Nabble - StockPhoto

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-25T11:33:09Z

David

I agree with your point and will make it from another direction. When
I first began shooting (longer ago than I want to think about) I soon
learned that, although I enjoyed looking at B&W and greatly respected
many B&W shooters, color was the way I saw the world. I therefor
became a color shooter and used the medium most my clients wanted,
color transparencies. Many people that I respected considered the only
"real photographers" to be the B&W shooters who shot all day and half
the night in all type conditions, then retreated to their dark rooms
to work their magic. As a location transparency shooter I lived in a
world of approx 1/3 stop variance and next to no post production
workflow. It has been said that the secret to being a location
transparency shooter is knowing when not to shoot. Then, along came
digital, and now I consider myself very similar (but greatly advanced)
to the B&W guys that I used to be jealous of. I shoot my RAW files
with a myriad of magic post production tricks in my bag that I have
learned to help me reproduce the world I capture. Layers is certainly
one of these tricks and I am very thankful for it and the many other
tool I now have available to better my visions. I feel no need to
limit my creativity.

Allen Russell
allen@...
allenrussellphoto.com

On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:38 AM, David Riecks wrote:

> At 08:44 AM 11/25/2009, Len Holsborg wrote:
> >My mantra has always been "keep it simple", whether its designing or
> >flying airplanes, or taking and processing pictures. I always
> >appreciate the experiences, suggestions and comments of my
> >colleagues, but, in the realm of photography, film, digital,
> >scanning, printing, I've yet to see where alot of this 'post
> >processing' that I read about in the 1000 page books I've read, has
> >resulted in images that were much better than what came out of raw
> >and some very basic curves, levels and highlight/shadow adjustments.
>
> Len:
>
> If you have been so fortunate to only work with digital files that
> are well within ranges so that all you need is simple processing,
> count your blessings. I know a number of photographers that
> understand natural light and get great images. However, they couldn't
> light their way out of a paper bag if they had to use electronic
> strobes, and when approached about that kind of work, simply pass on
> it.
>
> To use a film analogy, some of those same photographers would be fine
> if all they needed was a medium or large format camera, Tri-X rated
> at ISO 200, and souped in D-76. But give them a 35mm camera, and ask
> them to shoot action in near darkness and they would be completely
> lost.
>
> Others of us, that have done that, and experimented with acufine and
> diafine, and know just how far we can push the film can still create
> images in those conditions. IMHO, that's the same difference you see
> here. There's nothing wrong with with not knowing these other
> techniques, provided you are willing to live within those limitations
> and pass up, or throw away possibilities that the rest of us know are
> possible.
>
> Viva la difference!
>
> David
>
> --
> David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
> Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary
> Solution
> http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
> most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
STOCKPHOTO-digest@...
STOCKPHOTO-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-25T11:25:53Z

David:

I just love this bantering and sparring over photo technique and experience, it beats bantering and sparring with my wife, my bank or the IRS :- }

you wrote, in part >>>> "There's nothing wrong with with not knowing these other
techniques, provided you are willing to live within those limitations
and pass up, or throw away possibilities that the rest of us know are
possible. Viva la difference! " <<<<<

It's not that I don't know them, I do, I've tried them in many many instances, and have reached a conclusion that although they definitely may have benefit in many situations, in many others they are time wasters, IMHO - they don't live up to the industry hype, for me, not yet, anyway. Thus, I don't see my workflow as 'limited', but 'tailored' to my style of shooting. If I'm convinced a technique can improve my images, and/or my workflow, I will learn it and apply it.

Now, of course, count me in when it comes to shunning or dealing with any form of flash or studio related work. If it isn't outside, or reasonably able to be shot inside without flash or other complex lighting systems, then I shy away, not from 'fear', but from disdain, for lack of a more subtle word.

Natural light is my cup of pixels, not artificial - Vive la difference ! :-}

regards,

Len Holsborg

http://lenholsborg.com

images also available @
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://alamy.com
http://cgibackgrounds.com

rights managed licensing exclusively

-----Original Message-----
From: David Riecks <david@...>
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Sent: Wed, Nov 25, 2009 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] OT - procedure for retouching portraits

At 08:44 AM 11/25/2009, Len Holsborg wrote:
>My mantra has always been "keep it simple", whether its designing or
>flying airplanes, or taking and processing pictures. I always
>appreciate the experiences, suggestions and comments of my
>colleagues, but, in the realm of photography, film, digital,
>scanning, printing, I've yet to see where alot of this 'post
>processing' that I read about in the 1000 page books I've read, has
>resulted in images that were much better than what came out of raw
>and some very basic curves, levels and highlight/shadow adjustments.

Len:

If you have been so fortunate to only work with digital files that
are well within ranges so that all you need is simple processing,
count your blessings. I know a number of photographers that
understand natural light and get great images. However, they couldn't
light their way out of a paper bag if they had to use electronic
strobes, and when approached about that kind of work, simply pass on it.

To use a film analogy, some of those same photographers would be fine
if all they needed was a medium or large format camera, Tri-X rated
at ISO 200, and souped in D-76. But give them a 35mm camera, and ask
them to shoot action in near darkness and they would be completely lost.

Others of us, that have done that, and experimented with acufine and
diafine, and know just how far we can push the film can still create
images in those conditions. IMHO, that's the same difference you see
here. There's nothing wrong with with not knowing these other
techniques, provided you are willing to live within those limitations
and pass up, or throw away possibilities that the rest of us know are
possible.

Viva la difference!

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

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

=

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

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-25T10:38:18Z

At 08:44 AM 11/25/2009, Len Holsborg wrote:
>My mantra has always been "keep it simple", whether its designing or
>flying airplanes, or taking and processing pictures. I always
>appreciate the experiences, suggestions and comments of my
>colleagues, but, in the realm of photography, film, digital,
>scanning, printing, I've yet to see where alot of this 'post
>processing' that I read about in the 1000 page books I've read, has
>resulted in images that were much better than what came out of raw
>and some very basic curves, levels and highlight/shadow adjustments.

Len:

If you have been so fortunate to only work with digital files that
are well within ranges so that all you need is simple processing,
count your blessings. I know a number of photographers that
understand natural light and get great images. However, they couldn't
light their way out of a paper bag if they had to use electronic
strobes, and when approached about that kind of work, simply pass on it.

To use a film analogy, some of those same photographers would be fine
if all they needed was a medium or large format camera, Tri-X rated
at ISO 200, and souped in D-76. But give them a 35mm camera, and ask
them to shoot action in near darkness and they would be completely lost.

Others of us, that have done that, and experimented with acufine and
diafine, and know just how far we can push the film can still create
images in those conditions. IMHO, that's the same difference you see
here. There's nothing wrong with with not knowing these other
techniques, provided you are willing to live within those limitations
and pass up, or throw away possibilities that the rest of us know are
possible.

Viva la difference!

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-25T09:35:01Z

>It is a feature that allows you to run pre Intel-based apps ( PowerPC-based)
>on an Intel-based Mac. In this case it allowed me to run Nikon Scan 4, a pre
>Intel-based app, on OS 10.5
>
>http://www.apple.com/rosetta/
>
>Peter Bennett

If it is of any interest to the group. On occasion I have a request
for a picture from my old medium format transparencies and I use a
Flextight scanner with my MAC computer. The scanner uses a SCSI
connection. Newer computers of course don't have SCSI and I
purchased an adaptor made by RATOC which allows the scanners SCSI
connector to plug into a firewire connection.

http://www.rexpccard.co.jp/english/products/FR1SX.html for info on
the convertor.

