Photoshop How To Use: adobe.photography - 25 new messages in 21 topics

adobe.photography
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Macro/Close Up Thread
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/004dbdcea2dc130a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 28 2009 10:23 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com

You see Howard it would not be possible to do your test.

They even transferred the idea from you to me and now claim I did something to them for pointed out the problems with doing such a test.

BTW you and shep might want to think twice about posting your images here as Adobe is more likely to pick up on one your images then probably most of the others.

I have a different problem as most of my images are for clients or publication about architects the use of an image of a famous building is also likely and that I cannot have as in some countries you need the architects permission to use a photographic image of the building for commercial use.

If these laws catch on Adobe might use the image thinking they do not have to honor such a law because they did not take the photo. There are lots of problems her that they have created.

I guess in a couple of days it is all over anyway.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 5:04 am
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com

Ramon, i can understand why you cherish that moment. I am constantly amazed how much i see myself in her mannerisms, but yet she has her own personality that is independent of things only learned. that is the thing that has surprised me the most, because i thought we are only the sum of things we experienced but that does not seem true now. I cannot imagine 3 children, but we had ours later than most,so my body is not as energetic as it once was, so that makes a difference.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 7:22 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com

Re: #354:

Just curious, did you read Bruce Fraser's last opus?

I don't have that book but it was written for CS2 and ACR has changed greatly (particularly in the Sharpening Panel) since CS2.

What I like about Martin Evening's approach is that he suggests settings for different kinds of photographs and then explains why he uses each setting.

If you make named Presets using the suggested settings, you then have good starting-points for adjusting them to your own images of a similar nature.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 12:59 pm
From: Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com

Ann,

The Fraser book on sharpening is transcendental. It goes beyond any particular version of Photoshop. CS2 just happened to be the latest version before Bruce passed away.

That book has some serious insights into the nature of sharpening. I don't doubt for a second that it contributed greatly to anything you can do in this regard in CS4.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:38 pm
From: Ho

You see Howard it would not be possible to do your test.

OK. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/32f98ccbcc4abf22?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 5:10 am
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com

I love the star shot. That whole area of photography really is fascinating,but i do not have the bucks to get the right gear.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/49119d238b73b8a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 5:23 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com

Linda, Love the photos! I am torn between 3 and 4 - 3 being a little more vivid and 4 much softer. Very kewl artwork!

Fred, WOW!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/2b28aa931557647f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 6:44 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com

Linda:

You might like to try one more version if you have time.

See what it looks like if you let the background trees go dark (as in #2) and then mask the Cyprus' needles and pull a Curve so that they become the brightest objects in the image. A slightly more limey green would enhance the impression of new growth.

[Your shot made me scurry out to my field to see if my cyprus (it's about 15' tall now) had come through this rather harsh northern winter and hopefully it has, because the twigs are green when I scratch the bark.]

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/3f2ffa18b7dac3d9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 6:49 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com

Wonderful night sky shot Fred!

I have only seen the Southern Cross once in my life.

I have never been south of the equator, but you can see it sometimes from the more southern Florida Keys — as I was once fortunate enough to do.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please Vote: Afghan Water Polo Photo Project
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/628065b89f0a9591?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 7:41 am
From: jason

I've entered the "Name Your Dream Assignment" contest to win 50,000
dollars towards doing my dream photo assignment. Entrants come up
with an idea and post it on the contest website. The top 20 voted for
by the public will then be judged by their panel. So, I am trying to
secure as many votes by the April 3rd, public voting deadline.

In short, my idea is to go and photograph Afghanistan's first men's
water polo team. Their aim is to get a team trained and into the 2016
Olympics. I believe there is a unique potential for great photographs
and stories which will also be of historic posterity for the nation.
I have been in contact with the head of the organization, and he
supports my bid to volunteer for them.

To vote for me go here:
http://www.nameyourdreamassignment.com/the-ideas/JasonWen/afghanistan-water-polo-team/
Click on "PIC IT", register (doesn't cost anything) and make sure to
vote.

Last year, I went to Ghana to take photos for the non-profit, Women in
Progress. You can see pics from my trip here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45806140@N00/sets/72157610470084301/

Equipment used:
Canon 5D MK1
Canon 16-35 2.8 L
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 85 1.2 L
Canon 70 - 200 IS L
Billingham Hadley Pro
Gitzo compact tripod
Photoshop CS2

Thanks,
Jason

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/f11e7ffbc5b5671d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 7:51 am
From: Hopper@adobeforums.com

Fred,
With that night sky photo, you touched on a subject that I really enjoy. The area that I live in isn't highly light polluted, so I too can see many stars. I love to go out and try to pick out the various constellations that I know of. I am getting pretty good at the big dipper ... ;)

I have a dekstop software that I use to help me figure out what I am looking at, at any specific time that I choose. It's only for windows though. :( Asynx Planetarium software link <http://www.asynx-planetarium.com/>

I have been lucky enough to have seen the southern cross before and never get tired of looking up at the night sky. :)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ca7cab45612af73b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 8:49 am
From: PShock@adobeforums.com

Nice sky, Fred! Too bad the (photo) stock market is dead - you could make some money off that image.

