heed the information shared here will likely benefit from knowing an employers process and point of view - whether they agree with it or not. I believe that those who handle it differently do so at their own risk.

If anything is to be learned from this thread, it is that different employers place various levels of importance on the quality of a resume or application. If I were to submit a resume for a position I wanted, I know which side I'd prefer to error on.

I agree that this thread has moved completely off-topic.
I expected a moderator's warning following my last post.
To preempt... I'll make this my last post to this "needless" thread.

Les De Moss


Re: (Side by Side Comparison) Hiraloam Sharpening

Murray DeJager
 

Hello Everyone,


Bruce pretty much provided a number of sharpening recipes in his
fine book. What he didn¹t provide and what PKS does provide is
specific numbers for sharpening parameters based on literally
hundreds of hours of testing a heck of a lot of output devices. Not
just a press and not just to Œlook good¹ on screen. In fact, most of
the routines look pretty darn awful on screen (and
the zoom ratio plays a huge role). Sharpening by eye is simply an
exercise in futility.
Sharpening is still one of those frustrating tasks for me. And
although I have looked at PKS and similair products, as a beginner I
am purposely staying away from them until I think I have a thorough
understanding of what steps are being performed by them on my behalf.

I have also read (once) Bruce Frasier's book on sharpening and look
forward to studing it further. The results I got from using the
recipes in his book weren't satisfactory compared to simple "one
pass" sharpening techniques I had been using prior. I hope upon
further studing his book I can improve on my intial results, as I did
find the idea of a "multi-pass" sharpening workflow very sensible.

On the subject of Multi-pass sharpening, it seems like it should be
easy enough to work out Input Sharpening numbers in USM for someone
like me because I use one camera model for the majority of my work.
And I use one scanner to scan film. Also, Output Sharpening numbers
should be easy for me to figure out because I send all my photos to
one printer, an Epson 2400. Both these tasks can be scripted. Thus
the need to purchase a plug-in that takes into account a multitude of
input and output devices seems unnecessary to me.

Besides, it's the "creative" sharpening that needs to be applied to
each individual scene that's the hardest part to figure out! And so
far, at least for me, individual inspection of each photo on screen
and printed is the only way I've found to get satifactory sharpening
results.

Again, ironically, it may be only after I become proficient at
sharpening images manually that I can really trust to hand off some
images to an semi-automatic plug-in.

Murray DeJager


Re: [SPAM?] Re: Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians

Pylant, Brian <brianp@...>
 

Les,
What I hear from many of the folks posting on this needless
thread
Well, it didn't start out talking about this, but it naturally evolved in this direction. Happens sometimes. Plenty of other folks around here sent numerous posts hammering other useless points into the ground over and over and over and over and over again, don't they?



unwillingness to give anyone even remotely close to Allison
the time of day.
Someone like Allison should make her situation known up-front, right? If that was done then there would be no problem at all, just like someone who makes it clear that English isn't their first language. A failure to provide necessary information isn't *my* problem.



To mis-quote Alan Iverson, "We're talking about s p e l l i n
g !!!"...
Yes, we're talking about spelling. It's important. Very important. And far too many people just don't seem to care about it anymore.

And nothing that pathetic man has ever said is worth paying attention to.



BRIAN PYLANT
Manager, Electronic Prepress

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Disc Makers
7905 North Route 130, Pennsauken, NJ 08110
Toll free: 1-800-468-9353 ext. 5539
Visit us online at: http://www.discmakers.com

Get a free factory-direct catalog by visiting
www.discmakers.com/request
or sign up for our helpful guides and newsletters at
www.discmakers.com/guides

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Disc Makers employees:
How am I doing? Please leave feedback:
http://intranet/applications/prepressfeed/feedback.asp
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Re: Camera Raw Settings

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

On 2/7/07 11:39 AM, "Hoffner, Randall N" wrote:

While I think his conclusions are correct, the Luminous Landscape piece
doesn‚t really explain what‚s going on at all, or why it‚s going on. It‚s
pretty glib, and the details are not there. But then, he isn‚t a mathematician
or a scientist, is he?
Michael no, Thomas yes of course.