I have no connection to RATOC just a satisfied customer.

David B
--
__________________________________________

David Barr 519 846 8827

Simplify your search at http://www.photobar.com

Re: OT snow leopard

2009-11-25T09:24:27Z

On 25 Nov 2009, at 17:11, Bob Croxford <bobcroxford@...> wrote:

> > On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Peter Bennett wrote:
> >
> >> It is a feature that allows you to run pre Intel-based apps
> >> ( PowerPC-based)
> >> on an Intel-based Mac. In this case it allowed me to run Nikon Scan
> >> 4, a pre
> >> Intel-based app, on OS 10.5
> >>
> >> http://www.apple.com/rosetta/
>
> Dear Peter
>
> But don't expect it to work on a new Mac on Snow Leopard. 10.6.2.
> Only computer nerds at Apple could sell an OS which runs legacy
> software from a Windows PC but not legacy Mac apps software.
>

It does but it's now an optional install on the DVD.

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

OT snow leopard

2009-11-25T09:11:03Z

> On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Peter Bennett wrote:
>
>> It is a feature that allows you to run pre Intel-based apps
>> ( PowerPC-based)
>> on an Intel-based Mac. In this case it allowed me to run Nikon Scan
>> 4, a pre
>> Intel-based app, on OS 10.5
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/rosetta/

Dear Peter

But don't expect it to work on a new Mac on Snow Leopard. 10.6.2. Only computer nerds at Apple could sell an OS which runs legacy software from a Windows PC but not legacy Mac apps software.

Bob Croxford

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-25T08:59:45Z

oh okay I may need that myself soon for the same problem. Thanks Peter

Valery Rizzo
vrizzo@...
http://www.valeryrizzo.com
718-965-7579
Stock, Assignment and Fine Art Photography
Gettyimages, Corbis, Jupiterimages, Botanica,
Workbookstock, Nonstock, BrandX, Foodpix
and Alamy

On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Peter Bennett wrote:

> It is a feature that allows you to run pre Intel-based apps
> ( PowerPC-based)
> on an Intel-based Mac. In this case it allowed me to run Nikon Scan
> 4, a pre
> Intel-based app, on OS 10.5
>
> http://www.apple.com/rosetta/
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>
> From: Valery Rizzo <vrizzo@...>
> Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:42:49 -0500
> To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
> Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: scanning film for alamy
>
> what is Rosetta??
>
> thanks, val
>
>

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-25T07:53:15Z

It is a feature that allows you to run pre Intel-based apps ( PowerPC-based)
on an Intel-based Mac. In this case it allowed me to run Nikon Scan 4, a pre
Intel-based app, on OS 10.5

http://www.apple.com/rosetta/

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

From: Valery Rizzo <vrizzo@...>
Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:42:49 -0500
To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: scanning film for alamy

what is Rosetta??

thanks, val

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-25T06:44:37Z

David:

you wrote, in part,

>>>>> "But you will never know what you are missing until you try." <<<<<

An ex-friend of mine once said the same thing thing to me about eating oysters.....the only thing I missed was 2 weeks of work recovering from food poisoning :-}

But, all kidding aside, although my posts may not always convey my friendly intentions, with all due respect, I have researched, experimented and otherwise attempted to understand and learn the intricacies of layers, masks, blending modes and the millions of other things that Pshop has to offer. I've dove in to depths that gave me severe bends on the way up in pursuit of more understanding of some of this Pshop stuff.

My mantra has always been "keep it simple", whether its designing or flying airplanes, or taking and processing pictures. I always appreciate the experiences, suggestions and comments of my colleagues, but, in the realm of photography, film, digital, scanning, printing, I've yet to see where alot of this 'post processing' that I read about in the 1000 page books I've read, has resulted in images that were much better than what came out of raw and some very basic curves, levels and highlight/shadow adjustments.

But enough on this topic, as you and others have made abundantly clear, :-} , we all choose a workflow that works best for us as individuals, and, of course, meets our agents, distributors, clients, or customers expectations.

One final note, happy Thanksgiving, to all my fellow USA brethren, and a good day to all others......

cheers,

Len Holsborg

http://lenholsborg.com

images also available @
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://alamy.com
http://cgibackgrounds.com

rights managed licensing exclusively

-----Original Message-----
From: David Riecks <david@...>
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Sent: Wed, Nov 25, 2009 2:40 am
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] OT - procedure for retouching portraits

At 12:38 AM 11/25/2009, Len Holsborg wrote:
>Sounds overly complicated. I've rarely, if ever, encountered an
>image that couldn't be adjusted sufficiently enough in either raw or
>converted tiff, without the use of layers. Isn't all that effort
>above 'overkill' and time consuming, for most stock photo needs ?

Len:

Save yourself the time. Don't bother to learn or increase your
skills. It's what most people choose to do. ;-)

>Can you quantify, in your experience, what per centage improvement
>layers afford that couldn't be achieved without layers ? What per
>centage of images, in your experience, do you feel would not be
>'saleable' without using layers adjustments ?

There is no way to quantify this. It entirely has to do with the type
of imagery, and the level of capture you are able to obtain. There
are times that, had I all the time in the world, would choose to
wait, or return to a location for better light. However, I was unable
to, but do have a decent image that doesn't meet my quality
level. However I have a set of bracketed exposures and can combine
two images using a layer mask to blend the two together. This allows
me to see into the shadows and retain highlight detail in a situation
where the contrast would be too high otherwise. If you never have to
deal with situations like that, and can return until you get the
shot... good for you.

>To reiterate, I find the results I get right out of raw, and then
>right on the 16 bit tiff single 'background' layer to be dead on in
>99% of my shots. I do minor adjustments in raw, and then minor
>adjustments on the tiff that are not available in raw, and that's it
>- no layers, no masks, no paths, no blending modes, etc.

If that works for you, great. I had the opportunity to learn my way
up from b&w to color lab work, scanning slides, to digital capture,
and often dealing with other peoples images, which often took a fair
amount of work. If you have captures that are "ideal" you may well be
able to work the way you describe. However, you will probably find
sometime that you thought you had a good shot, but feel the capture
was less than adequate and shelve the image. With the right
techniques, you might have had something that was just fine, but
you'll never know.

>I've never encountered an image that seemed to need more adjustment
>than I could achieve using this workflow, thus, I'm just not
>grasping how all this extra complexity involved with layers is justified.

If you took the time you spent replying to this note and actually sat
down and learned how to use layers and layer masks, then maybe you
would see and understand. If not, take 10 minutes, and search out a
couple of videos on Youtube and maybe you'll see something appropriate.

>I'm still reluctant to invest the time and effort involved with al
>this layer stuff, blend modes, layer styles, masks, and the myriad
>of other things available, if, in the end, the image is strong
>enough not to need these adjustments in the first place. In another
>words I don't grasp that 'the ends justify the means' when it comes to layers.

Then don't bother. I find it saves me more time for the types of
images that I deal with, but we probably don't shoot the same type of
subject matter.

>As for the notion of 'not damaging the original' by doing work on
>layers rather than 'the original', I always have the original raw
>file to revert to if all goes wrong on the Tiff end (all raw files
>get archived to dvd and portable hard drives).

