Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How to photograph an oil painting
73 views
Skip to first unread message
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 29, 2013, 10:28:47 PM3/29/13
to
I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
The other problem I had was getting a perfectly rectangular image. Some
had a fisheye effect. Some had whatever the opposite of that is. Some
had fairly straight edges, but one side was longer than the opposite
one. I thought I had the camera centered and perpendicular, but
obviously not.
Most of my images are about 5-6 MB, even on the highest-resolution
settings. The S8200 has two hughest settings. The 16M setting says it's
4608x3456 with a compression ratio of about 1:8. The 16M* setting has
the same pixel count, but at a lower compression ratio of about 1:4. I
tried it at both settings. I could not tell the difference in either the
image quality of the image size.
Next, I asked a friend who is an avid amateur photographer. She has a
high end Nikon SLR. I don't recall the model number, but it's very
large. The lens is twice the size of my little camera.
The first few shots she took had the same glare and distortion problem
that I had.
To solve the glare problem, she propped the painting up on a stairway so
we could get it as perfectly vertical as possible. Then she closed all
the shutters and turned off all the lights. This was in the afternoon,
so there was still ambient light, but it was quite dim in the room. She
then set the camera on a tripod with the long exposure. We then held a
blanket up behind the camera to block all direct light. When she pushed
the shutter button, the camera took a shot that had the shuitter open
for about 4-5 seconds.
The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
On my computer screen, the measurements of the four sides are:
Left 7 1/2+
Right 7 3/4
Top 9 1/8
Bottom 9 1/4+
It looks like the camera was a little below and to the right of center.
We didn't measure it, but we did try to line it up by eye so that the
lens was dead center and pointing along a line that was perpendicular to
the face of the canvas.
I guess we need to reshoot. I'd appreciate any help getting it right the
next time -- short of hiring a professional.
painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
The other problem I had was getting a perfectly rectangular image. Some
had a fisheye effect. Some had whatever the opposite of that is. Some
had fairly straight edges, but one side was longer than the opposite
one. I thought I had the camera centered and perpendicular, but
obviously not.
Most of my images are about 5-6 MB, even on the highest-resolution
settings. The S8200 has two hughest settings. The 16M setting says it's
4608x3456 with a compression ratio of about 1:8. The 16M* setting has
the same pixel count, but at a lower compression ratio of about 1:4. I
tried it at both settings. I could not tell the difference in either the
image quality of the image size.
Next, I asked a friend who is an avid amateur photographer. She has a
high end Nikon SLR. I don't recall the model number, but it's very
large. The lens is twice the size of my little camera.
The first few shots she took had the same glare and distortion problem
that I had.
To solve the glare problem, she propped the painting up on a stairway so
we could get it as perfectly vertical as possible. Then she closed all
the shutters and turned off all the lights. This was in the afternoon,
so there was still ambient light, but it was quite dim in the room. She
then set the camera on a tripod with the long exposure. We then held a
blanket up behind the camera to block all direct light. When she pushed
the shutter button, the camera took a shot that had the shuitter open
for about 4-5 seconds.
The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
On my computer screen, the measurements of the four sides are:
Left 7 1/2+
Right 7 3/4
Top 9 1/8
Bottom 9 1/4+
It looks like the camera was a little below and to the right of center.
We didn't measure it, but we did try to line it up by eye so that the
lens was dead center and pointing along a line that was perpendicular to
the face of the canvas.
I guess we need to reshoot. I'd appreciate any help getting it right the
next time -- short of hiring a professional.
nospam
Mar 29, 2013, 10:51:40 PM3/29/13
to
In article <o7hcl89movqka3joj...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
probably the easiest.
<http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
you can fix that in photoshop. there are several ways. the crop tool is
> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
probably the easiest.
<http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 29, 2013, 11:26:01 PM3/29/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:51:40 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Well, that's certainly a lot easier than getting out my level, square,
protractor, tape measure, etc. and trying to square up the camera.
Is this pretty standard practice these days? That is, do professional
photographers not worry about being perfectly square and just fix it
later?
I don't have Photoshop, so I couldn't try the technique. I did install
Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
wrote:
protractor, tape measure, etc. and trying to square up the camera.
Is this pretty standard practice these days? That is, do professional
photographers not worry about being perfectly square and just fix it
later?
I don't have Photoshop, so I couldn't try the technique. I did install
Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
Savageduck
Mar 29, 2013, 11:35:56 PM3/29/13
to
<
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/correcting-image-distortion-noise.html
>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Mar 29, 2013, 11:43:09 PM3/29/13
to
In article <2klcl81b1tgmic9ng...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
possible.
> I don't have Photoshop, so I couldn't try the technique.
then how did you get a 130 meg .psd file? was that your friend with the
nikon slr? use her system.
> I did install
> Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
> tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
> work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
> Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
don't even waste your time with the gimp. it's roughly where photoshop
was ten years ago.
photoshop elements is around $50-60 if you shop around. it doesn't have
everything in the full photoshop but you don't need all of that. it has
the commonly used stuff and i'm pretty sure it has perspective crop.
or, you can download photoshop (full or elements) and use it for a 30
day trial.
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
> >> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
> >> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
> >
> >you can fix that in photoshop. there are several ways. the crop tool is
> >probably the easiest.
> >
> ><http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
> >ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
>
> Well, that's certainly a lot easier than getting out my level, square,
> protractor, tape measure, etc. and trying to square up the camera.
>
> Is this pretty standard practice these days? That is, do professional
> photographers not worry about being perfectly square and just fix it
> later?
it's best to get it right in the camera but sometimes that's not always
> >> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
> >> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
> >> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
> >
> >you can fix that in photoshop. there are several ways. the crop tool is
> >probably the easiest.
> >
> ><http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
> >ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
>
> Well, that's certainly a lot easier than getting out my level, square,
> protractor, tape measure, etc. and trying to square up the camera.
>
> Is this pretty standard practice these days? That is, do professional
> photographers not worry about being perfectly square and just fix it
> later?
possible.
> I don't have Photoshop, so I couldn't try the technique.
nikon slr? use her system.
> I did install
> Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
> tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
> work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
> Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
was ten years ago.
photoshop elements is around $50-60 if you shop around. it doesn't have
everything in the full photoshop but you don't need all of that. it has
the commonly used stuff and i'm pretty sure it has perspective crop.
or, you can download photoshop (full or elements) and use it for a 30
day trial.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 12:04:21 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:43:09 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <2klcl81b1tgmic9ng...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
>> >> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
>> >> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
>> >
>> >you can fix that in photoshop. there are several ways. the crop tool is
>> >probably the easiest.
>> >
>> ><http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
>> >ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
>>
>> Well, that's certainly a lot easier than getting out my level, square,
>> protractor, tape measure, etc. and trying to square up the camera.
>>
>> Is this pretty standard practice these days? That is, do professional
>> photographers not worry about being perfectly square and just fix it
>> later?
>
>it's best to get it right in the camera but sometimes that's not always
>possible.
OK
>> I don't have Photoshop, so I couldn't try the technique.
>
>then how did you get a 130 meg .psd file? was that your friend with the
>nikon slr? use her system.
Yes, she sent it to me. She has Photoshop, but I've already used up a
lot of her time, so I was hoping to fix this myself. Plus I was trying
to learn something. If I run aground, I'm sure she'll help me.
>> I did install
>> Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
>> tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
>> work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
>> Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
>
>don't even waste your time with the gimp. it's roughly where photoshop
>was ten years ago.
I looked at 4-5 tutorials on changing perspective in Gimp. They all took
8-10 steps and the screen shots were quite different from what I saw on
my screen. I have the latest release (2.8). And even though I couldn't
get it to work, it looked like it would be very easy to mess up the X:Y
ratio using the Gimp procedure.
The procedure in the PS tutorial you sent was 2 steps and very
intuitive.
I guess that's a long-winded way of saying that you appear to be right.
:-)
>photoshop elements is around $50-60 if you shop around. it doesn't have
>everything in the full photoshop but you don't need all of that. it has
>the commonly used stuff and i'm pretty sure it has perspective crop.
$60 would be worth it. Thanks.
wrote:
>In article <2klcl81b1tgmic9ng...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
>> >> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
>> >> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
>> >
>> >you can fix that in photoshop. there are several ways. the crop tool is
>> >probably the easiest.
>> >
>> ><http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
>> >ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
>>
>> Well, that's certainly a lot easier than getting out my level, square,
>> protractor, tape measure, etc. and trying to square up the camera.
>>
>> Is this pretty standard practice these days? That is, do professional
>> photographers not worry about being perfectly square and just fix it
>> later?
>
>it's best to get it right in the camera but sometimes that's not always
>possible.
>> I don't have Photoshop, so I couldn't try the technique.
>
>then how did you get a 130 meg .psd file? was that your friend with the
>nikon slr? use her system.
lot of her time, so I was hoping to fix this myself. Plus I was trying
to learn something. If I run aground, I'm sure she'll help me.
>> I did install
>> Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
>> tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
>> work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
>> Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
>
>don't even waste your time with the gimp. it's roughly where photoshop
>was ten years ago.
8-10 steps and the screen shots were quite different from what I saw on
my screen. I have the latest release (2.8). And even though I couldn't
get it to work, it looked like it would be very easy to mess up the X:Y
ratio using the Gimp procedure.
The procedure in the PS tutorial you sent was 2 steps and very
intuitive.
I guess that's a long-winded way of saying that you appear to be right.
:-)
>photoshop elements is around $50-60 if you shop around. it doesn't have
>everything in the full photoshop but you don't need all of that. it has
>the commonly used stuff and i'm pretty sure it has perspective crop.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 12:04:51 AM3/30/13
to
RichA
Mar 30, 2013, 12:57:10 AM3/30/13
to
On Mar 29, 9:28 pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
>
> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
>
> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
>
> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
>
> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
Robert Coe
Mar 30, 2013, 1:10:39 AM3/30/13
to
Bob
Tony Cooper
Mar 30, 2013, 1:13:38 AM3/30/13
to
Camera Distortion and also the ability to correct distortion in
Image>Transform>Perspective. Photoshop CS6 has Filter>Lens
Correction. Your problem can be solved in either program.
I understand not wanting to impose on your friend, but you have a
rather simple problem to correct. It doesn't seem worth it to buy,
or even download a trial version, a program to do this unless you
think you might be interested in using the program for other things.
I would seem that buying your friend dinner or a gift card and having
that person use their program would be a good solution. But, it's
your decision.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Savageduck
Mar 30, 2013, 1:42:24 AM3/30/13
to
features found in Photoshop "Lens Correction" filter. In Elements you
use the filter, "Correct Camera Distortion".
If you open the image file in Photoshop Elements you would select from
the menu "Filter" and "Correct Camera Distortion".
This will open a fresh window with the image with a grid overlay.
You will be presented with a set of adjustment sliders; one for
adjusting "barrel" & "pincushion" distortion; one for applying or
removing vignette.Then there are two for perspective control, one for
Vertical perspective, and one for horizontal perspective.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nick c
Mar 30, 2013, 2:01:07 AM3/30/13
to
new trick, pro's of olden days used this set-up and I've used it myself
many times.
1- Mount the painting on a chair or any mount that allows the painting
to stand vertically. I suggest using a chair for reasons that will follow.
2- Mount (and set-up) the camera on a tripod.
3- Align the painting in a manner that will be axially aligned with the
center-line of the camera lens/sensor.
4- Between the camera and the painting, on both sides of the
camera/painting, place two chairs (small 5 or 6 foot household
stepladders ladders will also work well) so that the backside of the
chairs are facing inboard. In other words, construct a canopy with a
bed-sheet.
5- Cover the entire set-up so that no spot-light sees the surface of the
painting. Do not allow the bed-sheet to sag in the middle. Sometimes an
ironing-board (broom and mop handles will also work well) may be all you
need to support the bed-sheet canopy and prevent it from sagging.
Wash-line clothespins may be needed to tighten the sides of the
bed-sheets to the chairs (or ladders).
6- Flood the outside area with light (from flash, windows, bulbs, or
fluorescents). I've used flash (for small objects) and sunlight
(daylight) streaming from close by windows for objects such as
paintings. All light must come from the outside of the canopy.
7- Set your exposure setting and photo framing for the camera you intend
to use. When ready to take the photo, set the camera to auto /time/
exposure or use a camera chord to fire the camera.
Note:- All light from the outside of the sheet should flood the interior
area of the sheeted canopy. Finish cropping and sizing using computer
software that you have access to and know how to use.
Floyd L. Davidson
Mar 30, 2013, 2:01:58 AM3/30/13
to
works of art.
I quite often make photographs of etched whale baleen in
locations where the only choice I have is to use a
flash. One polarizing filter on the camera and another
in front of the flash is a very useful combination.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
David Taylor
Mar 30, 2013, 3:54:07 AM3/30/13
to
On 30/03/2013 03:26, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
[]
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
[]
> I don't have Photoshop, so I couldn't try the technique. I did install
> Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
> tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
> work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
> Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
Paint Shop Pro has an excellent perspective correction tool.