So here's the deal. You've got a sensor that is a photon counter and
produces linear encoded data. If you have a six stop dynamic range from
highlight to shadow, using a 12-bit capture, that results in 4096 steps from
end to end. Half that data (2048 bits) describe that first stop of highlight
data while only 16-bits describe the last stop of shadow data. And the
shadows are where all the noise lives. If you expose properly (to the
right), for the highlights, you can place the best 16-bits in that stop of
shadow data but if you under expose, that results in fewer useful bits (and
more noise).

I think the explanation in Bruce Fraser‚s ACR book is more complete. One of
these days, I am going to have to write a detailed explanation of exposure
versus bits myself, as it is one of those things that I have to think about
and re-comprehend every time I consider it.
There's also this:

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200612_rodneycm.pdf

Regarding the film versus digital challenge, I would be very interested in
seeing the results of such an effort.
We continue to await a reply from Dan. Of course, anyone else could pick up
the touch and be the Render Raw Chef but that wouldn't be as fun.

My own experience shooting a low-light picture with my Canon 20D at ISO 1600
(2005) versus shots I took on film in the Ginza at night (1991), or in a
French cathedral in daylight (1980‚s sometime) using I don‚t know what ISO
film (no metadata!) bring me to the same conclusion as Andrew made I can
brighten the 20D shot up nicely without noticing very much noise, particularly
when printing it, as opposed to viewing it on an LCD screen.
And the 5D chip is even better!

Andrew Rodney
Changer of the Raw versus Render session of the future...


How to "automatically" adjust for printer profile

elmoforfun <mccarthy@...>
 

I have a number of images (100s) that I want to print. I have a
printer profile from my vendor. When I do a side by send using the
original image and soft proofing of the image based on the printer
profile, the printer profile version is darker. I verified this
result printing some images. So, I need to adjust the image to
compensate for the printer profile.

I would like to find a way to automatically adjust all images to
compensate for the affect of the printer profile so that the printed
photo looks like my original image. I can do batching in Photoshop,
but first need to find the "compensating" actions to get the softproof
version back to the original quality.

Is there an automated way of doing this (finding the compensating
actions) that I could apply to all images using batching? I tried
manually comparing points after converting the image to the printer
profile color space but that did not feel like the best way to
accomplish my objective?

Michael McCarthy


Re: Camera Raw Settings

Hoffner, Randall N <Randall.N.Hoffner@...>
 

While I think his conclusions are correct, the Luminous Landscape piece doesnt really explain whats going on at all, or why its going on. Its pretty glib, and the details are not there. But then, he isnt a mathematician or a scientist, is he? I think the explanation in Bruce Frasers ACR book is more complete. One of these days, I am going to have to write a detailed explanation of exposure versus bits myself, as it is one of those things that I have to think about and re-comprehend every time I consider it.



Regarding the film versus digital challenge, I would be very interested in seeing the results of such an effort. My own experience shooting a low-light picture with my Canon 20D at ISO 1600 (2005) versus shots I took on film in the Ginza at night (1991), or in a French cathedral in daylight (1980s sometime) using I dont know what ISO film (no metadata!) bring me to the same conclusion as Andrew made I can brighten the 20D shot up nicely without noticing very much noise, particularly when printing it, as opposed to viewing it on an LCD screen. The film shots not so much! And certainly back in the day nobody in their right mind would consider using ISO 1600 film let alone ISO 3200 film, unless out of dire necessity!



Randy Hoffner



________________________________

From: colortheory@yahoogroups.com [mailto:colortheory@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Rodney
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:54 PM
To: colortheory@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [colortheory] Re: Camera Raw Settings



On 2/6/07 10:15 AM, "DMargulis@aol.com <mailto:DMargulis%40aol.com> " wrote:

We need to back off for a bit because I think Lee's explanation changed the
ground rules. As I understood what he said he is deliberately shooting in a
way
that would produce a bad JPEG, knowing that he has Camera Raw as a safety
net.
No, thats not necessarily correct and there have been no ground rules as
usual. Theres always a Raw file and proper exposure is always a factor. The
JPEG is an after thought. Its only based, can only be based, on the initial
Raw capture. In film, which isnt linear encoded but has a H&D curve, we
expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. In raw (or JPEG) we
expose for the highlight. Its as simple as that.

