Date   

Re: EXIF Data

Russell Brown
 

Just create a new file (Ctl/Cmd>N) and select your image name from the Preset dropdown, then drag the image across with the Shift key held down, flatten and you have a duplicate with no data.

Hope this helps

Russ Brown


Re: EXIF Data

Jim Bean
 

<Howard, My question is, why do you want to strip out?>

here is an example for removing file data...

last summer a long time friend/associate had a variety of sports equipment and power tools appropriated from his locked garage... approx 8 weeks later, images of the property appeared for sale online... right clicking on the image provided law enforcement with the lat/long where the images were created...

case solved....


jim bean


Re: EXIF Data

Iliah Borg <ib@...>
 

Dear Howard,

How does one strip it out of an image file? ... is it that hard to get rid of EXIF
data?
EXIFTool will do it for you, see http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ , use with -all= command-line parameter

If you are saving from LightRoom, you can use http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/metadata-wrangler

--
Iliah Borg
ib@...


Re: EXIF Data

Laurentiu Todie
 

Some things are easier than others.
Try a screenshot if you must.



or read #2 (hope it works, if not just say: #2 is… : )
http://www.labnol.org/software/exif-data-editors/14210/


On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Howard Smith wrote:



It's just come to my attention that EXIF data accompanies all images sent
over the Web. How does one strip it out of an image file? The "The Easy
EXIF Delete" tool doesn't seem to work, nor do any of several other methods
described on the Web. Is it just me, or is it that hard to get rid of EXIF
data?

Howard Smith

(drhobbes@...)

Laurentiu Todie
lt@...

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


Re: EXIF Data

James Gray
 

Howard, My question is, why do you want to strip out?

James Gray

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Howard Smith <drhobbes@...> wrote:

**




It's just come to my attention that EXIF data accompanies all images sent
over the Web. How does one strip it out of an image file? The "The Easy
EXIF Delete" tool doesn't seem to work, nor do any of several other methods
described on the Web. Is it just me, or is it that hard to get rid of EXIF
data?


EXIF Data

Howard Smith
 

It's just come to my attention that EXIF data accompanies all images sent
over the Web. How does one strip it out of an image file? The "The Easy
EXIF Delete" tool doesn't seem to work, nor do any of several other methods
described on the Web. Is it just me, or is it that hard to get rid of EXIF
data?



Howard Smith

(drhobbes@...)


Re: From the Pressroom

Laurentiu Todie
 

On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Jim Bean wrote:

As a group we need to pitch in and purchase the poor pressmen a case of
their favorite beverage
1969 Press Wash

Laurentiu Todie
lt@...


Re: From the Pressroom

Jim Bean
 

dan wrote,

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting
along swimmingly,..We have completed six of fifteen signatures, plus cover.
But the devil never sleeps, so why should I? ( I thought all these years
that dan was the devil..jb)

As a group we need to pitch in and purchase the poor pressmen a case of
their favorite beverage. can you imagine the grief they are enduring to work
with such a taskmaster.

After buying an initial copy online, I am going to hold out for a second
'collector's edition that includes the master's editorial comments and
autograph ..



looking forward to another classic,

jim bean, flatland photographer


Re: From the Pressroom

Henry Davis
 

Hmmm . . . once again a principal mission of color management has
succeeded.

Henry

On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:25 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:
<Snip>
By and large things are going well, but it has by no means been pain-
free, as some difficulties have arisen on the color management
front. Fortunately everyone remains in good cheer._


Re: Cheap sky cheat

munkiboy
 

Hi Dan,

Well as soon as you said Lab b channel it seemed obvious but I'm very novice at that. I have the canyon book but to my shame haven't read it enough as it seems harder than the other.

I have had a little test go and the b channel curve turned things blue all over, so I tried the lightness "blend if" slider and that seemed to work. This was a bit of a revelation as it just clicked in my head.

Is that the way you would isolate the effect to those light areas? I'm trying desperately not to grab a selection as I didn't say cheap and dirty sky cheat.

I like it better with the b channel and I noticed it's really the opposite of colouring the yellow back into sun areas that you showed before.

You're right my technique is pretty restricted to those photos I'd mentioned but, for me at least, burned out sky is mostly restricted to those photos too.

When I want a bit of variation or fake clouds I just add a layer mask and lightly brush it a bit and that makes some white bits. Because the whole effect is very light and there's not much sky showing it does look alright.

I tend to only dump a replacement sky in when there's a big sky area because it's easier to make a selection with the naughty bit just along the horizon.