> Gimp awhile back, but could never quite get the hand of it. I found a
> tutorial for doing the same thing in Gimp, but I couldn't get it to
> work. Is there another image editing program that's cheaper that
> Photoshop and easier to use (more intuitive) than Gimp?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
James Silverton
Mar 30, 2013, 8:51:18 AM3/30/13
to
filter until removal of reflection is best.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
David Taylor
Mar 30, 2013, 9:27:37 AM3/30/13
to
On 30/03/2013 12:51, James Silverton wrote:
[]
straight on from a flash gun.
[]
> Light is partially polarized on reflection. You can rotate a polarizing
> filter until removal of reflection is best.
But it's not applicable in this case where the problem was light
> filter until removal of reflection is best.
straight on from a flash gun.
Doug McDonald
Mar 30, 2013, 9:36:38 AM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/2013 12:10 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> : No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
>
> How often does one encounter polarized light indoors?
>
In every reflection off of glass or plastic or ceramic;
> : No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
>
> How often does one encounter polarized light indoors?
>
anything not metal. Also LCD TV screens.
Doug McDonald
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 10:21:19 AM3/30/13
to
little research and found this article that suggests that it can
interfere with the autofocus.
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polarizer
Assuming a polarizer is a useful tool, it might be a good gift for my
friend for her help. I did a search and found a wide range of products
from about $8 to well of $100.
Do you have a recommendation for a particular product? She has a
high-end Nikon SLR. I don't know the model number, but can get it if
needed. Will one polarizer fit all or most lenses?
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 10:27:41 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:01:58 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:
Are two necessary? I thought reflected light was already polarized
parallel to the place of reflection. I polarizing filter at right angles
to that plane should filter out all or most of the reflected light, no?
I assume the lens filter fits over the lens, like any filter, right? How
does the one over the flash work?
wrote:
parallel to the place of reflection. I polarizing filter at right angles
to that plane should filter out all or most of the reflected light, no?
I assume the lens filter fits over the lens, like any filter, right? How
does the one over the flash work?
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 10:28:56 AM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:27:37 +0000, David Taylor
<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>On 30/03/2013 12:51, James Silverton wrote:
>[]
>> Light is partially polarized on reflection. You can rotate a polarizing
>> filter until removal of reflection is best.
>
>But it's not applicable in this case where the problem was light
>straight on from a flash gun.
Is light only polarized if reflected at an angle?
<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>On 30/03/2013 12:51, James Silverton wrote:
>[]
>> Light is partially polarized on reflection. You can rotate a polarizing
>> filter until removal of reflection is best.
>
>But it's not applicable in this case where the problem was light
>straight on from a flash gun.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 10:30:15 AM3/30/13
to
My polarized sunglasses effectively cancle the glare of the sun off the
hood of the car. Is that not metal because of the paint?
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 10:32:13 AM3/30/13
to
Do you have an opinion as to which one is better for non-professional
use?
One advantage to Elements is that if I ever moved up to PS, the learning
curve would be less, though I probably wouldn't.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 10:35:16 AM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:13:38 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:04:51 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
><JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:35:56 -0700, Savageduck
>><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2013-03-29 19:51:40 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <o7hcl89movqka3joj...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>>>> Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
>>>>> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
>>>>> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
>>>>
>>>> you can fix that in photoshop. there are several ways. the crop tool is
>>>> probably the easiest.
>>>>
>>>> <http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
>>>> ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
>>>
>>>Actually the "Lens Correction" filter is better.
>>><
>>>http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/correcting-image-distortion-noise.html
>>
>>Do you know if that is included in Elements?
>
>Elements 9.0 (which is not the latest version) has Filter>Correct
>Camera Distortion and also the ability to correct distortion in
>Image>Transform>Perspective. Photoshop CS6 has Filter>Lens
>Correction. Your problem can be solved in either program.
OK, thanks.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:04:51 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
><JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:35:56 -0700, Savageduck
>><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2013-03-29 19:51:40 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <o7hcl89movqka3joj...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>>>> Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
>>>>> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
>>>>> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
>>>>
>>>> you can fix that in photoshop. there are several ways. the crop tool is
>>>> probably the easiest.
>>>>
>>>> <http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs5/gs03-correcting-perspecti
>>>> ve-with-the-crop-tool/>
>>>
>>>Actually the "Lens Correction" filter is better.
>>><
>>>http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/correcting-image-distortion-noise.html
>>
>>Do you know if that is included in Elements?
>
>Elements 9.0 (which is not the latest version) has Filter>Correct
>Camera Distortion and also the ability to correct distortion in
>Image>Transform>Perspective. Photoshop CS6 has Filter>Lens
>Correction. Your problem can be solved in either program.
>I understand not wanting to impose on your friend, but you have a
>rather simple problem to correct. It doesn't seem worth it to buy,
>or even download a trial version, a program to do this unless you
>think you might be interested in using the program for other things.
posting is to learn something. I take a fair number of photographs of
the family. Some of them could use some tweaking. If I thought I could
learn to use these cool tools, it might be fun.
>I would seem that buying your friend dinner or a gift card and having
>that person use their program would be a good solution. But, it's
>your decision.
filter -- if I can ever figure out which one. Maybe it's time for a trip
to the local camera store.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 10:38:25 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:01:07 -0700, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
wrote:
That's a great idea. I did do something a little like that, but
constructing a whole tent would have been fairly easy.
A sheet is probably the right opacity. We used some heavy flack velvet
that she had laying around from a table display. It let almost no light
through.
wrote:
constructing a whole tent would have been fairly easy.
A sheet is probably the right opacity. We used some heavy flack velvet
that she had laying around from a table display. It let almost no light
through.
David Taylor
Mar 30, 2013, 10:42:08 AM3/30/13
to
an angle. Look up Brewster angle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster%27s_angle
with an example here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Poloriser-demo.jpg
The glass is at an angle to the camera lens.
David Taylor
Mar 30, 2013, 10:46:36 AM3/30/13
to
On 30/03/2013 14:32, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
[]
US, and I have Paint Shop Pro X which is more than good enough for the
job. Likely you could find this older version (works at least up to
Windows-7, and likely Windows-8, but I've not tested it there) at a
lower price. Equally, some cameras and scanners may come with a "free"
copy of elements.
[]
> I see that it's about $60, which is about the same price as PS Elements.
> Do you have an opinion as to which one is better for non-professional
> use?
>
> One advantage to Elements is that if I ever moved up to PS, the learning
> curve would be less, though I probably wouldn't.
In the UK Adobe products are priced rather higher than they are in the
> Do you have an opinion as to which one is better for non-professional
> use?
>
> One advantage to Elements is that if I ever moved up to PS, the learning
> curve would be less, though I probably wouldn't.
US, and I have Paint Shop Pro X which is more than good enough for the
job. Likely you could find this older version (works at least up to
Windows-7, and likely Windows-8, but I've not tested it there) at a
lower price. Equally, some cameras and scanners may come with a "free"
copy of elements.
Tony Cooper
Mar 30, 2013, 10:51:08 AM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:35:16 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
A trip to the candy...err...camera store is never a bad idea. A gift
card for the camera store, or a filter, would be a nice thing to do.
Personally, I'd prefer the gift card because I like to pick out my own
things. Maybe a $25 gift card and let her pick out the filter (which
will cost more than that) but she can decide how much more she'll have
to put in it.
card for the camera store, or a filter, would be a nice thing to do.
Personally, I'd prefer the gift card because I like to pick out my own
things. Maybe a $25 gift card and let her pick out the filter (which
will cost more than that) but she can decide how much more she'll have
to put in it.
Tony Cooper
Mar 30, 2013, 11:01:21 AM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:35:16 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
I have both Elements 9.0 and Photoshop CS6. I use CS6 for almost all
editing because I started on Photoshop and worked my way up through
the upgrades.
I bought Elements 9.0 for my daughter and installed it on my own
computer so I can help her learn the product and provide screen shots
of various editing steps.
With some exceptions, I could edit in Elements 9.0 and do everything I
do in CS6. 99.9% of my editing could be done in Elements. The only
reason I don't use Elements instead of CS6 is habit. I'm more
comfortable in the familiar interface.
Elements is an excellent program to start with, and to work with
long-term. The basics of editing are simple to do in Elements, and
there are so many online tutorials available that progressing into
advanced editing is pretty simple. In many cases, an online tutorial
for a full Photoshop (CSX) set of steps can be followed and done in
Elements with just some familiarity with the differences of where what
is.
editing because I started on Photoshop and worked my way up through
the upgrades.
I bought Elements 9.0 for my daughter and installed it on my own
computer so I can help her learn the product and provide screen shots
of various editing steps.
With some exceptions, I could edit in Elements 9.0 and do everything I
do in CS6. 99.9% of my editing could be done in Elements. The only
reason I don't use Elements instead of CS6 is habit. I'm more
comfortable in the familiar interface.
Elements is an excellent program to start with, and to work with
long-term. The basics of editing are simple to do in Elements, and
there are so many online tutorials available that progressing into
advanced editing is pretty simple. In many cases, an online tutorial
for a full Photoshop (CSX) set of steps can be followed and done in
Elements with just some familiarity with the differences of where what
is.
James Silverton
Mar 30, 2013, 11:15:06 AM3/30/13
to
various versions of Elements and now the latest one that I find does
most editing that I would want. I have not bought each new version of
Elements; I think I have used three of them starting with the very first.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 11:37:52 AM3/30/13
to
could do in Elements, but can't?
Have you ever used Photoshop Pro? Do you know how it compares to
Elements?
James Silverton
Mar 30, 2013, 11:49:49 AM3/30/13
to
Photoshop Pro and I doubt I ever will, given its expense and apparent
complications.
Tony Cooper
Mar 30, 2013, 11:51:20 AM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:37:52 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
You can't work in LAB mode in Elements, but you can in the full
Photoshop versions. That's not a deal-killer for most people. In
fact, many - if not most - Photoshop users are unaware of what can be
done in LAB mode. The big difference used to be the lack of Layer
Masks in Elements, but new versions of Elements do include Layer
Masks.
Content Aware Fill is limited in Elements 9.0 compared to CS6, but I
don't know what's been added in later versions of Elements. Elements
9.0 has the Spot Healing Brush that fills Content Aware, but that's a
bit limited for major changes. Nice for taking out a power line or a
bit foreground trash, though.
>Have you ever used Photoshop Pro? Do you know how it compares to
>Elements?
Photoshop versions. That's not a deal-killer for most people. In
fact, many - if not most - Photoshop users are unaware of what can be
done in LAB mode. The big difference used to be the lack of Layer
Masks in Elements, but new versions of Elements do include Layer
Masks.
Content Aware Fill is limited in Elements 9.0 compared to CS6, but I
don't know what's been added in later versions of Elements. Elements
9.0 has the Spot Healing Brush that fills Content Aware, but that's a
bit limited for major changes. Nice for taking out a power line or a
bit foreground trash, though.
>Have you ever used Photoshop Pro? Do you know how it compares to
>Elements?
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 11:55:41 AM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:49:49 -0400, James Silverton
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
...snip...
>>>> Elements is an excellent program to start with, and to work with
>>>> long-term. The basics of editing are simple to do in Elements, and
>>>> there are so many online tutorials available that progressing into
>>>> advanced editing is pretty simple. In many cases, an online tutorial
>>>> for a full Photoshop (CSX) set of steps can be followed and done in
>>>> Elements with just some familiarity with the differences of where what
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>> I'm far from a professional (as may well be obvious) but I've used
>>> various versions of Elements and now the latest one that I find does
>>> most editing that I would want. I have not bought each new version of
>>> Elements; I think I have used three of them starting with the very first.
>>
>> You say "most editing". Are there some editing takss that you wish you
>> could do in Elements, but can't?
>>
>> Have you ever used Photoshop Pro? Do you know how it compares to
>> Elements?
>>
>All I can say is Elements seems adequate for me. I have never used
>Photoshop Pro and I doubt I ever will, given its expense and apparent
>complications.
What complications?
As for expense, isn't PS Pro about the same price as Elements ($50-70)?
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
...snip...
>>>> Elements is an excellent program to start with, and to work with
>>>> long-term. The basics of editing are simple to do in Elements, and
>>>> there are so many online tutorials available that progressing into
>>>> advanced editing is pretty simple. In many cases, an online tutorial
>>>> for a full Photoshop (CSX) set of steps can be followed and done in
>>>> Elements with just some familiarity with the differences of where what
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>> I'm far from a professional (as may well be obvious) but I've used
>>> various versions of Elements and now the latest one that I find does
>>> most editing that I would want. I have not bought each new version of
>>> Elements; I think I have used three of them starting with the very first.