Linda-
Please take this in the spirt it's meant - constructive criticism.

I don't think the image works for one main reason - the subject (the cypress), is completely lost in the background. It's a green tree in front of other green trees and the tonal values all run together. (just look at the black and white version to see what I mean)

It would have helped if the cross light hitting the background were instead hitting your "friend" :) (and the background had the flat light), but that wasn't the case. Less depth of field could have helped too.

I assume you prefer the colorized version since that's the version you showed first? One of the likely reasons is because doing that helps to separate the tree from the background. But if you're honest with yourself, you'll see this is a case of relying on Photoshop to compensate for a less successful image. It's subjective of course, colorizing can work great in some cases, but here, it seems to be simply a crutch.

Ann's suggestion would help to separate your subject w/o resorting to (in my view), gimmicks.

However, I think you can do better - at the photography stage. Look for a different time of day, or better light that will help to separate the subject. This will sound strange, but squint your eyes when looking at the scene. If everything seems to run together, you'll end up with the same result.

-phil

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/400a444c3cbbb109?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:30 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com

Thanks to all who commented again on my Cypress tree, as well as the suggestions.

Ann, I'll work on another version with the background darkened.

Phil, I welcome constructive criticism. I like your suggestion about squinting. My favorite version was the previous shot I posted with the background grey and the tree green. I then posted the last batch in the succession in which they were made and changed. The camera settings for this were were f/2.8. Info screen shot posted below. Don't hesitate to offer more suggestions if you think it might help.

It was shot at a pretty time of the day, although the sun was blocked from hitting that particular tree by other trees. I went back out today to take some more pictures. The weather is rather bleak and dull, so I'll have to wait for the right moment on a better day. If we could get some rain followed by a glowing sunset, that's when our tress look their best.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1DyWLc0xH4CMEwPGbUmeo1y3MyCp1>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/863fff5ab7a4f82f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 1:50 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com

Actually I think using the 100-400 or even the 70-200 will help with better shallow DOF. Just more frames to stitch.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/9326bb35f3511ae1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:28 pm
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com

Thanks, all. I'm lucky to live in a place where getting such a shot from the back yard is easy.

Donald, you really don't need any more than you've got. I shot that one at 1600 ISO, about 20 secs, and got the stars back into circles instead of the short bars that the earth's movement causes over a time exposure by using Focus Magic's Motion Blur filter. Unless you're doing deep space or accurate measurement-type astro imaging, this is perfectly adequate and means that an equatorial mount is no longer essential for pictorial star shots.

I shot that one on a 35mm lens setting, so even an extreme tele lens isn't necessary. A 200mm lens with a 2x adapter for closer stuff can also get surprising results.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/58c35c61aed6e39d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 2:40 pm
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com

Thanks for the info. Hopefully i can try a shot sometime.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Be VERY Afraid …
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/cf82f66e37b5ce25?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 3:31 pm
From: Hopper@adobeforums.com

Has anyone re-read the TOS? It still seems to me, even with some modifications, to grant too many rights to Adobe, even when the content is on servers other than Adobe's.

Did they make new changes to the TOS or am I just mis-reading it? It still sounds bad to me.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/68d9cce280d31e13?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 3:37 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com

Linda

ISO 1000? OK go back and try ISO 100 @ ƒ2.8 and maybe a tripod and 1/80 of a second.

Why would you shoot a 1/800 and use ISO 1000 in broad daylight?

Why not use the camera at its optimal dynamic range?

What you did doesn't make sense and is contributing to a poorly exposed and rendered image.

Keep in mind that landscapes like this are often shot on overcast days and slightly over exposed.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File>:EliotPorter.jpg

<http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/porter/13807201_zm.html>

<http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/porter/13809401_zm.html>

<http://www.afterimagegallery.com/porterinwildness.htm>

this is just a different perspective on enhancing the subject without really doing anything other then being sensitive to the subject and reproducing it really well. Keep in mind that for some reason every photo I have seen of Elliot Porter's work on the web seems quite dark compared to the prints he exhibit over the years. Which I understand where all dye transfers.

BTW linda the dye transfer process allowed for color correction to a very large degree and even enhancements to a particular color in a particular part the image. for instance you could subdue the color of the leaves or brighten them and if you really want change the color completely. All photomechanically! Just like in photoshop.

Also allowed you to do something that would be difficult but not impossible to do in Photoshop.