Sure, and in a perfect world, you should always return to the RAW
file. But if I've already spent an hour or more tweaking the file in
Photoshop, I may wish to avoid doing all of that work again. If I
decide later that the skintone on the person looks a little too
magenta on the shadow side of their face I can make that adjustment
using my selective color adjustment layer in a couple of minutes.

>Still, when I read from others that they 'couldn't live without
>layers' and other such statements, I get this uneasy feeling that
>I'm missing something, but I'm not convinced, based on the results I
>obtain with my workflow.

There's only one way to know. Dive in and get your feet wet. I've met
photographers that moved into digital capture from shooting film, and
could never understand why you needed curves. They got everything
they needed using levels. <bg>. When they saw what could be done with
curves, their jaws often dropped.

>I guess the ultimate test to satisfy my 'uneasiness' would be to
>take an image I feel is 'dead on' using my workflow, and having
>somebody take the raw file of that image, and, using all the layers,
>paths, blend modes, etc and seeing if the results they achieve are
>better than mine - I that will be the only way I'll be
>satisfied....being a skeptic can be challenging sometimes :-}

The Advanced Color Theory forum does this from time to time. The
different variations give you a great appreciation for what can be done.

But you will never know what you are missing until you try.

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-25T03:42:49Z

what is Rosetta??

thanks, val

On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

> Hi Stacy,
>
> Well son of a gun, it worked. Now I have two scanner software. Thank
> you for
> the tip, much appreciated.
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>
> From: Stacy Walsh-Rosenstock <stacyr@...>
>
> Peter,
>
> Does PhotoShop "see" Nikon Scan? If not try running PhotoShop in
> Rosetta.
> Go to the PhotoShop application, hit "command + I" for Info and you
> should see a box that says "run in Rosetta"
> Click that box and when you run PhotoShop the top of your screen
> should have a purple tint.
> Then you should be able to load the plug-in as you normally would in
> PhotoShop.
>
> I just googled "intel mac nikon scan" and there are several mentions
> of Rosetta. Apparently there's also a newer version of Nikon Scan, v
> 4.2, so you probably want to upgrade to the newest version first.
>
> ~stacy
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
>
> > Hi Rich,
> >
> > Well I guess I'm still trying to sort this out. I used to use an old
> > Power
> > PC Tower as my scan station, but I recently bought a new MacBook Pro
> > and
> > decided to use it for scanning instead. I installed Nikon Scan 4 on
> > it, but
> > couldn't get it to recognize the scanner. When I called Nikon tech
> > support,
> > I told them I had the MacBook Pro and OS 10.5 and they told me it
> > wouldn't
> > work with that, but they hoped to upgrade the software for it at
> > some point
> > (sure). This was a couple of months ago.
> >
> > I even tried installing it on an old Powerbook Pro (pre Intel), but
> > Nikon
> > Scan 4 kept crashing on that as well. In the meantime I got rid of
> > the old
> > Power PC, so I just bought VueScan and it does work better than the
> > Nikon
> > software. If anybody has any definitive answer for this quandary, I
> > would
> > still like to know what is going on.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Peter Bennett
> > Ambient Images Inc.
> > P: 310-312-6640
> >
> > Specializing in New York and California images
> > http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> > http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> > http://www.greenstockphotos.com
> >
> > From: Rich Green Photography <rjgreenphoto@...>
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > I was a bit surprised to read what you said about the Mac OS and
> ICE.
> > I'm on a Mac, have a Nikon 8000 and have scanned many Ektachrome
> > slides using ICE. (It doesn't do Kodachrome or B&W Negatives.) And
> > I've used it on 10.5.8.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------Yahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-25T03:18:27Z

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., David Riecks <david@...> wrote:
>
>
> I can't speak for your workflow, but I process the file via ACR or
> Lightroom into a 16 bit TIFF. I then retouch this "master" file and
> apply adjustment layers if a final tweak is needed in terms of target
> values for highlight, shadow, skintone, or other key tones/values.

David et al:
Thank you very much for this very logical and comprehensive reply (as always). It answers all my questions and will be my guide for future work, altho' I'll break with a couple of recommendations (such as posting unretouched portraits) for my own reasons (bearing in mind that the project I'm working on is for a show of my own and not commercial work).
I've always been cheap about storage space and flattened everything. No more. I'll just stick those PSDs into the many
MGBs I'm paying for but not using at PhotoShelter. While I'm sleeping, of course.

John Fowler

Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-25T02:58:24Z

I do not have Nikon, but the Minolta Multi Pro is in a similar situation regarding software, Mac OSX and drivers. I have purchased both VueScan from Ed Hamrick, and a licence for SilverFast, which does support the ICE function.

Please note that 'Digital ICE' and 'ICE' may be two different functions. ICE was the trademarked invention of Applied Science Fiction Inc along with ROC (restoration of colour) and relies on the use of a separate infrared scan pass. VueScan may not call it ICE, because of the trademark (I do not believe is was patentable) but they can still use the IR pass method.

Polaroid used scanners made by Microtek which could not perform the IR scan, and invented a software-based dust removal method which really screws up pictures. After this, several other makers including Minolta in their lower-end scanners (Scan Dual) copied the software-only method but still referred to it as 'Digital ICE' (ASF probably wrote the module).

Libraries should accept images processed using hardware - infrared, original - ICE but do not want the use of the software processes, which are nothing more than a Photoshop Noise filter in the scanner driver.

David

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-24T23:40:43Z

At 12:38 AM 11/25/2009, Len Holsborg wrote:
>Sounds overly complicated. I've rarely, if ever, encountered an
>image that couldn't be adjusted sufficiently enough in either raw or
>converted tiff, without the use of layers. Isn't all that effort
>above 'overkill' and time consuming, for most stock photo needs ?

Len:

Save yourself the time. Don't bother to learn or increase your
skills. It's what most people choose to do. ;-)

>Can you quantify, in your experience, what per centage improvement
>layers afford that couldn't be achieved without layers ? What per
>centage of images, in your experience, do you feel would not be
>'saleable' without using layers adjustments ?

There is no way to quantify this. It entirely has to do with the type
of imagery, and the level of capture you are able to obtain. There
are times that, had I all the time in the world, would choose to
wait, or return to a location for better light. However, I was unable
to, but do have a decent image that doesn't meet my quality
level. However I have a set of bracketed exposures and can combine
two images using a layer mask to blend the two together. This allows
me to see into the shadows and retain highlight detail in a situation
where the contrast would be too high otherwise. If you never have to
deal with situations like that, and can return until you get the
shot... good for you.

>To reiterate, I find the results I get right out of raw, and then
>right on the 16 bit tiff single 'background' layer to be dead on in
>99% of my shots. I do minor adjustments in raw, and then minor
>adjustments on the tiff that are not available in raw, and that's it
>- no layers, no masks, no paths, no blending modes, etc.

If that works for you, great. I had the opportunity to learn my way
up from b&w to color lab work, scanning slides, to digital capture,
and often dealing with other peoples images, which often took a fair
amount of work. If you have captures that are "ideal" you may well be
able to work the way you describe. However, you will probably find
sometime that you thought you had a good shot, but feel the capture
was less than adequate and shelve the image. With the right
techniques, you might have had something that was just fine, but
you'll never know.

>I've never encountered an image that seemed to need more adjustment
>than I could achieve using this workflow, thus, I'm just not
>grasping how all this extra complexity involved with layers is justified.

If you took the time you spent replying to this note and actually sat
down and learned how to use layers and layer masks, then maybe you
would see and understand. If not, take 10 minutes, and search out a
couple of videos on Youtube and maybe you'll see something appropriate.