>>
>> You say "most editing". Are there some editing takss that you wish you
>> could do in Elements, but can't?
>>
>> Have you ever used Photoshop Pro? Do you know how it compares to
>> Elements?
>>
>All I can say is Elements seems adequate for me. I have never used
>Photoshop Pro and I doubt I ever will, given its expense and apparent
>complications.
As for expense, isn't PS Pro about the same price as Elements ($50-70)?
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 12:00:30 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:51:20 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
... snip ...
>>>> Elements is an excellent program to start with, and to work with
>>>> long-term. The basics of editing are simple to do in Elements, and
>>>> there are so many online tutorials available that progressing into
>>>> advanced editing is pretty simple. In many cases, an online tutorial
>>>> for a full Photoshop (CSX) set of steps can be followed and done in
>>>> Elements with just some familiarity with the differences of where what
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>I'm far from a professional (as may well be obvious) but I've used
>>>various versions of Elements and now the latest one that I find does
>>>most editing that I would want. I have not bought each new version of
>>>Elements; I think I have used three of them starting with the very first.
>>
>>You say "most editing". Are there some editing takss that you wish you
>>could do in Elements, but can't?
>
>You can't work in LAB mode in Elements, but you can in the full
>Photoshop versions. That's not a deal-killer for most people. In
>fact, many - if not most - Photoshop users are unaware of what can be
>done in LAB mode. The big difference used to be the lack of Layer
>Masks in Elements, but new versions of Elements do include Layer
>Masks.
>
>Content Aware Fill is limited in Elements 9.0 compared to CS6, but I
>don't know what's been added in later versions of Elements. Elements
>9.0 has the Spot Healing Brush that fills Content Aware, but that's a
>bit limited for major changes. Nice for taking out a power line or a
>bit foreground trash, though.
It sounds like it would do anything I would ever need. I did have a very
cute photo of the grandkids last fall that was perfect for a Christmas
card except for a piece of grass in the foreground. I asked a friend who
has Photoshop to take it out, which she did. It would have been nice to
have been able to do that myself. A lot of photos I take need a little
tweaking, such as removing glare.
Thanks for the insight.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
... snip ...
>>>> Elements is an excellent program to start with, and to work with
>>>> long-term. The basics of editing are simple to do in Elements, and
>>>> there are so many online tutorials available that progressing into
>>>> advanced editing is pretty simple. In many cases, an online tutorial
>>>> for a full Photoshop (CSX) set of steps can be followed and done in
>>>> Elements with just some familiarity with the differences of where what
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>I'm far from a professional (as may well be obvious) but I've used
>>>various versions of Elements and now the latest one that I find does
>>>most editing that I would want. I have not bought each new version of
>>>Elements; I think I have used three of them starting with the very first.
>>
>>You say "most editing". Are there some editing takss that you wish you
>>could do in Elements, but can't?
>
>You can't work in LAB mode in Elements, but you can in the full
>Photoshop versions. That's not a deal-killer for most people. In
>fact, many - if not most - Photoshop users are unaware of what can be
>done in LAB mode. The big difference used to be the lack of Layer
>Masks in Elements, but new versions of Elements do include Layer
>Masks.
>
>Content Aware Fill is limited in Elements 9.0 compared to CS6, but I
>don't know what's been added in later versions of Elements. Elements
>9.0 has the Spot Healing Brush that fills Content Aware, but that's a
>bit limited for major changes. Nice for taking out a power line or a
>bit foreground trash, though.
cute photo of the grandkids last fall that was perfect for a Christmas
card except for a piece of grass in the foreground. I asked a friend who
has Photoshop to take it out, which she did. It would have been nice to
have been able to do that myself. A lot of photos I take need a little
tweaking, such as removing glare.
Thanks for the insight.
James Silverton
Mar 30, 2013, 12:04:08 PM3/30/13
to
order of magnitude on price?
Savageduck
Mar 30, 2013, 12:09:58 PM3/30/13
to
unfamiliar with. Those of us who have used Photoshop since the pre CS
days, see few complications.
> As for expense, isn't PS Pro about the same price as Elements ($50-70)?
First, there is no "PS Pro" the current full version of Photoshop is
CS6 (CS = "Creative Suite") and there are two versions of that, CS6
and CS6 Extended (If you need to do 3D work).
CS6 standard has an MSRP of $699, CS6 Extended is $999.
An upgrade from CS5 is $299.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Tony Cooper
Mar 30, 2013, 12:39:43 PM3/30/13
to
information. "PS Pro" is "Paint Shop Pro" by Corel. It used to be
simply "Paint Shop" by Jasc Software and was a free download yonks
ago. Corel bought it, and that seems to be the kiss of death for any
good program. I used Paint Shop before I started on Photoshop. It
was a good program at the time.
PS Pro lists for $99.99 at Corel's site, but they are now offering it
at $69.99 for a (supposedly) limited time. I'm sure better prices are
available online or at eBay.
I haven't used it for many years, and can't compare it to Elements.
However, I'd go with the leader - Adobe - just for the plethora of
tutorials on Adobe stuff. There are PSP tutorials, but not as many or
as good.
Tony Cooper
Mar 30, 2013, 12:45:04 PM3/30/13
to
spot on images. There's no color or structure in that spot on the
image. It's like a hole in the image. What you can do, in many or
most cases, is clone something over that hole.
Those that like to shoot cars at car shows have to deal with glare (or
"blow-out") quite a bit. If it's in the image, cloning is the usual
solution. Taking out a trash can is dead simple with the clone tool
or a content aware tool. No so, blow-out.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 12:45:57 PM3/30/13
to
got a little lazy.
My point was that Elements is about the same price as Paint Shop Pro and
I was trying to fons out if they are roughly comparable in function and
ease of use.
nospam
Mar 30, 2013, 12:46:33 PM3/30/13
to
In article <7tsdl85qcntp8j09q...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
if the camera does not have a beam splitter, which p&s and mirrorless
cameras do not, then you can use either type of polarizer.
however, if the camera has a beam splitter, which slrs do, then you
need a circular polarizer. you can use a linear polarizer on a camera
with a beam splitter in some cases, but it's generally not a good idea.
circular polarizers, not surprisingly, cost more than linear ones.
> http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polarizer
>
> Assuming a polarizer is a useful tool, it might be a good gift for my
> friend for her help. I did a search and found a wide range of products
> from about $8 to well of $100.
she might already have one, and keep in mind you get what you pay for.
an $8 polarizer (or a cheap filter of any kind) is crap and ruins the
advantages of expensive lenses that probably cost 100x that. it's also
very likely that it's a linear polarizer, so it would not be a good
choice for several reasons.
also, $100 is mid-range. polarizers can be more money, especially for
larger sized ones. $300-400 is not unusual for the top of the line
ones.
> Do you have a recommendation for a particular product? She has a
> high-end Nikon SLR. I don't know the model number, but can get it if
> needed. Will one polarizer fit all or most lenses?
filters come in different sizes, to fit lenses of different diameters.
they also come in different quality, plus the circular/linear i
mentioned above.
ideally, you match the size, but because some people have more than one
lens and which take different size filters, they get filters to fit the
largest diameter lens and use step-up rings for the other lenses.
this works, but often prevents using a lens hood when using the rings
plus it's a pain when switching between lenses, so it's not ideal. on
the other hand, getting a polarizer for each lens can be very
expensive, but it's not that big of a deal for less expensive filters.
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 29, 9:28�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
> >> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
> >>
> >> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
> >> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
> >>
> >> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
> >> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
> >> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
> >> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
> >> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
> >
> >No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
>
> When you said that, my immediate reaction was "Of course!". Then I did a
> little research and found this article that suggests that it can
> interfere with the autofocus.
there are two types of polarizers, linear and circular.
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 29, 9:28�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
> >> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
> >>
> >> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
> >> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
> >>
> >> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
> >> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
> >> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
> >> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
> >> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
> >
> >No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
>
> When you said that, my immediate reaction was "Of course!". Then I did a
> little research and found this article that suggests that it can
> interfere with the autofocus.
if the camera does not have a beam splitter, which p&s and mirrorless
cameras do not, then you can use either type of polarizer.
however, if the camera has a beam splitter, which slrs do, then you
need a circular polarizer. you can use a linear polarizer on a camera
with a beam splitter in some cases, but it's generally not a good idea.
circular polarizers, not surprisingly, cost more than linear ones.
> http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polarizer
>
> Assuming a polarizer is a useful tool, it might be a good gift for my
> friend for her help. I did a search and found a wide range of products
> from about $8 to well of $100.
an $8 polarizer (or a cheap filter of any kind) is crap and ruins the
advantages of expensive lenses that probably cost 100x that. it's also
very likely that it's a linear polarizer, so it would not be a good
choice for several reasons.
also, $100 is mid-range. polarizers can be more money, especially for
larger sized ones. $300-400 is not unusual for the top of the line
ones.
> Do you have a recommendation for a particular product? She has a
> high-end Nikon SLR. I don't know the model number, but can get it if
> needed. Will one polarizer fit all or most lenses?
they also come in different quality, plus the circular/linear i
mentioned above.
ideally, you match the size, but because some people have more than one
lens and which take different size filters, they get filters to fit the
largest diameter lens and use step-up rings for the other lenses.
this works, but often prevents using a lens hood when using the rings
plus it's a pain when switching between lenses, so it's not ideal. on
the other hand, getting a polarizer for each lens can be very
expensive, but it's not that big of a deal for less expensive filters.
nospam
Mar 30, 2013, 12:46:37 PM3/30/13
to
In article <ck2el85omqklj26rb...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
find it on sale, which it is very frequently, generally around $50-60.
it's also possible to get elements for free because it's bundled with
hardware, such as scanners and printers. you might not get the latest
version but that isn't a big deal especially since it's free.
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> As for expense, isn't PS Pro about the same price as Elements ($50-70)?
the full photoshop is about $600. photoshop elements is $99 unless you
> As for expense, isn't PS Pro about the same price as Elements ($50-70)?
find it on sale, which it is very frequently, generally around $50-60.
it's also possible to get elements for free because it's bundled with
hardware, such as scanners and printers. you might not get the latest
version but that isn't a big deal especially since it's free.
nospam
Mar 30, 2013, 12:46:39 PM3/30/13
to
In article <7otdl8p88eiafgp2d...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
however, i'd *highly* recommend not getting either one. instead, get
adobe lightroom, without question.
lightroom does most of people need to do for adjusting images
(exposure, colour balance, sharpness, etc.), plus it also catalogues
all your photos making it easy to find certain images among the
zillions of images you've shot.
if that's not enough, you can also create web pages, books, slide shows
and print out images in various formats. it also can directly upload to
various services such as flickr.
one of the best parts about lightroom is that it's non-destructive. you
can make changes and revert without worry, even months later. for
instance, you can crop an image and decide that you want to un-crop
what you removed some months earlier.
another useful feature is that you can apply the same changes to
multiple images. for example, if you shoot a bunch of photos in the
same conditions, you can adjust one image and apply those changes to
the rest. you don't need to work on each image individually (but you
can if you want).
i used to use photoshop but now i do nearly everything in lightroom.
it's *so* much easier and takes far less time to do stuff.
and lightroom can do perspective correction similar to the lens
correction tool in photoshop:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMfem2yeZhs>
photoshop is better for extensive retouching, but it's rare that it's
needed over what's in lightroom. in those cases, lightroom can
round-trip a photo to photoshop (ideally) or another image editor and
it tracks the changes for you.
> One advantage to Elements is that if I ever moved up to PS, the learning
> curve would be less, though I probably wouldn't.
only if you turn pro will you need the full photoshop, but as i said,
lightroom is the way to go.
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >Paint Shop Pro has an excellent perspective correction tool.
>
> I see that it's about $60, which is about the same price as PS Elements.
> Do you have an opinion as to which one is better for non-professional
> use?
of those two, photoshop elements.
> >Paint Shop Pro has an excellent perspective correction tool.
>
> I see that it's about $60, which is about the same price as PS Elements.
> Do you have an opinion as to which one is better for non-professional
> use?
however, i'd *highly* recommend not getting either one. instead, get
adobe lightroom, without question.
lightroom does most of people need to do for adjusting images
(exposure, colour balance, sharpness, etc.), plus it also catalogues
all your photos making it easy to find certain images among the
zillions of images you've shot.
if that's not enough, you can also create web pages, books, slide shows
and print out images in various formats. it also can directly upload to
various services such as flickr.
one of the best parts about lightroom is that it's non-destructive. you
can make changes and revert without worry, even months later. for
instance, you can crop an image and decide that you want to un-crop
what you removed some months earlier.
another useful feature is that you can apply the same changes to
multiple images. for example, if you shoot a bunch of photos in the
same conditions, you can adjust one image and apply those changes to
the rest. you don't need to work on each image individually (but you
can if you want).
i used to use photoshop but now i do nearly everything in lightroom.
it's *so* much easier and takes far less time to do stuff.
and lightroom can do perspective correction similar to the lens
correction tool in photoshop:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMfem2yeZhs>
photoshop is better for extensive retouching, but it's rare that it's
needed over what's in lightroom. in those cases, lightroom can
round-trip a photo to photoshop (ideally) or another image editor and
it tracks the changes for you.