All the best,

-andy

--- In colortheory@..., Dan Margulis <DMargulis@...> wrote:

Andy Blundell writes,

I have a quick and dirty method for dealing with small areas of burned out sky. Perhaps in gaps between trees in a scene in a wood.

So, if there are small areas of sky visible between trees and they're burned out to white. In RGB mode you can make a curves layer and in the red channel of the curves - not the red channel of the image itself, if you pull the high value back - that is towards cyan, very light areas of the image will become pale cyan. You can also peg the curve in the darker areas so as to limit the effect to the very light part.

This gives the bits of visible sky a bit of cyan colour so they aren't just white.

You can get it to go more blue by doing the same with the green curve which I think is reducing the green that's part of the cyan I caused above.
Obviously this only works with some images, you don't want to make other very bright things in a scene turn blue. But in a wood where things can be a lot darker than the bits of sky showing through the tree canopy it seems to work for me.
That's the whole issue. If you do this on a more typical picture that contains significant light areas elsewhere, it will turn those too cool and the result will look weird. So you have to limit it to those few pictures like the one you describe, or else find a way to restrict the impact to the blown-out sky areas.

Does anyone think this is not good and can give a reason not to do it, or does anyone think it is good and might have tips to make it better?
I wouldn't say that it isn't good but it would be my third choice, always assuming that you have some way to restrict the move to the blown-out areas.

My second choice would be to move the file into LAB and force darker B values into the area. This creates an imaginary color--very blue, yet as light as white--that Photoshop is forced to convert into a light blue. Doing this avoids the darkening of other areas.

Either of these two solution results in a flat color in the previously blown-out area. If that area is large enough it may look really phony. So my first choice is to steal a sky from another picture and blend it into these areas at a very low opacity, hopting to convince viewers that something is actually going on in this area that the camera didn't capture.

Dan Margulis


Re: From the Pressroom

Laurentiu Todie
 

Congratulations!
It looks like a good time to say: the reward for hard work (writing/layout) is more work (press proofing).

On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

To all those doubters, I can report that the presses are in fact running today, and I just okayed the pressrun for the cover, along with four of the fifteen 32-page forms that are already off press. From this, I think it is a fair assumption to say that there really will be a new book available in two to three weeks.

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.

Dan Margulis
Laurentiu Todie
lt@...


Re: From the Pressroom

Andy Adams
 

Cool. Can't wait to get my order in.

Andy Adams

--- In colortheory@..., Dan Margulis <DMargulis@...> wrote:

To all those doubters, I can report that the presses are in fact running today, and I just okayed the pressrun for the cover, along with four of the fifteen 32-page forms that are already off press. From this, I think it is a fair assumption to say that there really will be a new book available in two to three weeks.

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.

Dan Margulis


Re: From the Pressroom

Dan Margulis
 

I wrote,

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.
I thank those who have responded and I will post a reply in due course. At the moment I am becoming tired and cranky. By and large things are going well, but it has by no means been pain-free, as some difficulties have arisen on the color management front. Fortunately everyone remains in good cheer.

We have completed six of fifteen signatures, plus cover. But, the devil never sleeps, so why should I?

Dan Margulis


Re: From the Pressroom

dbernaerdt
 

No wonder the clouds parted and the sun shone today. Congrats on this milestone. I know many people are looking forward to this book, myself certainly included.

Darren Bernaerdt


On 2013-02-19, at 2:25 PM, Dan Margulis <DMargulis@...> wrote:

To all those doubters, I can report that the presses are in fact running today, and I just okayed the pressrun for the cover, along with four of the fifteen 32-page forms that are already off press. From this, I think it is a fair assumption to say that there really will be a new book available in two to three weeks.

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.

Dan Margulis


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


Re: From the Pressroom

Hector Davila
 

The best part about Dan's books is it's not about Photoshop, it's
about...Experiences. A lot of airline pilots have the knowledge to fly
an airplane, but don't have the ...experience to keep themselves from
crashing their airplane if something goes wrong.
Dan is an experienced pilot you wanna have next you flying. Know wat i
mean?

The first place everyone in the world is going to be looking for his new
book is Amazon. I hope Dan has a web page there in case...


Hector Davila

On 2/19/2013 3:58 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote:

Dan,

Awaiting your prose, which is always a good read and enlightening,
with anticipation. Glad the pressrun's going well. So, exactly how
many pages is this latest tome? And why can't I find any "press
release" info about it? Pretty cagey. ;-) Best of luck -- take care.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Margulis" DMargulis@... <mailto:DMargulis%40aol.com>>
To: colortheory@... <mailto:colortheory%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 17:25
Subject: [colortheory] From the Pressroom

To all those doubters, I can report that the presses are in fact
running today, and I just okayed the pressrun for the cover, along
with four of the fifteen 32-page forms that are already off press.
From this, I think it is a fair assumption to say that there really
will be a new book available in two to three weeks.