>I'm still reluctant to invest the time and effort involved with al
>this layer stuff, blend modes, layer styles, masks, and the myriad
>of other things available, if, in the end, the image is strong
>enough not to need these adjustments in the first place. In another
>words I don't grasp that 'the ends justify the means' when it comes to layers.

Then don't bother. I find it saves me more time for the types of
images that I deal with, but we probably don't shoot the same type of
subject matter.

>As for the notion of 'not damaging the original' by doing work on
>layers rather than 'the original', I always have the original raw
>file to revert to if all goes wrong on the Tiff end (all raw files
>get archived to dvd and portable hard drives).

Sure, and in a perfect world, you should always return to the RAW
file. But if I've already spent an hour or more tweaking the file in
Photoshop, I may wish to avoid doing all of that work again. If I
decide later that the skintone on the person looks a little too
magenta on the shadow side of their face I can make that adjustment
using my selective color adjustment layer in a couple of minutes.

>Still, when I read from others that they 'couldn't live without
>layers' and other such statements, I get this uneasy feeling that
>I'm missing something, but I'm not convinced, based on the results I
>obtain with my workflow.

There's only one way to know. Dive in and get your feet wet. I've met
photographers that moved into digital capture from shooting film, and
could never understand why you needed curves. They got everything
they needed using levels. <bg>. When they saw what could be done with
curves, their jaws often dropped.

>I guess the ultimate test to satisfy my 'uneasiness' would be to
>take an image I feel is 'dead on' using my workflow, and having
>somebody take the raw file of that image, and, using all the layers,
>paths, blend modes, etc and seeing if the results they achieve are
>better than mine - I that will be the only way I'll be
>satisfied....being a skeptic can be challenging sometimes :-}

The Advanced Color Theory forum does this from time to time. The
different variations give you a great appreciation for what can be done.

But you will never know what you are missing until you try.

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-24T22:38:40Z

Hi David:

you wrote, in part:

>>>> "There is a very easy way to "burn" or "dodge" an image that uses a
duplicate of the image and a layer mask. Take the background,
duplicate it. Set the blend mode to "screen, set it to 30 or 40
percent. Then put a layer mask set to "hide all" on that layer. Pick
up the brush tool, click on the layer mask, set brush color to white,
and opacity to 30 percent. Then make the brush big and "dodge" the
dark areas of the image. To burn, do the same, only use the blend
mode called Multiply. Retain the layers and you have unlimited undo
on the burn and dodge, by simply adding more or less white (or black)
to the mask. To reset the tone / color to the base, just make sure
you paint with a black brush at 100 percent opacity." <<<<<<

Sounds overly complicated. I've rarely, if ever, encountered an image that couldn't be adjusted sufficiently enough in either raw or converted tiff, without the use of layers. Isn't all that effort above 'overkill' and time consuming, for most stock photo needs ?

Can you quantify, in your experience, what per centage improvement layers afford that couldn't be achieved without layers ? What per centage of images, in your experience, do you feel would not be 'saleable' without using layers adjustments ?

To reiterate, I find the results I get right out of raw, and then right on the 16 bit tiff single 'background' layer to be dead on in 99% of my shots. I do minor adjustments in raw, and then minor adjustments on the tiff that are not available in raw, and that's it - no layers, no masks, no paths, no blending modes, etc.

I've never encountered an image that seemed to need more adjustment than I could achieve using this workflow, thus, I'm just not grasping how all this extra complexity involved with layers is justified.

I'm still reluctant to invest the time and effort involved with al this layer stuff, blend modes, layer styles, masks, and the myriad of other things available, if, in the end, the image is strong enough not to need these adjustments in the first place. In another words I don't grasp that 'the ends justify the means' when it comes to layers.

As for the notion of 'not damaging the original' by doing work on layers rather than 'the original', I always have the original raw file to revert to if all goes wrong on the Tiff end (all raw files get archived to dvd and portable hard drives).

Still, when I read from others that they 'couldn't live without layers' and other such statements, I get this uneasy feeling that I'm missing something, but I'm not convinced, based on the results I obtain with my workflow.

I guess the ultimate test to satisfy my 'uneasiness' would be to take an image I feel is 'dead on' using my workflow, and having somebody take the raw file of that image, and, using all the layers, paths, blend modes, etc and seeing if the results they achieve are better than mine - I that will be the only way I'll be satisfied....being a skeptic can be challenging sometimes :-}

regards,

Len Holsborg

http://lenholsborg.com

images also available @
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://alamy.com
http://cgibackgrounds.com

rights managed licensing exclusively

-----Original Message-----
From: David Riecks <david@...>
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Sent: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 11:02 pm
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] OT - procedure for retouching portraits

At 06:19 PM 11/24/2009, Len Holsborg wrote:
>If you do initial touch up in raw, then final touch up on the 16 bit
>tiff (levels, etc), then why is there ever a need to add layers,
>adjustment or otherwise ? I've always attained excellent results,
>whether for Alamy QC, or my own ink jet prints, without ever using
>layers. I just don't see any benefits, but I do see quite a few
>drawbacks, i.e. file size, extra learning curve, among others.

Len:

With newer versions it is possible to get closer to what I want in
images that exit Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom, but there are still
typically many things that I can only do with layers. Some I preserve
as layers (specifically adjustment layers like selective color,
luminance curves, and output levels), others exist as layers only
momentarily (such as blurring or dust & scratches filters that are
applied to duplicates of the "retouch" layer, and then adjusted to a
specific opacity, before being merged down to the retouch layer. The
"original" layer is preserved as the background, so that I can always
revert back, if needed.

>Just what is it about layers that can enhance a stock photograph
>that can't be done without layers ??? Do layers have some unknown
>benefits that might make my images 'better' than I can achieve
>without them ? What am I missing ?

There is a very easy way to "burn" or "dodge" an image that uses a
duplicate of the image and a layer mask. Take the background,
duplicate it. Set the blend mode to "screen, set it to 30 or 40
percent. Then put a layer mask set to "hide all" on that layer. Pick
up the brush tool, click on the layer mask, set brush color to white,
and opacity to 30 percent. Then make the brush big and "dodge" the
dark areas of the image. To burn, do the same, only use the blend
mode called Multiply. Retain the layers and you have unlimited undo
on the burn and dodge, by simply adding more or less white (or black)
to the mask. To reset the tone / color to the base, just make sure
you paint with a black brush at 100 percent opacity.

Another technique uses layers and the "calculation" option, to create
better black and white conversions. For details, see
http://www.riecks.com/forphotogs/rgb_grayscale.html for details.

Those only two of several techniques I use every single day. Like
others mentioned, I don't know how I could do without layers.

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

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

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-24T20:02:58Z

At 06:19 PM 11/24/2009, Len Holsborg wrote:
>If you do initial touch up in raw, then final touch up on the 16 bit
>tiff (levels, etc), then why is there ever a need to add layers,
>adjustment or otherwise ? I've always attained excellent results,
>whether for Alamy QC, or my own ink jet prints, without ever using
>layers. I just don't see any benefits, but I do see quite a few
>drawbacks, i.e. file size, extra learning curve, among others.

Len:

With newer versions it is possible to get closer to what I want in
images that exit Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom, but there are still
typically many things that I can only do with layers. Some I preserve
as layers (specifically adjustment layers like selective color,
luminance curves, and output levels), others exist as layers only
momentarily (such as blurring or dust & scratches filters that are
applied to duplicates of the "retouch" layer, and then adjusted to a
specific opacity, before being merged down to the retouch layer. The
"original" layer is preserved as the background, so that I can always
revert back, if needed.