> One advantage to Elements is that if I ever moved up to PS, the learning
> curve would be less, though I probably wouldn't.
lightroom is the way to go.
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 12:47:25 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:04:08 -0400, James Silverton
Sorry, it was a mental typo. I meant Paint Shop Pro.
But if it annoys you so, why not just ignore it?
But if it annoys you so, why not just ignore it?
Robert Coe
Mar 30, 2013, 12:54:08 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:27:41 -0700, Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid>
wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:01:58 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Yes. But if the source of the light is a flash unit, how are you going to
calibrate the rotation of the filter? It's one thing if the light is constant,
quite another if it's there for about a millisecond.
: I assume the lens filter fits over the lens, like any filter, right? How
Bob
wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:01:58 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
calibrate the rotation of the filter? It's one thing if the light is constant,
quite another if it's there for about a millisecond.
: I assume the lens filter fits over the lens, like any filter, right? How
: does the one over the flash work?
Poorly. ;^)
Bob
nospam
Mar 30, 2013, 12:59:21 PM3/30/13
to
In article <pk5el813j8640qi9f...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
<b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> : Are two necessary? I thought reflected light was already polarized
> : parallel to the place of reflection. I polarizing filter at right angles
> : to that plane should filter out all or most of the reflected light, no?
>
> Yes. But if the source of the light is a flash unit, how are you going to
> calibrate the rotation of the filter? It's one thing if the light is constant,
> quite another if it's there for about a millisecond.
modeling light, which many flashes have.
> : Are two necessary? I thought reflected light was already polarized
> : parallel to the place of reflection. I polarizing filter at right angles
> : to that plane should filter out all or most of the reflected light, no?
>
> Yes. But if the source of the light is a flash unit, how are you going to
> calibrate the rotation of the filter? It's one thing if the light is constant,
> quite another if it's there for about a millisecond.
Robert Coe
Mar 30, 2013, 1:16:07 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:21:19 -0700, Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid>
wrote:
: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polarizer
Yes, and one compensates by using a device called a "circular" polarizer. (The
word "circular" is misleading in this context; it's really sort of a "what
goes around comes around" analogy. There are articles online explaining how
and why a circular polarizer works.)
: Assuming a polarizer is a useful tool, it might be a good gift for my
: Do you have a recommendation for a particular product? She has a
already has the polarizers she needs. (Unless she's one of those people with
more money than common sense, which doesn't sound like the case here.)
: Will one polarizer fit all or most lenses?
No. There are some "one size fits many" options, but they tend to be
cumbersome and can result in vignetting or worse unless you're very careful.
Good filters screw into the threads at the front end of the lens barrel and
therefore have to match the diameter of the lens.
Bob
wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
: wrote:
:
: >On Mar 29, 9:28�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
: >> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
: >> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
: >>
: >> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
: >> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
: >>
: >> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
: >> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
: >> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
: >> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
: >> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
: >
: >No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
:
: When you said that, my immediate reaction was "Of course!". Then I did a
: wrote:
:
: >On Mar 29, 9:28�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
: >> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
: >> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
: >>
: >> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
: >> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
: >>
: >> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
: >> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
: >> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
: >> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
: >> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
: >
: >No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
:
: little research and found this article that suggests that it can
: interfere with the autofocus.
:
: interfere with the autofocus.
: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polarizer
Yes, and one compensates by using a device called a "circular" polarizer. (The
word "circular" is misleading in this context; it's really sort of a "what
goes around comes around" analogy. There are articles online explaining how
and why a circular polarizer works.)
: Assuming a polarizer is a useful tool, it might be a good gift for my
: friend for her help. I did a search and found a wide range of products
: from about $8 to well of $100.
:
: from about $8 to well of $100.
: Do you have a recommendation for a particular product? She has a
: high-end Nikon SLR. I don't know the model number, but can get it if
: needed.
Since your friend has a high-end SLR, it's pretty much a certainty that she
: needed.
already has the polarizers she needs. (Unless she's one of those people with
more money than common sense, which doesn't sound like the case here.)
: Will one polarizer fit all or most lenses?
No. There are some "one size fits many" options, but they tend to be
cumbersome and can result in vignetting or worse unless you're very careful.
Good filters screw into the threads at the front end of the lens barrel and
therefore have to match the diameter of the lens.
Bob
Robert Coe
Mar 30, 2013, 1:23:27 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:32:13 -0700, Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid>
wrote:
: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:54:07 +0000, David Taylor
My daughter uses Paintshop Pro, and she maintains that in terms of features
per dollar, it's a better value than Photoshop. But she's a fairly high-end
user and probably uses more of its features than you would.
Bob
wrote:
: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:54:07 +0000, David Taylor
per dollar, it's a better value than Photoshop. But she's a fairly high-end
user and probably uses more of its features than you would.
Bob
George Kerby
Mar 30, 2013, 2:14:49 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/29/13 11:57 PM, in article
04c4efc3-a2ee-4af1...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:28�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
>> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
>>
>> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
>> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
>>
>> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
>> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
>> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
>> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
>> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
>
> No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
Nor to polarize the light sources...
> On Mar 29, 9:28�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
>> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
>>
>> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
>> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
>>
>> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
>> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
>> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
>> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
>> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
>
> No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
George Kerby
Mar 30, 2013, 2:17:39 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/13 12:10 AM, in article pnscl8tk17ommoe2n...@4ax.com,
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : On Mar 29, 9:28�pm, Jennifer Murphy <JenMur...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> : > I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
> : > painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
> : >
> : > I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
> : > would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
> : >
> : > The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
> : > painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
> : > Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
> : > effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
> : > the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
> :
> : No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
>
> How often does one encounter polarized light indoors?
>
> Bob
>
When one controls the lighting situation...
Rosco gel - every decent photographer has them in his kit.
<http://www.adorama.com/RO7300R50.html?gclid=COix8Y2GpbYCFUORPAodNlIA1A>
It DOES come in smaller sizes. ;-)
George Kerby
Mar 30, 2013, 2:20:03 PM3/30/13
to
On 3/30/13 1:01 AM, in article kj5uvo$mib$1...@dont-email.me, "nick c"
<nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
> Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a 20" x 24" oil
>> painting so I can make a photo-quality print at near full size (20x24).
>>
>> I first tried with my Nikon Coolpix S8200. I didn't really think it
>> would work, but wanted to see what I could do.
>>
>> The first problem I had was with glare. The flash is out. The oil
>> painting has a very high gloss finish that reflects any direct light.
>> Light from a window, even indirect light produces either a washed out
>> effect or a lot of little bright specks relecting off the high spots in
>> the brush strokes. I was never able to solve that problem.
>>
>> had a fisheye effect. Some had whatever the opposite of that is. Some
>> had fairly straight edges, but one side was longer than the opposite
>> one. I thought I had the camera centered and perpendicular, but
>> obviously not.
>>
>> Most of my images are about 5-6 MB, even on the highest-resolution
>> settings. The S8200 has two hughest settings. The 16M setting says it's
>> 4608x3456 with a compression ratio of about 1:8. The 16M* setting has
>> the same pixel count, but at a lower compression ratio of about 1:4. I
>> tried it at both settings. I could not tell the difference in either the
>> image quality of the image size.
>>
>> Next, I asked a friend who is an avid amateur photographer. She has a
>> high end Nikon SLR. I don't recall the model number, but it's very
>> large. The lens is twice the size of my little camera.
>>
>> The first few shots she took had the same glare and distortion problem
>> that I had.
>>
>> To solve the glare problem, she propped the painting up on a stairway so
>> we could get it as perfectly vertical as possible. Then she closed all
>> the shutters and turned off all the lights. This was in the afternoon,
>> so there was still ambient light, but it was quite dim in the room. She
>> then set the camera on a tripod with the long exposure. We then held a
>> blanket up behind the camera to block all direct light. When she pushed
>> the shutter button, the camera took a shot that had the shuitter open
>> for about 4-5 seconds.
>>
>> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
>> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
>> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
>>
>> On my computer screen, the measurements of the four sides are:
>> The result is a .psd file that is about 130MB. There is no glare and the
>> colors are excellent. The only problem is that the image is not quite
>> rectangular. It's not off by much, but it is noticeable.
>>
>>
>> Left 7 1/2+
>> Right 7 3/4
>> Top 9 1/8
>> Bottom 9 1/4+
>>
>> It looks like the camera was a little below and to the right of center.
>>
>> We didn't measure it, but we did try to line it up by eye so that the
>> lens was dead center and pointing along a line that was perpendicular to
>> the face of the canvas.
>>
>> I guess we need to reshoot. I'd appreciate any help getting it right the
>> next time -- short of hiring a professional.
>>
>
> Jenny, I have a suggestion to make to diminish surface glare. It's not a
> new trick, pro's of olden days used this set-up and I've used it myself
> many times.
>
> 1- Mount the painting on a chair or any mount that allows the painting
> to stand vertically. I suggest using a chair for reasons that will follow.
>
> 2- Mount (and set-up) the camera on a tripod.
>
> 3- Align the painting in a manner that will be axially aligned with the
> center-line of the camera lens/sensor.
>
> 4- Between the camera and the painting, on both sides of the
> camera/painting, place two chairs (small 5 or 6 foot household
> stepladders ladders will also work well) so that the backside of the
> chairs are facing inboard. In other words, construct a canopy with a
> bed-sheet.
>
> 5- Cover the entire set-up so that no spot-light sees the surface of the
> painting. Do not allow the bed-sheet to sag in the middle. Sometimes an
> ironing-board (broom and mop handles will also work well) may be all you
> need to support the bed-sheet canopy and prevent it from sagging.
> Wash-line clothespins may be needed to tighten the sides of the
> bed-sheets to the chairs (or ladders).
>
> 6- Flood the outside area with light (from flash, windows, bulbs, or
> fluorescents). I've used flash (for small objects) and sunlight
> (daylight) streaming from close by windows for objects such as
> paintings. All light must come from the outside of the canopy.
>
> 7- Set your exposure setting and photo framing for the camera you intend
> to use. When ready to take the photo, set the camera to auto /time/
> exposure or use a camera chord to fire the camera.
>
> Note:- All light from the outside of the sheet should flood the interior
> area of the sheeted canopy. Finish cropping and sizing using computer
> software that you have access to and know how to use.
>
>
Try this...
<http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/13417>
Robert Coe
Mar 30, 2013, 2:24:23 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:49:49 -0400, James Silverton
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
: On 3/30/2013 11:37 AM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
: > Have you ever used Photoshop Pro? Do you know how it compares to
she meant to say "Paintshop Pro". But Jim answered the question smoothly, as
though there really is a "Photoshop Pro". Is there such an animal?
Bob
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
: On 3/30/2013 11:37 AM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
: > Have you ever used Photoshop Pro? Do you know how it compares to
: > Elements?
: >
: All I can say is Elements seems adequate for me. I have never used
: Photoshop Pro and I doubt I ever will, given its expense and apparent
: complications.
Erk! Now I'm confused. I thought Jennifer's question included a typo and that
: >
: All I can say is Elements seems adequate for me. I have never used
: Photoshop Pro and I doubt I ever will, given its expense and apparent
: complications.
she meant to say "Paintshop Pro". But Jim answered the question smoothly, as
though there really is a "Photoshop Pro". Is there such an animal?
Bob
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 2:37:06 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:39 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Thanks, very helpful. I could definitely use the cataloging feature. I'm
currently using a hiererchy of Windows folders.
wrote:
currently using a hiererchy of Windows folders.
Robert Coe
Mar 30, 2013, 2:37:17 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:51:20 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
: You can't work in LAB mode in Elements, but you can in the full
my daughter once telling me that she had edited an image with Paintshop Pro in
which she used 30 layers. :^)
Bob
wrote:
: You can't work in LAB mode in Elements, but you can in the full
: Photoshop versions. That's not a deal-killer for most people. In
: fact, many - if not most - Photoshop users are unaware of what can be
: done in LAB mode. The big difference used to be the lack of Layer
: Masks in Elements, but new versions of Elements do include Layer
: Masks.
Possibly to compete with Paintshop Pro, which I guess does have them. I recall
: fact, many - if not most - Photoshop users are unaware of what can be
: done in LAB mode. The big difference used to be the lack of Layer
: Masks in Elements, but new versions of Elements do include Layer
: Masks.
my daughter once telling me that she had edited an image with Paintshop Pro in
which she used 30 layers. :^)
Bob
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 30, 2013, 2:42:04 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:33 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
OK, I get it. ;-) You've convinced me that a gift certificate is a much
better way to go.
wrote:
better way to go.