Theres a huge misunderstanding by some on this list about how a digital
camera produces data. Its ALWAYS raw. You can decide to toss it and let the
camera bake the JPEG or you can do it yourself (or both). But what Lee
correctly points out is you need to know the true ISO (chip sensitivity) and
you have to expose properly for the scene you want to capture which IS an
artistic expression. We have cameras that have a good six stops of dynamic
range. If the scene exceeds this range, we have to decide where to place the
exposure to capture those six stops.

A primer or digital capture exposure:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml>

This isn't over exposure, its correct exposure!

There's a lot of potential merit to that approach: digital cameras are a
marvelous step forward, but they have a couple of serious problems, most
pressingly, they don't handle underexposed (overly dark) images as well as
film
does--digital cameras, even the best ones, are very noisy under poor lighting
conditions. It can make getting a good result very difficult whereas a
similarly
underxposed piece of film could be corrected easily if drum-scanned.
I think you need to let us know what digital cameras youre referring to
because in the case of my Canon 5D, the images are spectacular with respect
to noise even at 3200 ISO and simply blow away film at that ISO in terms of
noise. What camera(s) are you basing this upon? I'm sure the list would like
to know this. If the noise does bug you, then check out Noiseware which will
reduce almost all the noise while maintain amazing fine detail.

When you accept my challenge, lets shoot some film (neg or chrome, your
call) at 1600 ISO, I'll shot the same scene at 3200 ISO digital and the
audience can decide if film did a better or inferior job with respect to
noise. We can dig up an old drum scanner, no problem.

Since I'm being ignored is anyone else interested in such a real world
challenge and if so, can you ask when proof will be presented to back up the
claims made here? I'm willing and ready. My suggestion is PhotoPlus in NY
(largest photo show in the country) in October. I'm pretty sure I can get
this on the agenda unless certain parties vacillates past April when the
show people start organizing the seminars.

There is, however, no similar difficulty that I'm aware of in correcting a
digicam capture that's *over*exposed (too light) unless detail has actually
been
blown out.
No, you can easily blow out highlights due to the raw to JPEG conversion,
which you have no control over, and then regain up to 1 stop back IF you use
the raw file in a good converter like ACR or LR.

For the more common type of exposure...
As a trained photographer, can you explain to the list what a 'common type'
of exposure is? Theres correct exposure, based on the capture device (film
or digital) then there are varying degrees of incorrect exposure. And since
we have to capture a potentially huge scene dynamic range using a device
with a fixed capture dynamic range, the exposure is right when the person
creating the image decides what they want and where to place these six stops
in relations to the scene. I think you need to understand the concepts
designed by Ansel Adams (pre-visualization and the zone system) when
discussing correct exposure. One of the roles of an image creator we
refer to as a photographers is not only to render the image as they seem fit
but prior to this, placing the limited dynamic range of any scene into that
which the camera (film or sensor) can realize. With that in mind, it would
be useful if you would explain what you mean by 'common exposure'.

however, if the person refuses to exit
Camera Raw at all, that means he has no access to channel blending, he won't
have channel-by-channel curves, he won't have the ability to select, or to
retouch, or to use LAB or CMYK, or to sharpen in a sensible way, or to correct
casts that aren't uniform.
No one is proposing this. What some of us are proposing is using the right
tool for the right job. You HAVE to convert scene referred data into output
referred data and build a pixel based color file before Photoshop can enter
the picture. As Lee and Mark have tried to point out, the toolset and
quality is vastly superior (and I am willing to prove it to you in front of
a live audience) compared to doing this later in Photoshop. The math is
undeniable but further, the people who have a better understanding of the
tools and are creating images are saying this here as well. And it has
nothing to do with polishing one or dozens of images in a converter.