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are
getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.

Dan Margulis




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: From the Pressroom

Michael King
 

Dan,

Is this link still a good overview of the book? Can't wait.

http://www.weteachthecoolstuff.com/dan-margulis/

Txs in advance for bringing the book and the panel to reality.

Mike King

On 19 February 2013 23:58, Steve Jenkins <sj9000@...> wrote:

**


Dan,

Awaiting your prose, which is always a good read and enlightening, with
anticipation. Glad the pressrun's going well. So, exactly how many pages is
this latest tome? And why can't I find any "press release" info about it?
Pretty cagey. ;-) Best of luck -- take care.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Margulis" DMargulis@...>
To: colortheory@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 17:25
Subject: [colortheory] From the Pressroom

To all those doubters, I can report that the presses are in fact running
today, and I just okayed the pressrun for the cover, along with four of the
fifteen 32-page forms that are already off press. From this, I think it is
a fair assumption to say that there really will be a new book available in
two to three weeks.

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting
along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.

Dan Margulis




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: From the Pressroom

Steve Jenkins <sj9000@...>
 

Dan,

Awaiting your prose, which is always a good read and enlightening, with anticipation. Glad the pressrun's going well. So, exactly how many pages is this latest tome? And why can't I find any "press release" info about it? Pretty cagey. ;-) Best of luck -- take care.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Margulis" <DMargulis@...>
To: <colortheory@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 17:25
Subject: [colortheory] From the Pressroom


To all those doubters, I can report that the presses are in fact running today, and I just okayed the pressrun for the cover, along with four of the fifteen 32-page forms that are already off press. From this, I think it is a fair assumption to say that there really will be a new book available in two to three weeks.

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.

Dan Margulis




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: From the Pressroom

Frederick Yocum
 

Are you going through the night? Did you bring your knitting? Apparently one of my predecessors took a sewing machine in and commandeered one offices at our printers to do a little dress work between spreads on one particularly long overnight run.

regards,
Frederick Yocum

On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.


From the Pressroom

Dan Margulis
 

To all those doubters, I can report that the presses are in fact running today, and I just okayed the pressrun for the cover, along with four of the fifteen 32-page forms that are already off press. From this, I think it is a fair assumption to say that there really will be a new book available in two to three weeks.

Assuming that the pressmen do not kill me, and right now we are getting along swimmingly, there will be more news in the very near future.

Dan Margulis


Re: Cheap sky cheat

Dan Margulis
 

Andy Blundell writes,

I have a quick and dirty method for dealing with small areas of burned out sky. Perhaps in gaps between trees in a scene in a wood.

So, if there are small areas of sky visible between trees and they're burned out to white. In RGB mode you can make a curves layer and in the red channel of the curves - not the red channel of the image itself, if you pull the high value back - that is towards cyan, very light areas of the image will become pale cyan. You can also peg the curve in the darker areas so as to limit the effect to the very light part.

This gives the bits of visible sky a bit of cyan colour so they aren't just white.

You can get it to go more blue by doing the same with the green curve which I think is reducing the green that's part of the cyan I caused above.
Obviously this only works with some images, you don't want to make other very bright things in a scene turn blue. But in a wood where things can be a lot darker than the bits of sky showing through the tree canopy it seems to work for me.
That's the whole issue. If you do this on a more typical picture that contains significant light areas elsewhere, it will turn those too cool and the result will look weird. So you have to limit it to those few pictures like the one you describe, or else find a way to restrict the impact to the blown-out sky areas.

Does anyone think this is not good and can give a reason not to do it, or does anyone think it is good and might have tips to make it better?
I wouldn't say that it isn't good but it would be my third choice, always assuming that you have some way to restrict the move to the blown-out areas.

My second choice would be to move the file into LAB and force darker B values into the area. This creates an imaginary color--very blue, yet as light as white--that Photoshop is forced to convert into a light blue. Doing this avoids the darkening of other areas.

Either of these two solution results in a flat color in the previously blown-out area. If that area is large enough it may look really phony. So my first choice is to steal a sky from another picture and blend it into these areas at a very low opacity, hopting to convince viewers that something is actually going on in this area that the camera didn't capture.

Dan Margulis

8001 - 8020 of 33554