>Just what is it about layers that can enhance a stock photograph
>that can't be done without layers ??? Do layers have some unknown
>benefits that might make my images 'better' than I can achieve
>without them ? What am I missing ?

There is a very easy way to "burn" or "dodge" an image that uses a
duplicate of the image and a layer mask. Take the background,
duplicate it. Set the blend mode to "screen, set it to 30 or 40
percent. Then put a layer mask set to "hide all" on that layer. Pick
up the brush tool, click on the layer mask, set brush color to white,
and opacity to 30 percent. Then make the brush big and "dodge" the
dark areas of the image. To burn, do the same, only use the blend
mode called Multiply. Retain the layers and you have unlimited undo
on the burn and dodge, by simply adding more or less white (or black)
to the mask. To reset the tone / color to the base, just make sure
you paint with a black brush at 100 percent opacity.

Another technique uses layers and the "calculation" option, to create
better black and white conversions. For details, see
http://www.riecks.com/forphotogs/rgb_grayscale.html for details.

Those only two of several techniques I use every single day. Like
others mentioned, I don't know how I could do without layers.

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T19:58:06Z

Great! I just learned that a few days ago. Glad I was able to pass it
on.

~stacy

On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T19:44:59Z

Hi Stacy,

Well son of a gun, it worked. Now I have two scanner software. Thank you for
the tip, much appreciated.

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

From: Stacy Walsh-Rosenstock <stacyr@...>

Peter,

Does PhotoShop "see" Nikon Scan? If not try running PhotoShop in
Rosetta.
Go to the PhotoShop application, hit "command + I" for Info and you
should see a box that says "run in Rosetta"
Click that box and when you run PhotoShop the top of your screen
should have a purple tint.
Then you should be able to load the plug-in as you normally would in
PhotoShop.

I just googled "intel mac nikon scan" and there are several mentions
of Rosetta. Apparently there's also a newer version of Nikon Scan, v
4.2, so you probably want to upgrade to the newest version first.

~stacy

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> Well I guess I'm still trying to sort this out. I used to use an old
> Power
> PC Tower as my scan station, but I recently bought a new MacBook Pro
> and
> decided to use it for scanning instead. I installed Nikon Scan 4 on
> it, but
> couldn't get it to recognize the scanner. When I called Nikon tech
> support,
> I told them I had the MacBook Pro and OS 10.5 and they told me it
> wouldn't
> work with that, but they hoped to upgrade the software for it at
> some point
> (sure). This was a couple of months ago.
>
> I even tried installing it on an old Powerbook Pro (pre Intel), but
> Nikon
> Scan 4 kept crashing on that as well. In the meantime I got rid of
> the old
> Power PC, so I just bought VueScan and it does work better than the
> Nikon
> software. If anybody has any definitive answer for this quandary, I
> would
> still like to know what is going on.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>
> From: Rich Green Photography <rjgreenphoto@...>
>
> Peter,
>
> I was a bit surprised to read what you said about the Mac OS and ICE.
> I'm on a Mac, have a Nikon 8000 and have scanned many Ektachrome
> slides using ICE. (It doesn't do Kodachrome or B&W Negatives.) And
> I've used it on 10.5.8.
>
>

Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T19:34:07Z

I bought a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED soon after they came out and have
hundreds of images on Alamy scanned with it, and I¹ve always used the Nikon
Scan software. I have never had a photo rejected by Alamy due to scan
quality.

A couple of years ago, I began using my new MacBookPro with the scanner
instead of my old WinXP PC, and not knowing that it wasn¹t supposed to work
with OS-X just plugged in the scanner, started Nikon Scan and went to work.
Interface slightly different, but functionally about the same. I¹m now using
a newer MBP, with OS-X 10.5.8, and both the scanner and Nikon Scan continue
to work without problems. After reading so many reports of incompatibility,
I¹m mystified, but thankful and knocking on wood that it keeps on working.

- Greg

www.GregVaughn.com

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T19:06:27Z

Hi All,

Second thoughts, Version Tracker has really bad reviews of Nikon Scan
4.2
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/12834&vid=150247&mode=feedback

~stacy

On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Stacy Walsh-Rosenstock wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Does PhotoShop "see" Nikon Scan? If not try running PhotoShop in
> Rosetta.
> Go to the PhotoShop application, hit "command + I" for Info and you
> should see a box that says "run in Rosetta"
> Click that box and when you run PhotoShop the top of your screen
> should have a purple tint.
> Then you should be able to load the plug-in as you normally would in
> PhotoShop.
>
>
> I just googled "intel mac nikon scan" and there are several mentions
> of Rosetta. Apparently there's also a newer version of Nikon Scan, v
> 4.2, so you probably want to upgrade to the newest version first.
>
> ~stacy
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
>
>> Hi Rich,
>>
>> Well I guess I'm still trying to sort this out. I used to use an old
>> Power
>> PC Tower as my scan station, but I recently bought a new MacBook Pro
>> and
>> decided to use it for scanning instead. I installed Nikon Scan 4 on
>> it, but
>> couldn't get it to recognize the scanner. When I called Nikon tech
>> support,
>> I told them I had the MacBook Pro and OS 10.5 and they told me it
>> wouldn't
>> work with that, but they hoped to upgrade the software for it at
>> some point
>> (sure). This was a couple of months ago.
>>
>> I even tried installing it on an old Powerbook Pro (pre Intel), but
>> Nikon
>> Scan 4 kept crashing on that as well. In the meantime I got rid of
>> the old
>> Power PC, so I just bought VueScan and it does work better than the
>> Nikon
>> software. If anybody has any definitive answer for this quandary, I
>> would
>> still like to know what is going on.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter Bennett
>> Ambient Images Inc.
>> P: 310-312-6640
>>
>> Specializing in New York and California images
>> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
>> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
>> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>>
>> From: Rich Green Photography <rjgreenphoto@...>
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> I was a bit surprised to read what you said about the Mac OS and ICE.
>> I'm on a Mac, have a Nikon 8000 and have scanned many Ektachrome
>> slides using ICE. (It doesn't do Kodachrome or B&W Negatives.) And
>> I've used it on 10.5.8.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo
> ! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T19:03:35Z

"...so I just bought VueScan and it does work better than the Nikon
software."

We have been using VueScan, with updates as available, almost since we were forced to begin doing some scanning. For the last couple of scanners in the succession, we didn't even bother to load the scanning software that came with the machine. Have been using an Epson Perfection V700 Photo scanner as our office scanner for the past couple of years, and the VueScan does fine with it. (Any bulk scanning we need to do goes out to service bureaus.)

Carl May

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T19:02:00Z

Peter,

Does PhotoShop "see" Nikon Scan? If not try running PhotoShop in
Rosetta.
Go to the PhotoShop application, hit "command + I" for Info and you
should see a box that says "run in Rosetta"
Click that box and when you run PhotoShop the top of your screen
should have a purple tint.
Then you should be able to load the plug-in as you normally would in
PhotoShop.

I just googled "intel mac nikon scan" and there are several mentions
of Rosetta. Apparently there's also a newer version of Nikon Scan, v
4.2, so you probably want to upgrade to the newest version first.