Tell you what, even if I take 2x times longer to produce a preferred
rendering then you, I can apply that to similar images far faster than you
can drag and drop adjustment layers on the same number of files. Select,
copy/paste metadata settings. Done.

Example of this in LR:

http://pictureflow.fileburst.com/_Tutorials/Photoshop_LR/06/index.html <http://pictureflow.fileburst.com/_Tutorials/Photoshop_LR/06/index.html>

In short, he's racing on a tricycle against the jet
aircraft of Photoshop proper.
I think in this context, some are so unfamiliar with one mode of image
processing, the analogy falls very flat.

But again, I'm willing to prove to you that ACR/LR for the tasks it's
designed for is the jet and not Photoshop and that there ARE tools and
processes where the opposite is true. But making simple blanket statements
rather than proving them is par for the course I guess.

So anyone who (excepting Lee and people who shoot
in this way) says they will *never* exit Camera Raw is saying that time is
more important than quality.
No one is saying this. While the topic is photography, slanting this as
black or white is counterproductive. Its about using the tools properly and
if youre going to be real sloppy with exposure then raw rendering or JPEG
will suffer and begs the question, why did this sloppiness happen in the
first place?

On 2/6/07 12:13 PM, "Alan Klement" wrote:

When working on set as a tech on a big job, we capture in RAW, but the
aquisition software ( C1, LeafCapture...) will display a JPEG preview
of the capture. If one exposes for linear capture, this jpeg will
look overexposed, unless you apply a curve to the preview that makes
this preview look correct.
It shouldnt look like crap but there most certainly is a disconnect between
the JPEGs and the raws depending on the neutral raw rendering. And yes, the
Histogram and info we see on many DSLRs isnt based on the raw data but the
in camera raw rendering which presents a bit of a problem for the shooter. I
will say with the 5D once I nailed the ISO and exposure, the JPEGs on the
back of that LCD dont look bad but I am only using them to check focus.

It would be nice if the Leaf software would automatically apply a tone curve
to mitigate this crappy looking JPEG.

"I work with lots of very good, very high paid wedding
photographers. And those friends you mention above have compared these
JPEGs to the same images processed in raw?"
Not that I'm aware of, but why? They get brilliant results with their
JPEG workflow, and again, with output in mind, this is gonna be
printed by Joe Shmo on a Fugi-Lamda-Lightjet-whatever printer at 5x7
or MAYBE 2-3 8x10s and in an sRGB or colormatch color space.
Id be the first to agree that if the job is 500 widgets on a white bkgnd,
shooting raw under a tight deadline is probably overkill if the final is
going 2x2 in a parts catalog and thats that. A wedding? A different story.
And again, if the workflows are not compared, we cant place a metric on
brilliant results or what raw would bring to the party (and maybe take
away). Another reason I suggested a challenge which Dan will ignore since I
posted it but, I'm totally serious about doing this so that at the very
least, we can see the benefits and warts of both approaches.

Heck, comparing a 1.0 product to a version 10.0 product should be a slam
dunk.

Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/ <http://www.digitaldog.net/>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians

Pylant, Brian <brianp@...>
 

...Currently our best digital tech is a very talented young man
who speaks English as a second language...
I beleive that was already covered as an exception to this discussion.



When it comes down to a decision between two equally
qualified candidates, seemingly insignificant errors on a
resume may cost a person a job offer. It really is as simple
as that.
And there's another factor to consider: we receive hundreds of resumes per week (company-wide; we probably receive about 50+ per month specifically for prepress). I need to whittle that down to a manageable number just to get to the callback stage, and if a resume contains typos and other mistakes that candidate is probably not going to get a call. (And yes, one typo may be enough if I already have more error-free candidates than I need to look at -- this is a highly detail-oriented job, after all, and even the simplest mistake might cost us thousands of dollars to rework.)

Rule number one of job-hunting is to put your absolute BEST foot forward. In today's ultra-competetive job market nothing less will do.