Savageduck
Mar 30, 2013, 4:42:44 PM3/30/13
to
On 2013-03-30 09:39:43 -0700, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> said:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:09:58 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a learning curve which exists with most new software you might be
>> unfamiliar with. Those of us who have used Photoshop since the pre CS
>> days, see few complications.As for expense, isn't PS Pro about the same
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:09:58 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a learning curve which exists with most new software you might be
>> unfamiliar with. Those of us who have used Photoshop since the pre CS
>> price as Elements ($50-70)?
>>
>> Not even close.
>>
>> First, there is no "PS Pro" the current full version of Photoshop is
>> CS6 (CS = "Creative Suite") and there are two versions of that, CS6
>> and CS6 Extended (If you need to do 3D work).
>> CS6 standard has an MSRP of $699, CS6 Extended is $999.
>> An upgrade from CS5 is $299.
>
> You are barking up the wrong tree, but based on misleading
> information. "PS Pro" is "Paint Shop Pro" by Corel. It used to be
> simply "Paint Shop" by Jasc Software and was a free download yonks
> ago. Corel bought it, and that seems to be the kiss of death for any
> good program. I used Paint Shop before I started on Photoshop. It
> was a good program at the time.
>
> PS Pro lists for $99.99 at Corel's site, but they are now offering it
> at $69.99 for a (supposedly) limited time. I'm sure better prices are
> available online or at eBay.
>
> I haven't used it for many years, and can't compare it to Elements.
> However, I'd go with the leader - Adobe - just for the plethora of
> tutorials on Adobe stuff. There are PSP tutorials, but not as many or
> as good.
In my addled Photoshop centric mind, PS = nothing but Photoshop.
>>
>> Not even close.
>>
>> First, there is no "PS Pro" the current full version of Photoshop is
>> CS6 (CS = "Creative Suite") and there are two versions of that, CS6
>> and CS6 Extended (If you need to do 3D work).
>> CS6 standard has an MSRP of $699, CS6 Extended is $999.
>> An upgrade from CS5 is $299.
>
> You are barking up the wrong tree, but based on misleading
> information. "PS Pro" is "Paint Shop Pro" by Corel. It used to be
> simply "Paint Shop" by Jasc Software and was a free download yonks
> ago. Corel bought it, and that seems to be the kiss of death for any
> good program. I used Paint Shop before I started on Photoshop. It
> was a good program at the time.
>
> PS Pro lists for $99.99 at Corel's site, but they are now offering it
> at $69.99 for a (supposedly) limited time. I'm sure better prices are
> available online or at eBay.
>
> I haven't used it for many years, and can't compare it to Elements.
> However, I'd go with the leader - Adobe - just for the plethora of
> tutorials on Adobe stuff. There are PSP tutorials, but not as many or
> as good.
As far as Corel products go I fondly remember pre-take over editions of
Wordperfect. I was never inclined to use Corel graphics products.
So, I plead ignorance, and claim that my pricing information for the
"Adobe PS" products remains accurate.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Tony Cooper
Mar 30, 2013, 6:43:12 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:42:44 -0700, Savageduck
The version of CorelDraw that I have is a good program. There are
certain things that can be done much simpler in CorelDraw than they
can be done in Photoshop because it's a vector-based drawing and
graphic design program.
For example, a montage of several photos on one page is easier in
CorelDraw. No layers; the images are just moved around and can be
brought forward or back and re-sized to fit. With several photos, you
don't have to figure out which layer the image is on or move the layer
up or down.
As long as I don't need support from Corel, or need an upgrade, I'll
continue to use it.
I miss WordPerfect. I use Open Office now, but preferred WP.
certain things that can be done much simpler in CorelDraw than they
can be done in Photoshop because it's a vector-based drawing and
graphic design program.
For example, a montage of several photos on one page is easier in
CorelDraw. No layers; the images are just moved around and can be
brought forward or back and re-sized to fit. With several photos, you
don't have to figure out which layer the image is on or move the layer
up or down.
As long as I don't need support from Corel, or need an upgrade, I'll
continue to use it.
I miss WordPerfect. I use Open Office now, but preferred WP.
Eric Stevens
Mar 30, 2013, 7:18:41 PM3/30/13
to
surprised. The major omissions in my mind are the inability to work in
CYMK or Lab mode. I could do that in Photo Paint but for some years to
buy Photo Paint it is also necessary to buy Corel Draw.
>
>PS Pro lists for $99.99 at Corel's site, but they are now offering it
>at $69.99 for a (supposedly) limited time. I'm sure better prices are
>available online or at eBay.
>
>I haven't used it for many years, and can't compare it to Elements.
>However, I'd go with the leader - Adobe - just for the plethora of
>tutorials on Adobe stuff. There are PSP tutorials, but not as many or
>as good.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
>PS Pro lists for $99.99 at Corel's site, but they are now offering it
>at $69.99 for a (supposedly) limited time. I'm sure better prices are
>available online or at eBay.
>
>I haven't used it for many years, and can't compare it to Elements.
>However, I'd go with the leader - Adobe - just for the plethora of
>tutorials on Adobe stuff. There are PSP tutorials, but not as many or
>as good.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Eric Stevens
nick c
Mar 30, 2013, 3:08:27 PM3/30/13
to
Jennifer Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:27:37 +0000, David Taylor
> <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2013 12:51, James Silverton wrote:
>> []
>>> Light is partially polarized on reflection. You can rotate a polarizing
>>> filter until removal of reflection is best.
>>
>> But it's not applicable in this case where the problem was light
>> straight on from a flash gun.
>
> Is light only polarized if reflected at an angle?
>
An old axiom from school years is: "The angle of incidence is equal to
the angle of reflection."
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:27:37 +0000, David Taylor
> <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2013 12:51, James Silverton wrote:
>> []
>>> Light is partially polarized on reflection. You can rotate a polarizing
>>> filter until removal of reflection is best.
>>
>> But it's not applicable in this case where the problem was light
>> straight on from a flash gun.
>
> Is light only polarized if reflected at an angle?
>
An old axiom from school years is: "The angle of incidence is equal to
the angle of reflection."
James Silverton
Mar 30, 2013, 4:48:52 PM3/30/13
to
reflected from the brush strokes at various angles.
nick c
Mar 30, 2013, 5:47:59 PM3/30/13
to
may occur. It's an axiom.
PeterN
Mar 31, 2013, 7:21:48 PM3/31/13
to
Upgraded from X to X4, and see little functional difference. Until about
three or four years ago Corel had me listed as a partner. The Upgrade
price was unbeatable. I did not like working with Corel Draw, but just
preferred working with PS. The only Corel graphics product I still use
is Painter. Although Painter it has some warts, i use it for creation of
special effects, such as making a photo look more like a painting.
--
PeterN
Floyd L. Davidson
Mar 31, 2013, 9:25:10 PM3/31/13
to
SURFACE* and what he is saying is that a brush stroke
visible on an oil painting is a multifacited surface.
There will be many angles...
Ths significance is that moving either the light source
or the camera will likely not eliminate reflections, it
will only change which reflections are seen by the
camera.
--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Jennifer Murphy
Mar 31, 2013, 10:07:21 PM3/31/13
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:25:10 -0800, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:
Exactly. The surface of the painting is a lot of little brush strokes,
which are roundish lines of high-gloss paint. Even when I eliminated all
light from behind the camera, light from the side could still strike
some part of the round stroke lines causing spots of reflected light.
It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
that will reflect directly at any observer.
It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
would have been proud.
wrote:
which are roundish lines of high-gloss paint. Even when I eliminated all
light from behind the camera, light from the side could still strike
some part of the round stroke lines causing spots of reflected light.
It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
that will reflect directly at any observer.
It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
would have been proud.
nick c
Apr 1, 2013, 1:35:26 AM4/1/13
to
/reflected/ light. Regardless of what you may chose to call a painted
surface, light /always/ reflects in a manner equal to the angle of
incidence.
>>
>> Ths significance is that moving either the light source
>> or the camera will likely not eliminate reflections, it
>> will only change which reflections are seen by the
>> camera.
>
> Exactly. The surface of the painting is a lot of little brush strokes,
> which are roundish lines of high-gloss paint. Even when I eliminated all
> light from behind the camera, light from the side could still strike
> some part of the round stroke lines causing spots of reflected light.
properly constructed canopy.
>
> It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
> source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
> that will reflect directly at any observer.
>
> It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
> would have been proud.
>
different than light reflection.
As for my posted axiom, an axiom is not subject to personal assumption
nor opinion, an axiom is a statement of fact .... or as they may say in
some collegiate circles, a truth. The application of the axiom may be
challenged but not the axiom itself.
The only affect a multifaceted object may have upon light reflectance is
the dissipation of the light intensity reflecting off a multifaceted
surface. In such a case, then light may bend but the angle of incidence
is always equal to the angle of reflection. However, to engage in a
discussion about /bent/ light and/or conditions that would bring about
bending light (such as prisms, or intensity) would take a great deal
more time and explanation than I would care to give the subject.
Floyd L. Davidson
Apr 1, 2013, 2:44:56 AM4/1/13
to
not just one. The angle of incidence is not to the plane of
the paintings surface, it is the angle to the plane where the
reflection takes place.
Because the brush stroke leave a textured surface there is
going to be light reflected in virtually very direction, not
just one.
Read this next paragraph:
>>> Ths significance is that moving either the light source
>>> or the camera will likely not eliminate reflections, it
>>> will only change which reflections are seen by the
>>> camera.
>>
>> Exactly. The surface of the painting is a lot of little brush strokes,
>> which are roundish lines of high-gloss paint. Even when I eliminated all
>> light from behind the camera, light from the side could still strike
>> some part of the round stroke lines causing spots of reflected light.
>
>If you have light penetration from the sides then you do
>not have a properly constructed canopy.
>> It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
>> source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
>> that will reflect directly at any observer.
>>
>> It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
>> would have been proud.
>>
>
>Not quite so, Jenny. Optic's or optical illusions are
>something entirely different than light reflection.
>As for my posted axiom, an axiom is not subject to
>personal assumption nor opinion, an axiom is a
>statement of fact .... or as they may say in some
>collegiate circles, a truth. The application of the
>axiom may be challenged but not the axiom itself.
>The only affect a multifaceted object may have upon
>light reflectance is the dissipation of the light
>intensity reflecting off a multifaceted surface.
then you will also understand that it means reflections will
be seen from almost any camera or light source locations.
>In such
>a case, then light may bend but the angle of incidence
>is always equal to the angle of reflection.
you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
independently reflect light.
>However, to
>engage in a discussion about /bent/ light and/or
>conditions that would bring about bending light (such as
>prisms, or intensity) would take a great deal more time
>and explanation than I would care to give the subject.
nick c
Apr 1, 2013, 3:41:24 AM4/1/13
to
>
>>> It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
>>> source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
>>> that will reflect directly at any observer.
>>>
>>> It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
>>> would have been proud.
>>>
>>
>> Not quite so, Jenny. Optic's or optical illusions are
>> something entirely different than light reflection.
>
>> As for my posted axiom, an axiom is not subject to
>> personal assumption nor opinion, an axiom is a
>> statement of fact .... or as they may say in some
>> collegiate circles, a truth. The application of the
>> axiom may be challenged but not the axiom itself.
>
> But you obviously don't have a clue what it means either.
subject of axioms.
>
>> The only affect a multifaceted object may have upon
>> light reflectance is the dissipation of the light
>> intensity reflecting off a multifaceted surface.
>
> Oh? And when you understand how this "dissipation" happens,
> then you will also understand that it means reflections will
> be seen from almost any camera or light source locations.
>
>> In such
>> a case, then light may bend but the angle of incidence
>> is always equal to the angle of reflection.
>
> Other than the reflection, light does not bend.
would say such an idiotic thing. You must have gotten poor grades in
physics. For your information, and I hope a contribution to your
education, as the intensity (or speed) of light diminishes, light rays
will bend.
A simple experiment would be: Take a flashlight and a non-transparent
substance into a dark room. Hold the substance near the flashlight and
shine the light so that the beam of light is half on the non-transparent
surface and the other half of light hits upon the wall. you will then
see the light hitting the wall is rather sharp edged.
Now move the non-transparent substance away from the flashlight (towards
the wall) and the sharp edge on the wall that you saw will become fuzzy.
That is an indication that light rays do bend.
> The point
> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
> independently reflect light.
that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of incidence is always
equal to the angle of reflection.
I can see you've developed a mind-set but your mind-set is not good
enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
is not axiomatic.
>
>> However, to
>> engage in a discussion about /bent/ light and/or
>> conditions that would bring about bending light (such as
>> prisms, or intensity) would take a great deal more time
>> and explanation than I would care to give the subject.