~stacy

On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T18:36:57Z

Hi Rich,

Well I guess I'm still trying to sort this out. I used to use an old Power
PC Tower as my scan station, but I recently bought a new MacBook Pro and
decided to use it for scanning instead. I installed Nikon Scan 4 on it, but
couldn't get it to recognize the scanner. When I called Nikon tech support,
I told them I had the MacBook Pro and OS 10.5 and they told me it wouldn't
work with that, but they hoped to upgrade the software for it at some point
(sure). This was a couple of months ago.

I even tried installing it on an old Powerbook Pro (pre Intel), but Nikon
Scan 4 kept crashing on that as well. In the meantime I got rid of the old
Power PC, so I just bought VueScan and it does work better than the Nikon
software. If anybody has any definitive answer for this quandary, I would
still like to know what is going on.

Thanks.

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

From: Rich Green Photography <rjgreenphoto@...>

Peter,

I was a bit surprised to read what you said about the Mac OS and ICE.
I'm on a Mac, have a Nikon 8000 and have scanned many Ektachrome
slides using ICE. (It doesn't do Kodachrome or B&W Negatives.) And
I've used it on 10.5.8.

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-24T16:51:58Z

>Just what is it about layers that can enhance a stock photograph
>that can't be done without layers ??? Do layers have some unknown
>benefits that might make my images 'better' than I can achieve
>without them ? What am I missing ?
>
>Please show this layer deprived stock shooter 'the light', if it
>really exists.........(in a quick summary, of course, since we are
>'OT')
>
>more detailed responses welcome offline, if warranted.......
>
>regards,
>
>Len Holsborg

Hi Len

Can't imagine working without layers. Not that you can't do many
things without layers but once you are used to working on layers it
really makes your life easier.

David B
--
__________________________________________

David Barr 519 846 8827

Simplify your search at http://www.photobar.com

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-24T16:46:04Z

Hi Len,

First off I would say that if you have a workflow that works for you, don't
change it unless you need to.

I used to do pre-production and retouching for ad agencies and photo
illustrations for my clients. In both cases, layers were absolutely
necessary. When you have situations where clients are coming back to you and
asking for color changes, adjustment layers allow you to make those changes
without any degradation to your image. It would also be impossible to move
elements around without being able to keep each element on a separate layer.
When you are dealing with any form of design, layers are essential.

These days, like you, the majority of my work is processing dozens, if not
hundreds of images. I can do my color correction on the fly without the use
of layers, and besides I cannot afford the time if would take to work on
each image with layers. Also I can do much of my color correction on DNG
files in LightRoom and have the benefit of not locking into any permanent
changes because of that.

I think it comes down to personal preference, whether or not you use layers.
I still use them for particularly tricky color adjustments. When you do
drill down into the use of layers, the things you can do are pretty amazing.
I started out with PS when there no layers, and I can tell you the amount of
expletives that emanate from my mouth has been severely reduced since layers
were added as features.

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

From: Len Holsborg <lenswork1@...>

Well, as long as we're 'OT" on photoshop, I'll ask just one question that's
puzzled me to this day. Believe me, I've read many many books on pshop,
including the 'bibles', but I still don't see the need for 'layers'. I've
played around with them, but can find no compelling reason to use them in my
workflow.

If you do initial touch up in raw, then final touch up on the 16 bit tiff
(levels, etc), then why is there ever a need to add layers, adjustment or
otherwise ? I've always attained excellent results, whether for Alamy QC, or
my own ink jet prints, without ever using layers. I just don't see any
benefits, but I do see quite a few drawbacks, i.e. file size, extra learning
curve, among others.

Just what is it about layers that can enhance a stock photograph that can't
be done without layers ??? Do layers have some unknown benefits that might
make my images 'better' than I can achieve without them ? What am I missing
?

Please show this layer deprived stock shooter 'the light', if it really
exists.........(in a quick summary, of course, since we are 'OT')

more detailed responses welcome offline, if warranted.......

regards,

Len Holsborg

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T16:40:07Z

Hi Peter,

I'm using the Nikon 5000 ED with Nikonscan 4 on my G5 PowerPC. Last
weekend we set up my daughter's MacBook Pro to work with an old Canon
LIDE Flatbed scanner. Canon hasn't updated their scanner Plug-in since
2003. It took a little hair pulling but I finally learned about
running PhotoShop in Rosetta so that it recognizes legacy PowerPC
software.

Nikon does have a history of coming out with new models rather than
software upgrades. Too bad there more film scanner choices in that
price range.

~stacy

On Nov 24, 2009, at 6:54 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

> Hi Stacy,
>
> My mistake. I am using a Nikon 8000 and like Ernesto with the 4000,
> Nikon
> doesn't support them anymore. I get so upset with Nikon customer
> service, I
> tend to fly off the handle, in this case inaccurately. People spent
> thousands of dollars on these scanners and Nikon left them high and
> dry.
> Which scanner are you using?
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>
> From: Stacy Walsh-Rosenstock <stacyr@...>
> Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:37:59 -0500
> To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
> Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: scanning film for alamy
>
> Peter,
>
> I haven't had any problems using my SuperCoolscan with my G5 PowerPC
> running OS 10.5.8. In fact I had some old Kodachrome 64 scans bounced
> by QC for SoLD only a few weeks ago. If there's a problem I suspect it
> has more to do with Intel based Macs which might require you to run
> PhotoShop and the scanner plug-in in Rosetta.
>
> I've also had a handful of film scans accepted, using ICE and a Nikon
> FH3 Nikon Flimstrip holder. I don't know how flat these auto feeders
> will hold your film.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ~stacy
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:
>
> > ICE is only available with the Nikon software, which when I last
> > spoke to
> > Nikon is not available for MAC OSX (at least not 10.5). Really
> > stunning when
> > you think about it. The Nikon software was crap anyway. I switched
> > over to
> > Vuescan as well and it works quite well. Their version of ICE is
> > called
> > Infrared clean.
> >
> > Peter Bennett
> > Ambient Images Inc.
> > P: 310-312-6640
> >
> > Specializing in New York and California images
> > http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> > http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> > http://www.greenstockphotos.com
> >
> > From: <ycardozo@... <mailto:ycardozo%40aol.com> >
> > Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@... <mailto:STOCKPHOTO%40yahoogroups.com
> > >
> >
> > I have Nikon's LS5000 which I think is the 35mm version of the 9000.
> > You
> > definitely want to set it for ICE (to deal with dust and scratches).
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-24T16:19:02Z

Well, as long as we're 'OT" on photoshop, I'll ask just one question that's puzzled me to this day. Believe me, I've read many many books on pshop, including the 'bibles', but I still don't see the need for 'layers'. I've played around with them, but can find no compelling reason to use them in my workflow.

If you do initial touch up in raw, then final touch up on the 16 bit tiff (levels, etc), then why is there ever a need to add layers, adjustment or otherwise ? I've always attained excellent results, whether for Alamy QC, or my own ink jet prints, without ever using layers. I just don't see any benefits, but I do see quite a few drawbacks, i.e. file size, extra learning curve, among others.

Just what is it about layers that can enhance a stock photograph that can't be done without layers ??? Do layers have some unknown benefits that might make my images 'better' than I can achieve without them ? What am I missing ?