BRIAN PYLANT
Manager, Electronic Prepress

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Disc Makers
7905 North Route 130, Pennsauken, NJ 08110
Toll free: 1-800-468-9353 ext. 5539
Visit us online at: http://www.discmakers.com

Get a free factory-direct catalog by visiting
www.discmakers.com/request
or sign up for our helpful guides and newsletters at
www.discmakers.com/guides

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Disc Makers employees:
How am I doing? Please leave feedback:
http://intranet/applications/prepressfeed/feedback.asp
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians

Lee Clawson <LAclawson@...>
 

on 2/7/07 11:44 AM, Les De Moss at les@digi-graphics.com wrote:

If, like Alison, you are unable to spell and have trouble reading, then that
ought to be communicated early in the process. It is better to explain an
obvious weakness than to risk the employer making faulty, perhaps costly,
assumptions.

When a candidate shows up for an interview, he/she will do well to keep the
employer's perspective in mind, and present themselves in the best possible
light. If they don't, they can rest assured that someone else will.
Les,
What I hear from many of the folks posting on this needless thread is an
unwillingness to give anyone even remotely close to Allison the time of day.

To mis-quote Alan Iverson, "We're talking about s p e l l i n g !!!"...

Lee Clawson
2/&#92;V/&#92;7 Studio


Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians

Les De Moss
 

<He don't write to great and he ain't a good speller neither. But we are delighted with his skill and insight in correcting images.>

You're right Jonathan, inevitably some people will break the mold. Alison, a dyslexic, made a post that suggests this. I have made certain hires more on hunch than I'd like to admit, trumping other concerns I may have had. I don't think anyone is suggesting that spelling and grammar are the sole determining factors in making a hire. They are clues that most of us involved in making hiring decisions pay attention to. When it comes down to a decision between two equally qualified candidates, seemingly insignificant errors on a resume may cost a person a job offer. It really is as simple as that.

If there is anything to be gained by the attention given to this subject, it is doing what we've always been told to do when preparing a resume... make it as perfect as possible, because it speaks for you. Hiring is not about overlooking faults or giving second chances. It is a business activity that is risky, expensive, and time consuming for the employer. Anyone suggesting that it should be ok to submit a resume containing errors, is living in a fantasy world. Employers are looking for strengths and weaknesses. It's common sense to maximize the first and minimize the latter.

If, like Alison, you are unable to spell and have trouble reading, then that ought to be communicated early in the process. It is better to explain an obvious weakness than to risk the employer making faulty, perhaps costly, assumptions.

When a candidate shows up for an interview, he/she will do well to keep the employer's perspective in mind, and present themselves in the best possible light. If they don't, they can rest assured that someone else will.

Les De Moss

----- Original Message -----
From: new_news
To: No Reply ; colortheory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: [colortheory] Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians


Applied Color Theory in PhotoshopI'm surprised at the amount of discussion regarding spelling and grammar on resumes. Currently our best digital tech is a very talented young man who speaks English as a second language. He don't write to great and he ain't a good speller neither. But we are delighted with his skill and insight in correcting images.

Today we hired a new office manager. She was one of a number of candidates we considered who submitted properly formated resumes that had no spelling or gramatical errors. You can be sure I checked closely.

Jonathan Clymer


Re: (Side by Side Comparison) Hiraloam Sharpening

Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>
 

On 2/6/07 3:48 PM, "Stephen Marsh" wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, regular sharpening and the Photokit "plug" is
not the same sharpening that Dan is talking of with HiRaLoAm (the
closest Fraser method is midtone contrast sharpening, which uses much
higher radius and smaller amount than what Dan is talking of).
Regular sharpening? What¹s that in PhotoKit Sharpener? There are all kinds
of radius and amounts in the product, all kind so masked generated with
numerous parameters based on the capture or output devices specified by the
user. Bruce¹s sharpening is not about a Œone size fits all¹ set of numbers
for all capture and output devices because that¹s simply impossible!

