Photoshop How To Use: alt.graphics.photoshop - 9 new messages in 2 topics

alt.graphics.photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en

alt.graphics.photoshop@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Sizing after Crop - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/b6a6e26ab801b7a5?hl=en
* Curves: Lightroom vs. Photoshop - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/842ae08d31f427b3?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sizing after Crop
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/b6a6e26ab801b7a5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 16 2009 8:38 pm
From: tony cooper

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:29:45 -0700 (PDT), RDOC <rdoc2@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Jun 16, 8:12 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:27:39 -0700 (PDT), RDOC <rd...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 15, 6:18 pm, Sir F. A. Rien <jaSP...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>> >> Bob LaBlawgh <f...@nothing.de.au> found these unused words:
>>
>> >> >tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> >> >> You really want to confuse the guy with this? He wants to crop an 8"
>> >> >> x 10" to 8" x 10" by deleting unwanted extra area. The above does
>> >> >> that. Assuming the original is sharp, he has a sharp new image that
>> >> >> is a better composition.
>>
>> >> >Yes, but it won't have the same amount of information, therefore it
>> >> >won't be of the same quality, in precise quantifiable terms. However, if
>> >> >the original is sharp enough, the difference may not be discernible to
>> >> >the average naked eye.
>>
>> >> >It's kinda like HDTV. Most people can't tell the difference between 720p
>> >> >and 1080i although there is a quantifiable difference.
>>
>> >> As with -=any=- resolution, the viewer's distance from the display plays a
>> >> major role.
>>
>> >> A cropped original that would have printed at, say, 400 dpi, now printing
>> >> at, say, 250 dpi is still close to the resolution of the medium.
>>
>> >> A viewer at 10' can hardly discern the details between 720p and 1080p.
>> >> Note that 1080i is actually LESS vertical resolution than720p !!!
>>
>> >> Now, put on a 15' x 26' sheet, then the audience can see the differences
>> >> between 720p and 1080p.
>>
>> >Let me say thanks for all the above information from all of you. Now I
>> >have one additional question, if I do a crop as suggested to retain
>> >the 8x10 size should I put the same resolution in the resolution box
>> >at the top as I am starting with before doing the cropping? Thanks.
>>
>> Depends. Are you going to print the image or use it on the web? Crop
>> at 240 to 300 if you print, at 72 to 100 if you will use it on the
>> web.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
>I am going to print it as an 8x10 so when I started it had a p/i of
>311.5 so when I crop it as the 8x10 should I put in the resolution as
>300? Thanks Tony for the help.

There's a point beyond which a higher number doesn't result in a
better image. Anywhere between 240 and 300 is recommended for print,
but you won't reduce the quality by using 311.5. The file will just
be a bit larger. Use 300 or 311.5. Either will work.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:33 am
From: Sir F. A. Rien

RDOC <rdoc2@comcast.net> found these unused words:

The you will resample and attempt to -=add=- information. The amount added
would be dependent upon how much you've cropped.

You may or may not see the artifacts.

Best question is what are you going to print it on?

Fuji Photo or inkjunk?

Frankly, I'd crop using a fixed ratio in the marquee, then see what size you
get. Then use the Image Size to set it for 8x10 WITHOUT resampling clicked.

IF the resultant dpi is more than 240 - I'd leave it alone and make the
print.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:37 am
From: Sir F. A. Rien

Rob <mesa@mine.com> found these unused words:

>RDOC wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 8:12 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:27:39 -0700 (PDT), RDOC <rd...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 15, 6:18 pm, Sir F. A. Rien <jaSP...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bob LaBlawgh <f...@nothing.de.au> found these unused words:
>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> You really want to confuse the guy with this? He wants to crop an 8"
>>>>>>> x 10" to 8" x 10" by deleting unwanted extra area. The above does
>>>>>>> that. Assuming the original is sharp, he has a sharp new image that
>>>>>>> is a better composition.
>>>>>> Yes, but it won't have the same amount of information, therefore it
>>>>>> won't be of the same quality, in precise quantifiable terms. However, if
>>>>>> the original is sharp enough, the difference may not be discernible to
>>>>>> the average naked eye.
>>>>>> It's kinda like HDTV. Most people can't tell the difference between 720p
>>>>>> and 1080i although there is a quantifiable difference.
>>>>> As with -=any=- resolution, the viewer's distance from the display plays a
>>>>> major role.
>>>>> A cropped original that would have printed at, say, 400 dpi, now printing
>>>>> at, say, 250 dpi is still close to the resolution of the medium.
>>>>> A viewer at 10' can hardly discern the details between 720p and 1080p.
>>>>> Note that 1080i is actually LESS vertical resolution than720p !!!
>>>>> Now, put on a 15' x 26' sheet, then the audience can see the differences
>>>>> between 720p and 1080p.
>>>> Let me say thanks for all the above information from all of you. Now I
>>>> have one additional question, if I do a crop as suggested to retain
>>>> the 8x10 size should I put the same resolution in the resolution box
>>>> at the top as I am starting with before doing the cropping? Thanks.
>>> Depends. Are you going to print the image or use it on the web? Crop
>>> at 240 to 300 if you print, at 72 to 100 if you will use it on the
>>> web.

The web make absolutely nothing of the dpi ... HTML uses PIXELS!

>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>> I am going to print it as an 8x10 so when I started it had a p/i of
>> 311.5 so when I crop it as the 8x10 should I put in the resolution as
>> 300? Thanks Tony for the help.
>
>I would and you interpolate it up to the same pixel count.

No ... now you have some bastard interpolation as the original setting was
311.5 and you've cropped and resampled to another dpi.

Then the printer's going to have a go at the pixels to fit its capabilities.

In short potential for a discernible difference.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Curves: Lightroom vs. Photoshop
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop/t/842ae08d31f427b3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:22 am
From: "just bob"

I own both LR v2 and CS4 but have many reason why CS4 works better for me,
metadata templates and scripting, to name a few biggies. And I've always
felt CS did everything Lightroom did until I happen to come across this
article and the excerpt below, saying "In Lightroom, unlike Photoshop,
Curves is nearly foolproof". I admit I've struggled to put Curves to good
use.

"In Lightroom, unlike Photoshop, Curves is nearly foolproof. Just grab that
little donut in the upper left corner, and mouse over an area of your image.
Tap the down arrow to darken that tone, up to brighten. The Curves will
follow."

Full article:
http://www.popphoto.com/Features/How-And-Why-You-Should-Use-Adobe-Lightroom

Lightroom should suit my style a lot more: import files, review/select/sort,
export, is all I do in my Sports and PJ work. But I don't like the "flow" in
LR, besides the metadata and scripting shortcomings. The whole idea of
"Modules" and you can't do that in this module just puts a cramp in my
style. Bridge and CS4 just work for me much better, but in the back of my
mind I keep thinking LR is where I should be working.

Just waiting for something special to sway me to LR....

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 10:16 am
From: John Passaneau

just bob wrote:
> I own both LR v2 and CS4 but have many reason why CS4 works better for me,
> metadata templates and scripting, to name a few biggies. And I've always
> felt CS did everything Lightroom did until I happen to come across this
> article and the excerpt below, saying "In Lightroom, unlike Photoshop,
> Curves is nearly foolproof". I admit I've struggled to put Curves to good
> use.
>
>
> "In Lightroom, unlike Photoshop, Curves is nearly foolproof. Just grab that
> little donut in the upper left corner, and mouse over an area of your image.
> Tap the down arrow to darken that tone, up to brighten. The Curves will
> follow."
>
> Full article:
> http://www.popphoto.com/Features/How-And-Why-You-Should-Use-Adobe-Lightroom
>
> Lightroom should suit my style a lot more: import files, review/select/sort,
> export, is all I do in my Sports and PJ work. But I don't like the "flow" in
> LR, besides the metadata and scripting shortcomings. The whole idea of
> "Modules" and you can't do that in this module just puts a cramp in my
> style. Bridge and CS4 just work for me much better, but in the back of my
> mind I keep thinking LR is where I should be working.
>
> Just waiting for something special to sway me to LR....
>
>
>
>
CS4 has that also. Lightroom is intended as a cataloging system first,
photo manipulation second. If you are someone who takes a lot photo and
doesn't do a lot of manipulation of them, then Lightroom is the best for
you.