>
> Save us from the Devil, eh? Don't both with that prattle.
>
cameras.
Floyd L. Davidson
Apr 1, 2013, 10:33:35 AM4/1/13
to
nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>On 3/31/2013 11:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2013 7:07 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>>>> It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
>>>> source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
>>>> that will reflect directly at any observer.
>>>>
>>>> It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
>>>> would have been proud.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite so, Jenny. Optic's or optical illusions are
>>> something entirely different than light reflection.
>>
>>> As for my posted axiom, an axiom is not subject to
>>> personal assumption nor opinion, an axiom is a
>>> statement of fact .... or as they may say in some
>>> collegiate circles, a truth. The application of the
>>> axiom may be challenged but not the axiom itself.
>>
>> But you obviously don't have a clue what it means either.
>
>Oh, but you do, eh? How about displaying your knowledge
>about the subject of axioms.
If you can't apply the axiom to the topic of discussion,
>On 3/31/2013 11:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2013 7:07 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>>>> It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
>>>> source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
>>>> that will reflect directly at any observer.
>>>>
>>>> It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
>>>> would have been proud.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite so, Jenny. Optic's or optical illusions are
>>> something entirely different than light reflection.
>>
>>> As for my posted axiom, an axiom is not subject to
>>> personal assumption nor opinion, an axiom is a
>>> statement of fact .... or as they may say in some
>>> collegiate circles, a truth. The application of the
>>> axiom may be challenged but not the axiom itself.
>>
>> But you obviously don't have a clue what it means either.
>
>Oh, but you do, eh? How about displaying your knowledge
>about the subject of axioms.
the most obvious reason is that you are as stated: clueless.
When you want to learn something about the OP's problem, come
back and ask questions rather than blabbering drivel.
Peabody
Apr 1, 2013, 3:15:41 PM4/1/13
to
Jennifer Murphy says...
> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a
> 20" x 24" oil painting so I can make a photo-quality
> print at near full size (20x24).
-snip-
I did photography for a local oil painter, and made pictures
of about 20 paintings ranging from the size of yours up to
6x4 feet. I started with a Canon P&S camera, 8mp, and
worked up to an 18mp DSLR. They were primarily for his
website, but some of the pictures have been used for
posters, and they worked quite well, even the P&S ones.
To solve the glare/reflections problem, I ended up shooting
the paintings outside in the shade, with no additional
lighting. A cloudy/overcast day is best. I did a custom
white balance to get the colors right. Basically, you end
up with a giant softbox, with light coming in pretty
much evenly from all directions, which seems to eliminate
that brush stroke or fabric weave graininess.
You really do need to take some care to get the camera
exactly square to the painting, and right in the center.
One suggestion which, unfortunately, I saw after I had
finished, was to make up a rig you would place over the
painting so that it's perfectly square, and in the center of
the rig is a mirror. Then you set up the camera on a tripod
and move it around until the camera sees a reflection of
itself in the mirror, at which point it is squared up.
You'll also get less barrel or pincushion distortion if
you use a longer focal length lens. So, zoom all the way
in, then move the camera back away from the painting. The
farther away you get, the less distortion you have.
I didn't have any of the usual processing software. I ended
up using XnView, which is free, and which can run Photoshop
plugins. I found a distortion correction plugin, also free,
that takes a little getting used to, but works pretty well:
http://vicanek.de/plugins/perspective.htm
I would just say that this is harder to do well than you
would suspect at first, and there is some expertise
involved. In your case, I would suggest you try shooting
outdoors in the shade to see if you at least solve the
lighting problem. Then if that works, work on the other
stuff.
One other point. It is possible now to do direct scans of
works of this size even though they are three-dimensional.
You would need to find a printing house that has the proper
equipment. Look for someone who does "giclee" prints, which
are prints on canvas.
> I need to get a very high resolution digital image of a
> 20" x 24" oil painting so I can make a photo-quality
> print at near full size (20x24).
I did photography for a local oil painter, and made pictures
of about 20 paintings ranging from the size of yours up to
6x4 feet. I started with a Canon P&S camera, 8mp, and
worked up to an 18mp DSLR. They were primarily for his
website, but some of the pictures have been used for
posters, and they worked quite well, even the P&S ones.
To solve the glare/reflections problem, I ended up shooting
the paintings outside in the shade, with no additional
lighting. A cloudy/overcast day is best. I did a custom
white balance to get the colors right. Basically, you end
up with a giant softbox, with light coming in pretty
much evenly from all directions, which seems to eliminate
that brush stroke or fabric weave graininess.
You really do need to take some care to get the camera
exactly square to the painting, and right in the center.
One suggestion which, unfortunately, I saw after I had
finished, was to make up a rig you would place over the
painting so that it's perfectly square, and in the center of
the rig is a mirror. Then you set up the camera on a tripod
and move it around until the camera sees a reflection of
itself in the mirror, at which point it is squared up.
You'll also get less barrel or pincushion distortion if
you use a longer focal length lens. So, zoom all the way
in, then move the camera back away from the painting. The
farther away you get, the less distortion you have.
I didn't have any of the usual processing software. I ended
up using XnView, which is free, and which can run Photoshop
plugins. I found a distortion correction plugin, also free,
that takes a little getting used to, but works pretty well:
http://vicanek.de/plugins/perspective.htm
I would just say that this is harder to do well than you
would suspect at first, and there is some expertise
involved. In your case, I would suggest you try shooting
outdoors in the shade to see if you at least solve the
lighting problem. Then if that works, work on the other
stuff.
One other point. It is possible now to do direct scans of
works of this size even though they are three-dimensional.
You would need to find a printing house that has the proper
equipment. Look for someone who does "giclee" prints, which
are prints on canvas.
nick c
Apr 1, 2013, 3:28:45 PM4/1/13
to
On 4/1/2013 7:33 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2013 11:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2013 7:07 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>>>>> It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
>>>>> source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
>>>>> that will reflect directly at any observer.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
>>>>> would have been proud.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not quite so, Jenny. Optic's or optical illusions are
>>>> something entirely different than light reflection.
>>>
>>>> As for my posted axiom, an axiom is not subject to
>>>> personal assumption nor opinion, an axiom is a
>>>> statement of fact .... or as they may say in some
>>>> collegiate circles, a truth. The application of the
>>>> axiom may be challenged but not the axiom itself.
>>>
>>> But you obviously don't have a clue what it means either.
>>
>> Oh, but you do, eh? How about displaying your knowledge
>> about the subject of axioms.
>
> If you can't apply the axiom to the topic of discussion,
> the most obvious reason is that you are as stated: clueless.
>
> When you want to learn something about the OP's problem, come
> back and ask questions rather than blabbering drivel.
>
If it's dribble that I've posted, then prove it. You have access to the
> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2013 11:44 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2013 7:07 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>>>>> It's like putting a shine round Christmas ornament on a table. Any light
>>>>> source almost anywhere in the room will find one spot on that surface
>>>>> that will reflect directly at any observer.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was quite an interesting little optics lesson. My high school physics
>>>>> would have been proud.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not quite so, Jenny. Optic's or optical illusions are
>>>> something entirely different than light reflection.
>>>
>>>> As for my posted axiom, an axiom is not subject to
>>>> personal assumption nor opinion, an axiom is a
>>>> statement of fact .... or as they may say in some
>>>> collegiate circles, a truth. The application of the
>>>> axiom may be challenged but not the axiom itself.
>>>
>>> But you obviously don't have a clue what it means either.
>>
>> Oh, but you do, eh? How about displaying your knowledge
>> about the subject of axioms.
>
> If you can't apply the axiom to the topic of discussion,
> the most obvious reason is that you are as stated: clueless.
>
> When you want to learn something about the OP's problem, come
> back and ask questions rather than blabbering drivel.
>
knowledge of the Internet so it should be simple enough to find a site
(or sites) that proves what I have said is dribble.
The axiom (as well as my suggestion) is applicable to the topic, which I
have yet to see you define. What is amusing to me is that you can't seem
to comprehend that or perhaps you now see the folly of your very limited
knowledge of the situation and have begun back-peddling. You appear to
speak a circular language leading up to nothing of consequence being
said. "Clueless" and "dribble" are not words of knowledge. They are
words that one hides behind. Yeah, you must be a Democrat.
Remember this, every time you open your mouth someone gets a chance to
look at your brains. The wrongness of your statement can be and is
forgivable but to hide the wrongness and continue to feign subject
intellectualism is not forgivable.
Don't just run away. Simply display a site (or sites) of proof of your
accusation or ....
James Silverton
Apr 1, 2013, 3:40:31 PM4/1/13
to
not just for overcast but for a reasonable temperature for your own comfort.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Apr 1, 2013, 9:30:43 AM4/1/13
to
Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:36:38 -0500, Doug McDonald
>>anything not metal. Also LCD TV screens.
> Why not metal?
Physics.
> My polarized sunglasses effectively cancle the glare of the sun off the
> hood of the car. Is that not metal because of the paint?
I guess you do have some clear paint on top of whatever pigments
you have as paint. If not and your pigments are metal, don't
they rust?
Oh, and most colours aren't metal pigments, AFAIK.
-Wolfgang
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:36:38 -0500, Doug McDonald
>>On 3/30/2013 12:10 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>> : No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
>>> How often does one encounter polarized light indoors?
>>In every reflection off of glass or plastic or ceramic;
>>> : No one ever thinks to use a polarizer indoors.
>>> How often does one encounter polarized light indoors?
>>anything not metal. Also LCD TV screens.
> Why not metal?
Physics.
> My polarized sunglasses effectively cancle the glare of the sun off the
> hood of the car. Is that not metal because of the paint?
I guess you do have some clear paint on top of whatever pigments
you have as paint. If not and your pigments are metal, don't
they rust?
Oh, and most colours aren't metal pigments, AFAIK.
-Wolfgang
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 1, 2013, 5:04:45 PM4/1/13
to
to be harder than I thought. ;-)
>In your case, I would suggest you try shooting
>outdoors in the shade to see if you at least solve the
>lighting problem. Then if that works, work on the other
>stuff.
>One other point. It is possible now to do direct scans of
>works of this size even though they are three-dimensional.
>You would need to find a printing house that has the proper
>equipment. Look for someone who does "giclee" prints, which
>are prints on canvas.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Apr 1, 2013, 5:02:06 PM4/1/13
to
Peabody <waybackNO...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You'll also get less barrel or pincushion distortion if
> you use a longer focal length lens. So, zoom all the way
> in, then move the camera back away from the painting. The
> farther away you get, the less distortion you have.
That may be the case with *your* camera. Usually, medium
> You'll also get less barrel or pincushion distortion if
> you use a longer focal length lens. So, zoom all the way
> in, then move the camera back away from the painting. The
> farther away you get, the less distortion you have.
focal lengths are better than the extreme ranges of the zoom
for pincushion/barrel avoidance.
Of course, non-zooms lenses are usually even better in this
regard.
-Wolfgang
Tony Cooper
Apr 1, 2013, 5:39:53 PM4/1/13
to
transparent coating that is sprayed on as is paint.
Eric Stevens
Apr 1, 2013, 7:57:46 PM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:41:24 -0700, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
wrote:
-- snip ---
>> Other than the reflection, light does not bend.
>
>"Other than the reflection, light does not bend"!!! I can't believe you
>would say such an idiotic thing. You must have gotten poor grades in
>physics. For your information, and I hope a contribution to your
>education, as the intensity (or speed) of light diminishes, light rays
>will bend.
I am sorry to diminish your superiority but you aree talking nonsens.
There is no connection between the speed of light and its intensity.
Light rays do not bend because their speed has diminished. They bend
because they enter a region of different light speed (either high or
lower) at an angle.
yourself. In the kind of experiment you have described the primary
reason shadows do not have a sharp edge is that the light which
generates them does not have a point source. Move the 'substance'
further fromthe light and the shadow will become sharper. This is
because at the increased distance the light more closely resembles a
point source.
There is just a chance that you may be trying to describe
diffusion. Diffusion is different phenomenon and has virtually nothing
to do with the bending of light.
light in all different directions.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
-- snip ---
>> Other than the reflection, light does not bend.
>
>"Other than the reflection, light does not bend"!!! I can't believe you
>would say such an idiotic thing. You must have gotten poor grades in
>physics. For your information, and I hope a contribution to your
>education, as the intensity (or speed) of light diminishes, light rays
>will bend.
There is no connection between the speed of light and its intensity.
Light rays do not bend because their speed has diminished. They bend
because they enter a region of different light speed (either high or
lower) at an angle.
>
>A simple experiment would be: Take a flashlight and a non-transparent
>substance into a dark room. Hold the substance near the flashlight and
>shine the light so that the beam of light is half on the non-transparent
>surface and the other half of light hits upon the wall. you will then
>see the light hitting the wall is rather sharp edged.