Please show this layer deprived stock shooter 'the light', if it really exists.........(in a quick summary, of course, since we are 'OT')

more detailed responses welcome offline, if warranted.......

regards,

Len Holsborg

http://lenholsborg.com

images also available @
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://alamy.com
http://cgibackgrounds.com

rights managed licensing exclusively

-----Original Message-----
From: dawn <dawn.campbell@...>
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Sent: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 4:55 pm
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] OT - procedure for retouching portraits

Do your retouching in Photoshop on a 16 bit full-sized Tiff in Adobe RGB,
and keep your layers alive as you are working on it. You can't do most of
the retouching in ACR--you'll need to use Photoshop.

Once you are done editing your files, then you can flatten the file and save
it to a full-sized 8bit copy (keep the layered 16 bit files intact).
Flatten the file before converting to 8bit especially if using adjustment
layers in Photoshop. From there, you can save down to smaller files as
needed for Photoshelter or whatever.

Watch out when you are retouching that you aren't creating any unwanted
artifacts. I'm not sure what you are using--there are a few plugins on the
market

Portraiture by Imagenomic
http://www.imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

Portrait Professional
http://www.portraitprofessional.com/

Mama's Powders
http://www.photoshopmama.net/legalallpowders.html?reload

The latter sounds pretty gorky, they are pretty inexpensive, and they
work--she just won the cover contest for Professional Photographer mag:

<http://www.ppmag.com/current_issue/pdfs/1109/1109webcovercontest.pdf>

You can also retouch the old-fashioned way, smoothing the skin with the
clone tool set to a low opacity, sharpening the eyes, filling in the lashes,
whitening the teeth, maybe making the lips a bit redder, etc.:

Russell Brown (annoying but has some good information)
<http://www.creativepro.com/article/give-portrait-photos-spa-treatment>

hth
dawn

2009/11/24 John Fowler <john@...>

> I'm working on a series of portraits of men and women of a
> certain age. Final prints will be 8x10 and 11x14 and occasionally
> 11x14. Capture is raw, 16 bits from a D700, 300ppi, opened in Bridge
> at about 100 megs, finally saved as 8 bit (about 50 megs) tiffs.
> Some retouching will be appropriate in almost all images.
>
> With regard to prints, at what point is retouching best done?
> On the full file in ACR? (Can it be done in ACR?)
> On the 50 meg, 8bit TIFF in CS4?
> Or should retouching be done only on each resized print file?
>
> When a large file is retouched and then reduced in size, is the
> retouching affected? If so, in what way?
>
> With regard to 600 pixel files to be posted on my PhotoShelter
> site, at what point is retouching best done?
>
> This sort of information isn't provided in any of the several CS4
> books I have, nor even in Klowskowski's Layers.
>
> John T. Fowler,
> Photography For Education
> http://www.johnfowler.ca
> 613-256-4056
>

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

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T15:54:50Z

Hi Stacy,

My mistake. I am using a Nikon 8000 and like Ernesto with the 4000, Nikon
doesn't support them anymore. I get so upset with Nikon customer service, I
tend to fly off the handle, in this case inaccurately. People spent
thousands of dollars on these scanners and Nikon left them high and dry.
Which scanner are you using?

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

From: Stacy Walsh-Rosenstock <stacyr@...>
Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:37:59 -0500
To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: scanning film for alamy

Peter,

I haven't had any problems using my SuperCoolscan with my G5 PowerPC
running OS 10.5.8. In fact I had some old Kodachrome 64 scans bounced
by QC for SoLD only a few weeks ago. If there's a problem I suspect it
has more to do with Intel based Macs which might require you to run
PhotoShop and the scanner plug-in in Rosetta.

I've also had a handful of film scans accepted, using ICE and a Nikon
FH3 Nikon Flimstrip holder. I don't know how flat these auto feeders
will hold your film.

Cheers,

~stacy

On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

> ICE is only available with the Nikon software, which when I last
> spoke to
> Nikon is not available for MAC OSX (at least not 10.5). Really
> stunning when
> you think about it. The Nikon software was crap anyway. I switched
> over to
> Vuescan as well and it works quite well. Their version of ICE is
> called
> Infrared clean.
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>
> From: <ycardozo@... <mailto:ycardozo%40aol.com> >
> Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@... <mailto:STOCKPHOTO%40yahoogroups.com> >
>
> I have Nikon's LS5000 which I think is the 35mm version of the 9000.
> You
> definitely want to set it for ICE (to deal with dust and scratches).
>
>
>

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T15:37:59Z

Peter,

I haven't had any problems using my SuperCoolscan with my G5 PowerPC
running OS 10.5.8. In fact I had some old Kodachrome 64 scans bounced
by QC for SoLD only a few weeks ago. If there's a problem I suspect it
has more to do with Intel based Macs which might require you to run
PhotoShop and the scanner plug-in in Rosetta.

I've also had a handful of film scans accepted, using ICE and a Nikon
FH3 Nikon Flimstrip holder. I don't know how flat these auto feeders
will hold your film.

Cheers,

~stacy

On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

> ICE is only available with the Nikon software, which when I last
> spoke to
> Nikon is not available for MAC OSX (at least not 10.5). Really
> stunning when
> you think about it. The Nikon software was crap anyway. I switched
> over to
> Vuescan as well and it works quite well. Their version of ICE is
> called
> Infrared clean.
>
> Peter Bennett
> Ambient Images Inc.
> P: 310-312-6640
>
> Specializing in New York and California images
> http://www.californiastockphoto.com
> http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
> http://www.greenstockphotos.com
>
> From: <ycardozo@...>
> Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
>
> I have Nikon's LS5000 which I think is the 35mm version of the 9000.
> You
> definitely want to set it for ICE (to deal with dust and scratches).
>
>
>

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

Re: All images are not created equal

2009-11-24T14:17:30Z

From: Beth Conant <cokids@...>
>
> I'm with you, Peter, so I just put them all into the RM category...probably
> not the best strategy either! Still, it takes some of the guesswork out of
> the workflow and it's the coward's way out! Shall we post images and discuss
> which category they belong in and why? Now that would be truly helpful!

Hi Beth,

I actually make that decision before I take the picture. It is a matter of
deciding what markets I want to shoot for, as opposed to taking the shots
and then deciding what to do with them. I am committed to shooting RM
imagery because it lends itself to both the subject matter I shoot and the
markets that subject matter does well in.

I considered my options a couple of years ago but decided that shooting
micro would be falling into the commodity end of things, a lot of boring
subjects and the necessity of having to produce enormous amounts of product.
Micro was already highly competitive and with low returns. Also I'm just
old enough and stubborn enough to want to shoot the kind of work I want to
do.

RF was being, and continues to be, cannibalized by Micro and I feel as the
things progress and micro quality continues to get better, it will be harder
to draw a distinction between micro and RF. RF fees will either drop, micro
fees will rise, or most likely, they will meet somewhere on the low end of
the scale.

So my strategy has been to shoot unique and original RM content, both
because it gives me the freedom to explore interesting subject matter and
most importantly, because most of what I shoot can never be, or compete with
RF or Micro. Simple, and it takes the guesswork out of it like you said.

The following is from a photo Blog that I think sums up the current state
quite well. In full disclosure it is written by a friend of mine, but we
didn't talk about this per se. It is from the recent New England ASPP panel
discussion ( http://shabustation.com/ )

"Some images are commodities and some are rare or hard to create. The
commodity market is driving prices down, so distinction is based on quality
The high production images may become the mainstay of macro, and the
commodity images will be the same in the micro market."

Thanks.

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T14:15:03Z

ICE is only a problem on Kodachrome slides or B&W negs. Perhaps some
agencies tell photographers to turn the feature off because they're
tired of getting Kodachrome scans where people left ICE on?