I have no idea if it¹s the same (most likely not) but the big deal is the
actual numbers necessary for a myriad of output devices having been defined
by a heck of a lot of output testing. Is Dan¹s method output specific? Or
does he subscribe that output sharpening for a halftone image is the same as
a fine art ink jet or contone printer? IF so we need to lump that into the
Raw challenge because, that¹s silly.

PKS as you wrote is 100% Photoshop. If we give you all the numbers plus the
order of processes you could duplicate the effects 100%. But getting the
numbers was the big work once the techniques (which are all over the web and
in all kinds of books) is described.

I peronally use blend if sliders to limit the white halo (which is
what Photokit would be doing, it is only executing Photoshop commands
and does not actually add new USM code or anything), if not using
separate lighten/darken layers or fades etc.
Blend If is used in PKS for many routines. In fact, the layers are left
intact so users can fine tune them if they feel the need (the vast majority
don¹t).

Bruce pretty much provided a number of sharpening recipes in his fine book.
What he didn¹t provide and what PKS does provide is specific numbers for
sharpening parameters based on literally hundreds of hours of testing a heck
of a lot of output devices. Not just a press and not just to Œlook good¹ on
screen. In fact, most of the routines look pretty darn awful on screen (and
the zoom ratio plays a huge role). Sharpening by eye is simply an exercise
in futility. That is until we have displays that can output at least 300
dpi!

Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/


Re: (Side by Side Comparison) Hiraloam Sharpening

Stephen Marsh <samarsh@...>
 

--- In colortheory@yahoogroups.com, MARK SEGAL <mgsegal@...> wrote:

Stephen,

Dan has alot of material on sharpening including the use of Hiraloam
in PP5E where he discusses quite a few settings for different
objectives ranging from special-purpose sharpening to other effects
altogether, not all of which are necessarily targeted by PK Sharpener.
My comment was a contribution aimed at the choice between pouring
sweat over general sharpening issues in Photoshop or using PK. <

Thanks for the reply Mark. I did not read the discussion that way, I
was only familiar with v1.1 of PKS so if later versions offer such
settings as HiRaLoAm then I knew I would be corrected. As a general
side issue on the general topic of sharpening (not HiRaLoAm which was
the specific topic at hand) then I would agree that PKS takes a lot of
the monkey work out while still giving a flexible final result for
further fine tuning if desired.


Where you say "Photokit is only executing Photoshop Commands", yes,
but I would recommend deleting the word "only". While no one tool does
everything, it is a very sophisticated set of highly versatile
algorythms - of course all employing a range of Photoshop components -
which took those guys a long period of time to develop and perfect.
From what I've been reading tons of effort went into the concepts and
numbers at the heart of that tool. I just haven't been tempted by much
else since I started using it. <

I think it is important to understand that this plug is perhaps
similar to scripts/actions more so than what most people think of when
they install a plug-in. Usually commercial plug-ins add extra
capabilites or different/better ways of doing what Photoshop currently
does, they do not leverage Photoshop code. I respect the team members
behind the product and the gathered experience and knowledge that this
product represents (which is what one is really getting for their
money, not new features) - such things as an Automate plug-in or
script are currently beyond my talents. This type of plug that calls
Photoshop routines is a great concept and Adobe have many useful
Automate plugs.

But I do appreciate Hiraloam and in fact use it primarily for local
contrast enhancement, combined with Blend If perhaps similarly to what
you describe. By the way, Katrin Eismann has a nice piece on this
combination in PhotoshopUser magazine December 2006 page 039. I
recorded an Action for the whole sequence - it tames the tendancy of
Hiroloam to clip highlights and shadows. <

Thanks for the info, yes, an age old issue and Bruce Fraser did the
same for midtone contrast 'sharpening' moves, where one does not wish
to hit the shadows/highlights (those split blend if sliders truly are
a great thing).


Sincerely,

Stephen Marsh.