You could use a making technique to remove the haze effect on distant objects like tree on the horizon and sharpen the detail in that area of the image only gave it less of a photographic look but more like what one actually would see.

Photoshop killed the need for Dye Transfers but the prints where unmatched in my opinion then anything else except for silver or a palladium/platinum print.

Although I prefer silver. Black and White photographic prints are silver prints.

If you ever get a chance to see the Work of Elliot Porter or Harry Callahan's color work also dye transfers then you might get a different perspective then what you see on the web and read in the books as being on the cutting edge.

In other words get out more often.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/18537eb532860a45?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 3:50 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com

ISO 1000? OK go back and try ISO 100 @ ƒ2.8 and maybe a tripod and 1/80
of a second.

Why would you shoot a 1/800 and use ISO 1000 in broad daylight?

I wasn't thinking, or planning to do anything with the photo. It was almost dark. And I had forgotten to change my ISO back. I had previously shot indoors at a baby shower. My main objective when I started out was to try out stitching using my Macro lens. After I played with it I decided to share, since In "Where were you?" since it is a favorite tree.

BTW, I just went out with the 100-400 lens and shot some more cypress trees. I'm looking at them now. Better shots.

Thanks for sharing Porter's images. I'm looking at them now.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/d9598edbf44c894c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 3:54 pm
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com

I kind of wondered why you used such a high iso myself, considering the talk of getting a d3 for noise capability, but you must have some logic behind your method here. maybe you are not good at hand holding at slower speeds, which to tell you the truth, i am not either. That was not one of my favorite shots from you, due to the subject getting lost in the background, but you did a good job selecting the needles, but then again a low res jpg is hard to tell on.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/35c2bb69e2ac3bc6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 4:09 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com

I kind of wondered why you used such a high iso myself, considering the
talk of getting a d3 for noise capability, but you must have some logic
behind your method here. maybe you are not good at hand holding at slower
speeds, which to tell you the truth, i am not either. That was not one
of my favorite shots from you, due to the subject getting lost in the
background, but you did a good job selecting the needles, but then again
a low res jpg is hard to tell on.

I figured others share photos in this thread that simply relate to where they are. So I shared mine... thinking it would be just that... a reflection of where I am.

I enjoy helping out clients when they need a photo, but not sure I'm cut out for photography for enjoyment, especially around here. Everything always looks so dry and dull and boring from my camera, even though I love connecting with it otherwise.

Here's a Panorama using six shots, just taken. No adjustments were made so it's dry and ugly as usual. I'm not cut out for this stuff. :-)

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=14yV4TA7he6whpRJ6VkZkDvhtc6Cz>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/9df90025b3e3e517?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 4:24 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com

Here's a quick and dirty rendition from Photoshop:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1kQ1WOtznQp562PhqfD6d7i7wQ8eke>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/0ed87d1203ad704f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 4:25 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com

And another for those with more subtle taste:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1CZ08Hg2ITXMX1E6lTeChA5gLVGeh0>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ff214e5af61d9e15?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 4:56 pm
From: -shep-@adobeforums.com

I enjoy helping out clients when they need a photo, but not sure I'm cut
out for photography for enjoyment, especially around here.

Don't sweat it then, Linda. Take pics of what you *do* like and feel comfortable doing. Family, friends, pets, etc.---and helping your clients out in a pinch. Nothing wrong with all that. If from that, you grow to like it more, fine. If not, that's fine too.

Your main forte, as I understand, is as a designer/web designer. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, you've mentioned on more than one occasion that you've had chance of doing photo on a professional basis, but had to turn it over to a colleague of your's because you didn't feel up to what was required. Good for you, I think that's to be commended rather than shamed. It's good to know one's limitations, especially when performing a service for someone else's money.

There are "professionals" out there from plumbers to surgeons, who will perform something beyond their purview just because they think they can. Not a good thing. I don't want a dentist taking out my gall bladder just because he's seen it done and *thinks* he can do it. 8o

Anyway, I guess my point is, do what you like and can when you can...erm...and like. :/ Nothing wrong with know one's limitations. The problem is more with those who don't know *their* own.

So, take what you can here and from your photo guild and use it or edit it. Hope this made some sense. %(

Gotta run. Got some leftover Italian beef heating on the stove waiting to be nestled in a nice French roll. Have to post a picture of an elephant, too. :)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/2c8e8e5eb88bcc6a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 29 2009 5:07 pm
From: Donald_Reese@adobeforums.com

That is much better in my view than the single tree, and i personally would crop more sky out and focus on the lower trees more,but its just an idea. Sorry if you did not want comments on the shot, as i thought you asked for suggestions. I can absolutely understand that some places are more inspirational than others, so just remember to try looking at different times of day to shoot like real early or late, but dont get eaten by some gator in the process. you definitely have the skill to bring a shot to life.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photography"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photography+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en