Jump to content

MDM

Verified
  • Content Count

    4,981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MDM

  1. I wonder is the price drop anything to do with the strong £ at the moment. It's $1.63 or so which is the strongest it's been in a while. That seems very odd. Are you sure she wasn't misinformed? Office for Mac 2008 and (2011 as far as I know) run on any OS up to Mountain Lion and I've not heard that there is any problem with Mavericks either.
  2. Panorama processing has to be one of the most hardware-hungry processes there is - also 8-bit or 16-bit choice which makes a big difference in processing time. I used to do them all as 16-bit when using a D700 but I usually do them as 8-bit now with the D800 for anything more than 2 or 3 files or they take ages. I'm reluctant to introduce anything new into my workflow as I don't want to spend any more time than I already do on panoramas, as PS can do most of what I want. But it's interesting to find out about other options.
  3. That is not a lot of RAM so probably makes quite a bit of difference in terms of speed. I'm out of touch with Windows versions but you need to be using a 64-bit (OS) to get the benefit of the massive speed enhancements which came when Adobe made Photoshop 64-bit in CS5 (for Mac at least). Photoshop is a bit of a beast in its RAM requirements but in older non-64-bit OS can only use less than 2Gb of RAM irrespective of how much is on machine.
  4. Callie - thanks for posting that. Very interesting. What computer/OS are you using and how much RAM have you got?
  5. I mainly do panoramas to illustrate landscape and geological features as part of a longterm project I am working on. I like to use a 50mm prime rather than a wideangle for quality and detail, as well as the fact that a wideangle can make mountains look like molehills. So stiitching has become a significant part of my workflow. I upload them to Alamy as I may as well but they don't sell for me. I also do vertical stitches which allows me to do square format images or very large portrait format landscapes. A few of these have sold. This is the only real panorama I have sold on Alamy - fo
  6. You might have to wait some time to get the reflection again though. I really like this image. If it was mine, I'd select the top above the lake, apply a big feather to the selection and boost the contrast with a low to medium s-curve to bring out the colour in the trees.
  7. I have considered checking out other programs as I do a lot of panoramas but I spend enough time already just doing them in PS that I don't really want to try new stuff unless there is a real advantage. Especially since I started using a D800, it can be very time-consuming - selecting a bunch of images in Lightroom, making initial adjustments and opening the images takes the most time. I open the images and just let PS do its thing while I do something else. My Mac is getting a little old now and some of the RAM died a while ago but it can still do a 7 or 8 image pano of D800 images with its r
  8. PSCS5 brought the ability to use much larger amounts of RAM than earlier versions (Mac at least, not sure about PC) which makes a massive difference in speed when working with large images (assuming you have enough RAM to cope). Stitching is way faster than earlier versions. You can use the layer masks in PS to modify the automated stitch if so inclined. PSCS6 has very superior graphics engine to previous versions. Massive improvements over CS2. I don't know about CC - not gone onto the subscription thing (yet). As far as I know, you can't buy a version of PS and register or activate it ou
  9. There ya go, the laws of physics still stand :-) I knew someone could and would explain it thus :-) Thanks Russell. I've done a lot of reading on this, and you're right of course, the circle of confusion has an effect . . . as does viewing distance (once printed especially) . . . but for us simple folk, there seems to be something approaching consensus that when viewed at "normal" size and at "normal" viewing distance the dof is the same (to the eyes of the observer). This does not argue against the principle explained abouve, but it does suggest, for us simple folk who might want to avoid
  10. My understanding of the consistent nature of the laws of physics makes it impossible for me to understand how two cameras with the same size sensor and the same lens, at the same camera and lens settings, aren't going to have, projected onto the sensor surface, an image with identical depth of field. How does the image projected onto the sensor surface change from that point to the image shown by one of these cameras over the other? dd They don't have the same size sensor. The D800 has a 36MP sensor whereas the D700 is 12MP. The differences in practice are extremely obvious when ex
  11. My understanding of the consistent nature of the laws of physics makes it impossible for me to understand how two cameras with the same size sensor and the same lens, at the same camera and lens settings, aren't going to have, projected onto the sensor surface, an image with identical depth of field. How does the image projected onto the sensor surface change from that point to the image shown by one of these cameras over the other? dd They don't have the same size sensor. The D800 has a 36MP sensor whereas the D700 is 12MP. The differences in practice are extremely obvious when ex
  12. CAUTION: You can't use normal lens tables or the lens barrel markings for hyperfocal focusing with a D800 and use the images at full size. The depth of field is significantly reduced in comparison to a D700, for example. If you do use the standard tables, then you need to downsize the image to around 5000 pixels long side maximum or better to around D700 size (4250 I think). Check it out. Take a shot of a subject where everything is beyond the hyperfocal distance (essentially infinity) using a tripod using hyperfocal focusing and then the same shot focused on infinity. Examine the images