John Passaneau

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 2:22 pm
From: "just bob"

"John Passaneau" <jxp16@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:4A3924DC.1050202@psu.edu...
> CS4 has that also. Lightroom is intended as a cataloging system first,
> photo manipulation second. If you are someone who takes a lot photo and
> doesn't do a lot of manipulation of them, then Lightroom is the best for
> you.

Agreed. Just cannot do the metadata and filtering and scripting in LR. And
the module thing annoys the heck out of me. Also I love ACR in Bridge,
though most hate it. Been working in with it since CS2. CS3 Bridge and ACR
were horrible but it's all come right again with CS4.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:31 pm
From: John Passaneau

just bob wrote:
> "John Passaneau" <jxp16@psu.edu> wrote in message
> news:4A3924DC.1050202@psu.edu...
>> CS4 has that also. Lightroom is intended as a cataloging system first,
>> photo manipulation second. If you are someone who takes a lot photo and
>> doesn't do a lot of manipulation of them, then Lightroom is the best for
>> you.
>
> Agreed. Just cannot do the metadata and filtering and scripting in LR. And
> the module thing annoys the heck out of me. Also I love ACR in Bridge,
> though most hate it. Been working in with it since CS2. CS3 Bridge and ACR
> were horrible but it's all come right again with CS4.
>
>
Yup were on the same page, I started with CS2 also and CS3 bridge did
stink. But someday someone will need to help me see why I have any need
to even look at metadata. I haven't felt the need yet. I don't shoot
large numbers of photos at one time so scripting is not something I use
often also.

John Passsaneau

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:56 pm
From: "botox"

Outside of studio shooters with large numbers of images made under identical
conditions that require minimal and identical processing Lightroom I could
never understand why one would use Lightroom.
That is not a large group of users.
I believe Lightroom exists to compete with Aperture as in and of itself it
is a very limited program. Aperture is not much different.
I do not know of any worthwhile function in Lightroom that a knowledgeable
user cannot perform in Bridge/ACR, granting that Bridge still contains a few
structural bugs.
Lightroom exists because Adobe still caters to Mac users although they are
an ever shrinking group of imaging professionals.
There are too many Mac users out there who are abysmally ignorant about how
platform neutral imaging software really is and how imaging software is
somewhat crippled on the current Mac OS due to the OS itself as well as
software and driver developers simply ignoring the Mac platform and its 3%
market share. The most glaring example of the mess that is the Mac OS is
that even Adobe, which is staffed by orthodox Mac fanboys, could not develop
a 64 bit version of CS4 because the development tools do not exist. The
Adobe dodge was to tell Mac CS4 users they can print a 16 bit image
directly, and if you do not understand what nonsense that is you are
probably using a Mac.
Anyway, apart from having to learn some arbitrarily different names for the
same thing, I have never noted any advantage in using PS on a Mac or a
Microsoft platform (except that Microsoft hardware is much cheaper and an
order of magnitude faster because you can get what you want instead of what
Apple sells).
Snowleopard, or whatever Apple is labeling the next service pack sold as new
OS (see Win7 for a similar example), primarily exists to take the Mac OS
into the 64 bit world but it is already many years behind Microsoft in this
regard.
Yes, just as it trailed Microsoft in memory management the Mac OS is years
behind Microsoft in 64 bit development. People who pay twice or more what
their hardware is worth do not want to know the truth about their OS of
choice: in many ways it is structurally inferior to the abomination that is
Vista.
The point of the anti-Mac screed is that Lightroom is mostly a sop to the
Mac base and is the kind of crippleware that is the essence of the Mac OS
and hardware. Simplicity/minimalism too often disguises inferiority. Sizzle
sans steak.
Does anyone use a Mac outside of the U.S. in numbers larger than you can
count on one hand? Does any other civilized country rely on private health
insurers?

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 11:21 pm
From: Mike Russell

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:22:49 -0700, just bob wrote:
...
> style. Bridge and CS4 just work for me much better, but in the back of my
> mind I keep thinking LR is where I should be working.

Curves, as it exists now in LR, is not a reason to switch. There is no
access to individual channels in LR, which limits their usefulness
tremendously. This could change in the future.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.graphics.photoshop"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.graphics.photoshop?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.graphics.photoshop+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

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

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

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