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM, dawn <dawn.campbell@...> wrote:

> Some stock agencies specifically preclude the use of Digital Ice......Alamy
> could be one of them. I can't recall but I remember being very surprised to
> read of this, as I also have a Nikon film scanner and Silverfast--both of
> which have Digital Ice.
>
> dawn
>
> 2009/11/24 <ycardozo@...>
>
>>
>>
>> I have Nikon's LS5000 which I think is the 35mm version of the 9000. You
>> definitely want to set it for ICE (to deal with dust and scratches). Then
>> take a very, very good look at skys. I am going through some old stock and
>> scans and have been surprised by the difference btw. scanned images and
>> todays
>> digital. Remember, scanned is 2nd generation. It will be a bit soft by
>> definition. You really need to sharpen it a bit (carefully, in photoshop).
>> But
>> even more important, you have to look carefully at the grain. I was
>> horrified to see how much grain there was in the sky in my perfectly
>> exposed,
>> sunny day shots. Blue tends to be grainy and scanned blue skys can have
>> shocking grain. Also, as was mentioned, scan at the largest resolution (50
>> mb). I
>> personally don't do any other adjustments other than ICE in a scan, under
>> the belief that the scanner's tools are like working with an axe while
>> Photoshop's tools are like working with a scalpel. Also, remember that the
>> scanner's tools are technology that is many years old.
>>
>> ------------------------
>> In a message dated 11/24/2009 5:01:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>> STOCKPHOTO@... writes:
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I just submitted test images to Alamy for QC, that were scanned film
>> images, and they were rejected and I'm wondering if it might be the way
>> I'm
>> using my scanner (I'm using a Nikon Coolscan 9000).
>>
>> Has anyone else scanned film for Alamy & if so, how are you setting the
>> scanner when you do it??
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Deborah
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T14:10:14Z

Some stock agencies specifically preclude the use of Digital Ice......Alamy
could be one of them. I can't recall but I remember being very surprised to
read of this, as I also have a Nikon film scanner and Silverfast--both of
which have Digital Ice.

dawn

2009/11/24 <ycardozo@...>

>
>
> I have Nikon's LS5000 which I think is the 35mm version of the 9000. You
> definitely want to set it for ICE (to deal with dust and scratches). Then
> take a very, very good look at skys. I am going through some old stock and
> scans and have been surprised by the difference btw. scanned images and
> todays
> digital. Remember, scanned is 2nd generation. It will be a bit soft by
> definition. You really need to sharpen it a bit (carefully, in photoshop).
> But
> even more important, you have to look carefully at the grain. I was
> horrified to see how much grain there was in the sky in my perfectly
> exposed,
> sunny day shots. Blue tends to be grainy and scanned blue skys can have
> shocking grain. Also, as was mentioned, scan at the largest resolution (50
> mb). I
> personally don't do any other adjustments other than ICE in a scan, under
> the belief that the scanner's tools are like working with an axe while
> Photoshop's tools are like working with a scalpel. Also, remember that the
> scanner's tools are technology that is many years old.
>
> ------------------------
> In a message dated 11/24/2009 5:01:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> STOCKPHOTO@... writes:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I just submitted test images to Alamy for QC, that were scanned film
> images, and they were rejected and I'm wondering if it might be the way
> I'm
> using my scanner (I'm using a Nikon Coolscan 9000).
>
> Has anyone else scanned film for Alamy & if so, how are you setting the
> scanner when you do it??
>
> Thank you,
> Deborah
>
>

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T13:58:44Z

Peter,

I was a bit surprised to read what you said about the Mac OS and ICE.
I'm on a Mac, have a Nikon 8000 and have scanned many Ektachrome
slides using ICE. (It doesn't do Kodachrome or B&W Negatives.) And
I've used it on 10.5.8.

Rich Green
http://www.rjgreenphoto.com/

On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Peter Bennett wrote:

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

Re: OT - procedure for retouching portraits

2009-11-24T13:55:57Z

Do your retouching in Photoshop on a 16 bit full-sized Tiff in Adobe RGB,
and keep your layers alive as you are working on it. You can't do most of
the retouching in ACR--you'll need to use Photoshop.

Once you are done editing your files, then you can flatten the file and save
it to a full-sized 8bit copy (keep the layered 16 bit files intact).
Flatten the file before converting to 8bit especially if using adjustment
layers in Photoshop. From there, you can save down to smaller files as
needed for Photoshelter or whatever.

Watch out when you are retouching that you aren't creating any unwanted
artifacts. I'm not sure what you are using--there are a few plugins on the
market

Portraiture by Imagenomic
http://www.imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

Portrait Professional
http://www.portraitprofessional.com/

Mama's Powders
http://www.photoshopmama.net/legalallpowders.html?reload

The latter sounds pretty gorky, they are pretty inexpensive, and they
work--she just won the cover contest for Professional Photographer mag:

<http://www.ppmag.com/current_issue/pdfs/1109/1109webcovercontest.pdf>

You can also retouch the old-fashioned way, smoothing the skin with the
clone tool set to a low opacity, sharpening the eyes, filling in the lashes,
whitening the teeth, maybe making the lips a bit redder, etc.:

Russell Brown (annoying but has some good information)
<http://www.creativepro.com/article/give-portrait-photos-spa-treatment>

hth
dawn

2009/11/24 John Fowler <john@...>

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

Re: Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T13:46:17Z

ICE is only available with the Nikon software, which when I last spoke to
Nikon is not available for MAC OSX (at least not 10.5). Really stunning when
you think about it. The Nikon software was crap anyway. I switched over to
Vuescan as well and it works quite well. Their version of ICE is called
Infrared clean.

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

From: <ycardozo@...>
Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>

I have Nikon's LS5000 which I think is the 35mm version of the 9000. You
definitely want to set it for ICE (to deal with dust and scratches).

Re: scanning film for alamy

2009-11-24T08:01:26Z

I have Nikon's LS5000 which I think is the 35mm version of the 9000. You
definitely want to set it for ICE (to deal with dust and scratches). Then
take a very, very good look at skys. I am going through some old stock and
scans and have been surprised by the difference btw. scanned images and todays
digital. Remember, scanned is 2nd generation. It will be a bit soft by
definition. You really need to sharpen it a bit (carefully, in photoshop). But
even more important, you have to look carefully at the grain. I was
horrified to see how much grain there was in the sky in my perfectly exposed,
sunny day shots. Blue tends to be grainy and scanned blue skys can have
shocking grain. Also, as was mentioned, scan at the largest resolution (50 mb). I
personally don't do any other adjustments other than ICE in a scan, under
the belief that the scanner's tools are like working with an axe while
Photoshop's tools are like working with a scalpel. Also, remember that the
scanner's tools are technology that is many years old.

------------------------
In a message dated 11/24/2009 5:01:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
STOCKPHOTO@... writes:

Hi All,

I just submitted test images to Alamy for QC, that were scanned film
images, and they were rejected and I'm wondering if it might be the way I'm
using my scanner (I'm using a Nikon Coolscan 9000).

Has anyone else scanned film for Alamy & if so, how are you setting the
scanner when you do it??

Thank you,
Deborah

Yvette Cardozo
14821 255 Ave SE
Issaquah, WA 98027
phone: (425) 391-0770
fax: (888) 726-8992
_http://www.cardozohirsch.com_ (http://www.cardozohirsch.com/)

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