  13. Mirco - forgetting about Alamy, QC and all that, I would say that it is not a good idea to have in-camera sharpened JPEGs as your only copies of your images. Somewhere down the line you may need unsharpened versions. I say this from my own experience from the days of slide film. I made a large number (probably over 1000) of slide scans and applied sharpening in Photoshop after doing everything else -spotting etc. Even from a good scanner (I used a Nikon 4000 for the later ones), the scans look incredibly unsharp in comparison to what I get from my DSLRs. Unfortunately I didn't keep the uns
  14. Brings Monty Python and the Holy Grail to mind. How about Coneco Loco given your username? Has a better ring to it.
  15. Mirco, I believe the NEX cameras automatically apply some sharpening when you shoot JPEG. It certainly appears that way with the JPEGs produced by my NEX-3. They look much crisper than my RAW files. Perhaps David K., our resident Sony guru, can verify this. I'm beginning to agree with you. Why not take advantage of all this new technology built into today's cameras. Also, If you shoot RAW+JPEG, you can always process the RAW file if the JPEG doesn't work out. The fact that you use JPEG mode and never seem to fail QC (wish I could say the same) seems to indicate that you are on the righ
  16. I don't know as I only shoot raw but maybe you have in-camera sharpening turned on if the jpegs are sharper than the raws?
  17. Slightly, maybe. That's the interwebs for you. But I think discussing the psychology of how we approach QC and what goes through our minds when we're PP-ing is relevant. And interesting. And quite possibly helpful. For sure. Perhaps how one approaches QC could form the basis of a new archetypal classification. On the one hand there is the Fatalist: I know this blurred image with 1 micron depth of field focused on a fly's eye has almost no chance of passing QC but I really want to add it to my Alamy collection and I will continue to submit it until it kills me. On the other there is the Mo
  18. I only moved to Lightroom a year ago. Before that I had my own database for keeping track of my images and I used Bridge with ACR and Photoshop. I moved to Lightroom for the database mainly and it is excellent. It has speeded up my workflow on that level for sure. The ability to output various files in different formats using presets is a real boon and I find the map module really useful for keeping locality info from my GPS. Worth looking into I think.
  19. You have the same as me but yours is a forme fruste. There's a lot of it about. I have to disagree with the diagnosis doc. If anything I am the complete opposite. Anally retentive me - absolutely not - I won't go into the reasons why not - you wouldn't want to know. Aspergers - me - absolutely not - I'm ultra-sensitive to other people's feelings for one thing. I would make a terrible therapist - I would feel everything I was hearing. Obsessive - now that I will admit to - probably the reason I end up with vast numbers of images, just making sure I got the shot.
  20. I was worried about diffraction when I got my D800 last year as the large sensor size causes diffraction to set in at wider apertures. Most of my images are landscapes and I have always shot at f11 for optimum depth of field and edge to edge sharpness, with film and D700 previously. I have done some serious practical testing of the lenses I use most (50 and 24 Nikkors) on the D800 and I can detect absolutely no diffraction effects at f11. Edge fall off at f8 is very evident on the 24 compared to f11 and overall sharpness is worse at f16. So I think that the diffraction problem is exaggerated,
  21. Never mind heresy and blasphemy - what is the point in converting an 8-bit JPEG to 16-bit? You have already discarded the info in using the JPEG so you can't put it back in. This will slow you down in fact, as the 16-bit TIFF will take more time to save etc than an 8-bit TIFF for no gain in quality.
  22. Two points here: I used to use Photoshop actions a lot (I still do a bit) but Lightroom can do file conversion/outputting without the need to open the files - definitely more efficient I find as I continue to use Photoshop at the same time. Why use TIFF rather than PSD? PSDs are handled much better by Photoshop if retaining adjustment layers.
  23. I think that shooting JPEG only is analogous to shooting colour print film, getting your set of prints and dumping the negs. Not only are you losing vast amounts of potential info from the raw file but, as several people have already pointed out, possible future improvements in raw processing are ruled out forever. I doubt that the OP was thinking of JPEGS only when he posted. He is obviously into quality images (moreover he is using a D800 from the file size of his images) so it would seem ludicrous to me to have such quality kit and then throw much of that potential quality away.
  24. I'm also a MacBook Air advocate - really light and slim. But it is very expensive. If you are going to use it for image processing, then you really ought to be maxing out the RAM and getting the faster processor which comes to over £1,200, and that is with the smaller flash storage. Go for the 512Gb flash drive and you are close to £1,500. The flash drive is very fast for copying and disk operations in general but doesn't have a big effect on processing speeds I find. If you are not already a Mac user, then you will also need some software - Lightroom presumably - add another £100. My machine
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.