Re: Camera Raw Settings

Lee Varis
 

On Feb 6, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Alan Klement wrote:

Come on guys, I don't want to be a smart ass or arrogant prick, and I
respect your knowledge, but can we stop with the academic talk. This
is what I've learned from Dan's work and why I love it. Lets get real
world here...images that are going to offset printing and end up on
some paper that for the most part is translucent.
Unfortunately for most photographers doing high-end work their client
is an art director or a designer with a computer and a copy of photoshop and when they get the digital file from the photographer
they look at it on screen, zoom in and out and evaluate it compared
to other high-end photographers work – on screen. They don't
appreciate that, for the most part, all this extra quality is
completely lost in the offset litho print! To stay in the game and be
competitive in an extremely competitive environment you have to
deliver that little bit extra!

Now... if I was shooting high volume catalog, weddings, sports or
news, I'd shoot Jpegs because the benefit/compensation/time equation
just doesn't pan out!

regards,

Lee Varis

President, LADIG

Photographer and Digital-Photo-Illustrator

Author of

Skin : The Complete Guide to Digitally Lighting,
Photographing, and Retouching Faces and Bodies
Lee Varis
ISBN: 0-470-04733-X
Paperback
432 pages
October 2006

varis@varis.com
http://www.varis.com
888-964-0024


Re: Camera Raw Settings

MARK SEGAL <mgsegal@...>
 

Lee,


Once you have this up-date ready I would really appreciate seeing it. In fact, if you have a link to the old one that could still be of interest too.

Mark Segal

<< I have an old ACR tutorial for the calibration
procedure and I'm currently working on an updated version to handle
Lightroom/ACR 4.

regards,

Lee Varis>>


Re: How to evaluate Photoshop technicians

new_news <new_news@...>
 

Applied Color Theory in PhotoshopI'm surprised at the amount of discussion regarding spelling and grammar on resumes. Currently our best digital tech is a very talented young man who speaks English as a second language. He don't write to great and he ain't a good speller neither. But we are delighted with his skill and insight in correcting images.

Today we hired a new office manager. She was one of a number of candidates we considered who submitted properly formated resumes that had no spelling or gramatical errors. You can be sure I checked closely.

Jonathan Clymer


Re: Camera Raw Settings

Lee Varis
 

On Feb 6, 2007, at 9:15 AM, DMargulis@aol.com wrote:

We need to back off for a bit because I think Lee's explanation
changed the
ground rules. As I understood what he said he is deliberately
shooting in a way
that would produce a bad JPEG, knowing that he has Camera Raw as a
safety
net.
Correct, except I don't consider Camera Raw a safety net - just a
better way to setup the image. To fully take advantage of RAW
processing you have to expose even more carefully than you do
normally because you are flirting with overexposure – if you go to
far there's no coming back – no safety net there!

The Jpeg clips values at both ends of the tonal range and I'm
"placing" the values at the upper limit of the captured data. In some
cases this highlight info would be clipped to white in the jpeg so
shooting Jpegs this way would not work! RAW processing is not a way
to protect against bad exposure so much as a new way to handle
digital capture.

If you test for this new setup and save new default renderings you
can end up with better images but there's no automatic way to handle
every image the same way so you do have to spend some time post
capture to setup your processing and many, in a time = money
workflow may not find enough value in pursuing RAW.

Beginners may find RAW to be a "safety net" to protect against
mistakes but Professionals will use RAW to squeeze the best possible
quality out of an image by carefully placing scene values into the
best range of the captured data and setting the rendering or
processing for a more ideal value structure – very much like the old B
+W negative strategy of "expose for the highlights and process for
the shadows". I have an old ACR tutorial for the calibration
procedure and I'm currently working on an updated version to handle
Lightroom/ACR 4.

regards,

Lee Varis

President, LADIG

Photographer and Digital-Photo-Illustrator

Author of

Skin : The Complete Guide to Digitally Lighting,
Photographing, and Retouching Faces and Bodies
Lee Varis
ISBN: 0-470-04733-X
Paperback
432 pages
October 2006

varis@varis.com
http://www.varis.com
888-964-0024

16961 - 16980 of 33379