>
>Now move the non-transparent substance away from the flashlight (towards
>the wall) and the sharp edge on the wall that you saw will become fuzzy.
>That is an indication that light rays do bend.
Your explanation shows that you have not actually tried the experiment
>A simple experiment would be: Take a flashlight and a non-transparent
>substance into a dark room. Hold the substance near the flashlight and
>shine the light so that the beam of light is half on the non-transparent
>surface and the other half of light hits upon the wall. you will then
>see the light hitting the wall is rather sharp edged.
>
>Now move the non-transparent substance away from the flashlight (towards
>the wall) and the sharp edge on the wall that you saw will become fuzzy.
>That is an indication that light rays do bend.
yourself. In the kind of experiment you have described the primary
reason shadows do not have a sharp edge is that the light which
generates them does not have a point source. Move the 'substance'
further fromthe light and the shadow will become sharper. This is
because at the increased distance the light more closely resembles a
point source.
There is just a chance that you may be trying to describe
diffusion. Diffusion is different phenomenon and has virtually nothing
to do with the bending of light.
>
>> The point
>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>> independently reflect light.
>
>The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a statement
>that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of incidence is always
>equal to the angle of reflection.
Lloyd is quite right. The surface is textured, with facets reflecting
>> The point
>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>> independently reflect light.
>
>The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a statement
>that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of incidence is always
>equal to the angle of reflection.
light in all different directions.
>
>I can see you've developed a mind-set but your mind-set is not good
>enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
>rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
>of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
>what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
>is not axiomatic.
>
You haven't understood what you have read.
>I can see you've developed a mind-set but your mind-set is not good
>enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
>rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
>of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
>what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
>is not axiomatic.
>
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 1, 2013, 8:07:09 PM4/1/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:28:47 -0700, Jennifer Murphy
<JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
I now have some photos of the painting. They were taken by a friend with
a Nikon DSLR camera. But now I think we may have taken the photos at the
wrong resolution. (sigh)
We ended up affixing the portrait to a chair in a mostly dark room,
mounting the camera on a tripod,
creating a makeshift screen out of black velvet behind the camera to
block most of the direct light, and setting the camera for long
exposure. The result was pretty good. We may have to redo it with even
more screening and better alignment of the camera to the portrait, but I
have a few questions about the resolution first.
The raw psd file is 130 MB. I opened it in IrfanView and brought up the
image properties panel. It reports these properties:
Compression: Run length encoding
Resolution: 240 x 240 DPI
Original size: 4256 x 2832 Pixels (12.05 MPixels) (3:2)
Current size: 4256 x 2832 Pixels (12.05 MPixels) (3:2)
Print size (from DPI): 45.0 x 30.0 cm; 17.7 x 11.8 inches
Original colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Current colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Number of unique colors: 597146
Disk size: 127.81 MB (134,020,067 Bytes)
Current memory size: 34.48 MB (36,159,016 Bytes)
I asked my friend to take the photo at 300 DPI at the full size of the
painting, which is 24.25 x 20.25 inches. This appears to be only 240 DPI
at 17.1 x 11.8 inches and the portrait doesn't fill the image. If I draw
a selection box around the portrait, it's only 2885 x 2401 of the
overall 4256 x 2832 for the whole image.
I asked her to use the perspective tool in Photoshop to square up the
image, which she did. I got another PSD file and a JPG. The PSD file is
about 83 MB and the properties information is:
Compression: Run length encoding
Resolution: 300 x 300 DPI
Original size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Current size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Print size (from DPI): 24.6 x 20.6 cm; 9.7 x 8.1 inches
Original colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Current colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Number of unique colors: 533333
Disk size: 81.14 MB (85,081,048 Bytes)
Current memory size: 20.28 MB (21,262,460 Bytes)
This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
size close to 24 x 20.
The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
Compression: JPEG, quality: 98, subsampling OFF
Resolution: 300 x 300 DPI
Original size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Current size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Print size (from DPI): 24.6 x 20.6 cm; 9.7 x 8.1 inches
Original colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Current colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Number of unique colors: 224199
Disk size: 4.25 MB (4,455,756 Bytes)
Current memory size: 20.28 MB (21,262,460 Bytes)
To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
times larger.
Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
The problem I have is that I think I have reached the end of my friend's
patience, possibly the capacity of her camera, and maybe even the extent
of her photography skills.
Now what?
I called a couple of local photographers. They both said they were not
really set up to do it or would have to charge me a couple hundred
dollars for a "sitting" (more like a hanging in more ways than one) and
then for the digital image. One said they only sell prints. They do not
release the digital image files and absolutely would not release the raw
file.
I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
Maybe I'll look for another friend.
This turned out to be a lot more difficult that I ever dreamed. Several
people I have talked to
Anyway, thanks to everyone for all the help.
<JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
I now have some photos of the painting. They were taken by a friend with
a Nikon DSLR camera. But now I think we may have taken the photos at the
wrong resolution. (sigh)
We ended up affixing the portrait to a chair in a mostly dark room,
mounting the camera on a tripod,
creating a makeshift screen out of black velvet behind the camera to
block most of the direct light, and setting the camera for long
exposure. The result was pretty good. We may have to redo it with even
more screening and better alignment of the camera to the portrait, but I
have a few questions about the resolution first.
The raw psd file is 130 MB. I opened it in IrfanView and brought up the
image properties panel. It reports these properties:
Compression: Run length encoding
Resolution: 240 x 240 DPI
Original size: 4256 x 2832 Pixels (12.05 MPixels) (3:2)
Current size: 4256 x 2832 Pixels (12.05 MPixels) (3:2)
Print size (from DPI): 45.0 x 30.0 cm; 17.7 x 11.8 inches
Original colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Current colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Number of unique colors: 597146
Disk size: 127.81 MB (134,020,067 Bytes)
Current memory size: 34.48 MB (36,159,016 Bytes)
I asked my friend to take the photo at 300 DPI at the full size of the
painting, which is 24.25 x 20.25 inches. This appears to be only 240 DPI
at 17.1 x 11.8 inches and the portrait doesn't fill the image. If I draw
a selection box around the portrait, it's only 2885 x 2401 of the
overall 4256 x 2832 for the whole image.
I asked her to use the perspective tool in Photoshop to square up the
image, which she did. I got another PSD file and a JPG. The PSD file is
about 83 MB and the properties information is:
Compression: Run length encoding
Resolution: 300 x 300 DPI
Original size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Current size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Print size (from DPI): 24.6 x 20.6 cm; 9.7 x 8.1 inches
Original colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Current colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Number of unique colors: 533333
Disk size: 81.14 MB (85,081,048 Bytes)
Current memory size: 20.28 MB (21,262,460 Bytes)
This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
size close to 24 x 20.
The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
Compression: JPEG, quality: 98, subsampling OFF
Resolution: 300 x 300 DPI
Original size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Current size: 2910 x 2435 Pixels (7.09 MPixels) (1.20)
Print size (from DPI): 24.6 x 20.6 cm; 9.7 x 8.1 inches
Original colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Current colors: 16,7 Millions (24 BitsPerPixel)
Number of unique colors: 224199
Disk size: 4.25 MB (4,455,756 Bytes)
Current memory size: 20.28 MB (21,262,460 Bytes)
To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
times larger.
Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
The problem I have is that I think I have reached the end of my friend's
patience, possibly the capacity of her camera, and maybe even the extent
of her photography skills.
Now what?
I called a couple of local photographers. They both said they were not
really set up to do it or would have to charge me a couple hundred
dollars for a "sitting" (more like a hanging in more ways than one) and
then for the digital image. One said they only sell prints. They do not
release the digital image files and absolutely would not release the raw
file.
I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
Maybe I'll look for another friend.
This turned out to be a lot more difficult that I ever dreamed. Several
people I have talked to
Anyway, thanks to everyone for all the help.
nospam
Apr 1, 2013, 8:49:50 PM4/1/13
to
In article <708kl8p17htf5kkrf...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
..snip..
much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
the highest quality jpeg.
> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
the nikon d80 has 10 megapixels, versus 12 mp that your friend has, so
it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
$180.
consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
than you want to spend.
in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
admire a photograph of the original painting?
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
> size close to 24 x 20.
ideally you want 300 ppi (not dpi) but that's not always possible, and
> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
> size close to 24 x 20.
for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
> To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
> times larger.
that's the magic of jpeg. however, you should work with the psd file as
> times larger.
much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
the highest quality jpeg.
> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
$180.
consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
than you want to spend.
in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
admire a photograph of the original painting?
nick c
Apr 1, 2013, 10:36:39 PM4/1/13
to
light reflecting surfaces "the angle of incidence is equal to the angle
of reflection" axiom is not applicable?
>>
>> I can see you've developed a mind-set but your mind-set is not good
>> enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
>> rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
>> of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
>> what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
>> is not axiomatic.
>>
> You haven't understood what you have read.
>
texture. There is a direct correlation between light reflection and the
incidence of light that cannot be off-set due to the number of surfaces
reflecting light.
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 1, 2013, 11:35:46 PM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:49:50 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <708kl8p17htf5kkrf...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
>> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
>> size close to 24 x 20.
>
>ideally you want 300 ppi (not dpi) but that's not always possible,
The printer people said "dpi", so that's the term I have been using. I
just looked up the two terms and it appears that ppi is more accurate.
>and
>for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
>like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
Actually, for this application, they are going to be looking very
closely -- inches away. So I do want 300 ppi.
>try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
>final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
>to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
>8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
>
>> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
>..snip..
>> To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
>> times larger.
>
>that's the magic of jpeg. however, you should work with the psd file as
>much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
>the highest quality jpeg.
I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
file.
>> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
>> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
>> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
>> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
>
>ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
>are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
>for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
>any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
>enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
>> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
>> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
>> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
>> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
>
>the nikon d80 has 10 megapixels, versus 12 mp that your friend has, so
>it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
>even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
>$180.
>
>consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
>than you want to spend.
>
>in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
>
>what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
>will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
>admire a photograph of the original painting?
Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
says when he gets back.
wrote:
>In article <708kl8p17htf5kkrf...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
>> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
>> size close to 24 x 20.
>
>ideally you want 300 ppi (not dpi) but that's not always possible,
just looked up the two terms and it appears that ppi is more accurate.
>and
>for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
>like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
closely -- inches away. So I do want 300 ppi.
>try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
>final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
>to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
>8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
>
>> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
>..snip..
>> To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
>> times larger.
>
>that's the magic of jpeg. however, you should work with the psd file as
>much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
>the highest quality jpeg.
file.
>> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
>> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
>> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
>> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
>
>ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
>are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
>for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
>any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
>enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
>> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
>> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
>> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
>> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
>
>the nikon d80 has 10 megapixels, versus 12 mp that your friend has, so
>it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
>even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
>$180.
>
>consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
>than you want to spend.
>
>in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
>
>what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
>will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
>admire a photograph of the original painting?
very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
says when he gets back.
David Hare-Scott
Apr 1, 2013, 11:44:16 PM4/1/13
to
nick c wrote:
>>>> The point
>>>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>>>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>>>> independently reflect light.
>>>
>>> The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a
>>> statement that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of
>>> incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection.
>>
>> Lloyd is quite right. The surface is textured, with facets reflecting
>> light in all different directions.
>
> Is it your intention to say that because the surface is textured with
> light reflecting surfaces "the angle of incidence is equal to the
> angle of reflection" axiom is not applicable?
>
It is applicable at the microscopic level but there are a zillion angles of
>>>> The point
>>>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>>>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>>>> independently reflect light.
>>>
>>> The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a
>>> statement that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of
>>> incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection.
>>
>> Lloyd is quite right. The surface is textured, with facets reflecting
>> light in all different directions.
>
> Is it your intention to say that because the surface is textured with
> light reflecting surfaces "the angle of incidence is equal to the
> angle of reflection" axiom is not applicable?
>
incidence due to the almost random nature of the surface, hence the light is
scattered in a zillion reflections in many directions not reflected in a
single ray in one direction. At the macroscopic level you only get a
clearly observable angle of reflection from a flat polished surface.
And "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" is *not* an axiom (which is a
fact assumed for the point of argument which requires no observation) but a
law of physics derived from observation.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)
David
nospam
Apr 2, 2013, 12:22:03 AM4/2/13
to
In article <diikl8tqeks166434...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
should know better.
> >and
> >for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
> >like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
>
> Actually, for this application, they are going to be looking very
> closely -- inches away. So I do want 300 ppi.
inches away from a print that big??
> >try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
> >final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
> >to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
> >8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
> >
> >> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
> >..snip..
> >> To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
> >> times larger.
> >
> >that's the magic of jpeg. however, you should work with the psd file as
> >much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
> >the highest quality jpeg.
>
> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
> file.
make sure it's the last step. if you have to make a change, go back to
photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
makes this a breeze.
> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
> >
> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
>
> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
then you're going to need a more capable camera. the nikon d800 is
currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
that step is medium format, where you can get as much as 80 megapixels
(10328 x 7760 pixels), which will be about 388 ppi for a 20x24. that is
more than you need, so you would have some room to crop a bit and still
have at least 300 ppi. unfortunately, the price tag is in the low 5
digits, so you aren't likely to find one outside of a pro studio and
it's unlikely you'll find one to rent either. you'll also need a fairly
capable computer to process images that big.
also keep in mind that you will need precise focus. if the original
capture isn't properly focused, it doesn't really matter how many
pixels you have or what you do afterwards.
> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
>
> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
16 megapixels is actually more than your friend's 12 mp slr (although
not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
smaller too.
> >> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
> >> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
> >> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
> >> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
> >
> >the nikon d80 has 10 megapixels, versus 12 mp that your friend has, so
> >it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
> >even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
> >$180.
> >
> >consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
> >than you want to spend.
> >
> >in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
> >
> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
>
> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
the painting itself? what happens if they notice that the photo is not
tack sharp?
the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
people can tell the difference.
> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
> says when he gets back.
ok.
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
> >> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
> >> size close to 24 x 20.
> >
> >ideally you want 300 ppi (not dpi) but that's not always possible,
>
> The printer people said "dpi", so that's the term I have been using. I
> just looked up the two terms and it appears that ppi is more accurate.
most people say dpi when they really mean ppi, but printer people
> >> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
> >> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
> >> size close to 24 x 20.
> >
> >ideally you want 300 ppi (not dpi) but that's not always possible,
>
> The printer people said "dpi", so that's the term I have been using. I
> just looked up the two terms and it appears that ppi is more accurate.
should know better.
> >and
> >for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
> >like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
>
> Actually, for this application, they are going to be looking very
> closely -- inches away. So I do want 300 ppi.
> >try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
> >final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
> >to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
> >8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
> >
> >> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
> >..snip..
> >> To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
> >> times larger.
> >
> >that's the magic of jpeg. however, you should work with the psd file as
> >much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
> >the highest quality jpeg.
>
> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
> file.
photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
makes this a breeze.
> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
> >
> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
>
> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
that step is medium format, where you can get as much as 80 megapixels
(10328 x 7760 pixels), which will be about 388 ppi for a 20x24. that is
more than you need, so you would have some room to crop a bit and still
have at least 300 ppi. unfortunately, the price tag is in the low 5
digits, so you aren't likely to find one outside of a pro studio and
it's unlikely you'll find one to rent either. you'll also need a fairly
capable computer to process images that big.
also keep in mind that you will need precise focus. if the original
capture isn't properly focused, it doesn't really matter how many
pixels you have or what you do afterwards.
> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
>
> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
smaller too.
> >> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
> >> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
> >> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
> >> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
> >
> >the nikon d80 has 10 megapixels, versus 12 mp that your friend has, so
> >it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
> >even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
> >$180.
> >
> >consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
> >than you want to spend.
> >
> >in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
> >
> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
>
> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
the painting itself? what happens if they notice that the photo is not
tack sharp?
the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
people can tell the difference.
> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
> says when he gets back.
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 2, 2013, 12:40:04 AM4/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:22:03 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <diikl8tqeks166434...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
>> >> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
>> >> size close to 24 x 20.
>> >
>> >ideally you want 300 ppi (not dpi) but that's not always possible,
>>
>> The printer people said "dpi", so that's the term I have been using. I
>> just looked up the two terms and it appears that ppi is more accurate.
>
>most people say dpi when they really mean ppi, but printer people
>should know better.
Well, *these* printer people may be a little casual about terminology.
;-)
>> >and
>> >for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
>> >like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
>>
>> Actually, for this application, they are going to be looking very
>> closely -- inches away. So I do want 300 ppi.
>
>inches away from a print that big??
Yep
>> >try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
>> >final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
>> >to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
>> >8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
>> >
>> >> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
>> >..snip..
>> >> To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
>> >> times larger.
>> >
>> >that's the magic of jpeg. however, you should work with the psd file as
>> >much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
>> >the highest quality jpeg.
>>
>> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
>> file.
>
>make sure it's the last step. if you have to make a change, go back to
>photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
>makes this a breeze.
Someone else suggested that. I was all set to buy PS Elements, until
someone mentioned the cataloging capability and that it keeps the
original unchanged.
I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
>> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
>> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
>> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
>> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
>> >
>> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
>> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
>>
>> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
>
>then you're going to need a more capable camera. the nikon d800 is
>currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
>245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
That should be more good enough.
>that step is medium format, where you can get as much as 80 megapixels
>(10328 x 7760 pixels), which will be about 388 ppi for a 20x24. that is
>more than you need, so you would have some room to crop a bit and still
>have at least 300 ppi. unfortunately, the price tag is in the low 5
>digits, so you aren't likely to find one outside of a pro studio and
>it's unlikely you'll find one to rent either. you'll also need a fairly
>capable computer to process images that big.
>
>also keep in mind that you will need precise focus. if the original
>capture isn't properly focused, it doesn't really matter how many
>pixels you have or what you do afterwards.
>
>> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
>> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
>> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
>>
>> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
>> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
>> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
>
>16 megapixels is actually more than your friend's 12 mp slr (although
>not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
>smaller too.
But are those real megapixels or virtual ones if uncompressed?
>> >> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
>> >> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
>> >> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
>> >> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
>> >
>> >the nikon d80 has 10 megapixels, versus 12 mp that your friend has, so
>> >it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
>> >even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
>> >$180.
>> >
>> >consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
>> >than you want to spend.
>> >
>> >in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
>> >
>> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
>> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
>> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
>>
>> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
>> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
>
>the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
They are more interested in the photo, but not in the same way as a
photography geek.
>is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
>the painting itself?
The painting itself. The photograph (or the photography) is irrelevant.
>what happens if they notice that the photo is not
>tack sharp?
They probably will be polite and not say anything.
>the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
>look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
>if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
>people can tell the difference.
>
>> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
>> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
>> says when he gets back.
>
>ok.
And he also has a high-end photo printer so we can see how it will look.
I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
Thanks for the help.
wrote:
>In article <diikl8tqeks166434...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> This image is just the portrait, no border, but it's only 9.7 x 8.1 at
>> >> 300 DPI. I have to set the DPI down to about 120 x 120 to get a print
>> >> size close to 24 x 20.
>> >
>> >ideally you want 300 ppi (not dpi) but that's not always possible,
>>
>> The printer people said "dpi", so that's the term I have been using. I
>> just looked up the two terms and it appears that ppi is more accurate.
>
>most people say dpi when they really mean ppi, but printer people
>should know better.
;-)
>> >and
>> >for a print of that size, 300 ppi isn't that important anyway. it's not
>> >like people are going to look at it from a few inches away.
>>
>> Actually, for this application, they are going to be looking very
>> closely -- inches away. So I do want 300 ppi.
>
>inches away from a print that big??
>> >try printing a section on an 8.5x11" piece of paper (similar to the
>> >final paper you want to use) at 120 ppi and see how it looks. remember
>> >to look at it from a typical distance for a 20x24 print, not for an
>> >8x10, and also in similar lighting where it will be displayed.
>> >
>> >> The JPG file is only 4.4 MB. It's properties are:
>> >..snip..
>> >> To my eye on the screen, it looks identical to the PSD file, which is 20
>> >> times larger.
>> >
>> >that's the magic of jpeg. however, you should work with the psd file as
>> >much as possible. if you have to send someone a jpeg, then export it as
>> >the highest quality jpeg.
>>
>> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
>> file.
>
>make sure it's the last step. if you have to make a change, go back to
>photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
>makes this a breeze.
someone mentioned the cataloging capability and that it keeps the
original unchanged.
I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
>> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
>> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
>> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
>> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
>> >
>> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
>> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
>>
>> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
>
>then you're going to need a more capable camera. the nikon d800 is
>currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
>245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
>that step is medium format, where you can get as much as 80 megapixels
>(10328 x 7760 pixels), which will be about 388 ppi for a 20x24. that is
>more than you need, so you would have some room to crop a bit and still
>have at least 300 ppi. unfortunately, the price tag is in the low 5
>digits, so you aren't likely to find one outside of a pro studio and
>it's unlikely you'll find one to rent either. you'll also need a fairly
>capable computer to process images that big.
>
>also keep in mind that you will need precise focus. if the original
>capture isn't properly focused, it doesn't really matter how many
>pixels you have or what you do afterwards.
>
>> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
>> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
>> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
>>
>> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
>> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
>> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
>
>16 megapixels is actually more than your friend's 12 mp slr (although
>not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
>smaller too.
>> >> I called the local camera store. They will rent me a Nikon D80 (I think
>> >> that was the model number) with the right lens for about $180 for the
>> >> weekend. That's not too bad, but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it
>> >> work. I'd hate to spend $180 and still not get a good photo.
>> >
>> >the nikon d80 has 10 megapixels, versus 12 mp that your friend has, so
>> >it would actually be slightly worse, unless you can avoid cropping, and
>> >even then, the difference won't be significant and certainly not worth
>> >$180.
>> >
>> >consider renting the nikon d800, but that will likely be a *lot* more
>> >than you want to spend.
>> >
>> >in any event, what you have is probably just fine.
>> >
>> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
>> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
>> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
>>
>> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
>> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
>
>the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
photography geek.
>is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
>the painting itself?
>what happens if they notice that the photo is not
>tack sharp?
>the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
>look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
>if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
>people can tell the difference.
>
>> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
>> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
>> says when he gets back.
>
>ok.
I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
Thanks for the help.
nospam
Apr 2, 2013, 1:22:04 AM4/2/13
to
In article <ppnkl8hjd74bd63av...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
lightroom does pretty much everything you need to do, including
managing your library, the usual adjustments and in a non-destructive
way, plus export images in a variety of formats, including web pages,
books and prints.
elements is better for retouching, but lacks all the management and
export features. also, you can have a non-destructive workflow in
elements but it's not really designed for it, so it's really a pain in
the ass to do.
> >> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
> >> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
> >> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
> >> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
> >> >
> >> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
> >> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
> >>
> >> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
> >
> >then you're going to need a more capable camera. the nikon d800 is
> >currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
> >245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
>
> That should be more good enough.
that's what i figured, but i'm not convinced what you have isn't good
enough already.
> >> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
> >> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
> >> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
> >>
> >> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
> >> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
> >> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
> >
> >16 megapixels is actually more than your friend's 12 mp slr (although
> >not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
> >smaller too.
>
> But are those real megapixels or virtual ones if uncompressed?
they're real megapixels. jpeg compression doesn't change the number of
pixels, it just changes the quality of the output. the lower the
quality the smaller the file, and the more photos that fit on a given
card. there's a separate setting for pixel dimensions.
keep it set to highest quality jpeg and maximum resolution. you can
always reduce that later if needed, such as emailing a small version,
or a thumbnail on a website that links to the full size.
> >> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
> >> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
> >> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
> >>
> >> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
> >> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
> >
> >the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
>
> They are more interested in the photo, but not in the same way as a
> photography geek.
>
> >is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
> >the painting itself?
>
> The painting itself. The photograph (or the photography) is irrelevant.
the first statement says they're interested in the photo and the second
one says the photo is irrelevant. how can that be?
> >what happens if they notice that the photo is not
> >tack sharp?
>
> They probably will be polite and not say anything.
sure, but what i mean is does it cause some sort of problem, such as
they don't buy the actual painting because the photo wasn't perfect, or
they don't return to wherever this will be displayed?
> >the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
> >look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
> >if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
> >people can tell the difference.
> >
> >> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
> >> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
> >> says when he gets back.
> >
> >ok.
>
> And he also has a high-end photo printer so we can see how it will look.
> I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
which brings up another issue...colour management.
once you get everything tack sharp, presumably you'll want the colours
to be accurate.
> Thanks for the help.
any time.
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
> >> file.
> >
> >make sure it's the last step. if you have to make a change, go back to
> >photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
> >makes this a breeze.
>
> Someone else suggested that. I was all set to buy PS Elements, until
> someone mentioned the cataloging capability and that it keeps the
> original unchanged.
>
> I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
> calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
> editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
they're two different apps with overlapping features.
> >> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
> >> file.
> >
> >make sure it's the last step. if you have to make a change, go back to
> >photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
> >makes this a breeze.
>
> Someone else suggested that. I was all set to buy PS Elements, until
> someone mentioned the cataloging capability and that it keeps the
> original unchanged.
>
> I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
> calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
> editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
lightroom does pretty much everything you need to do, including
managing your library, the usual adjustments and in a non-destructive
way, plus export images in a variety of formats, including web pages,
books and prints.
elements is better for retouching, but lacks all the management and
export features. also, you can have a non-destructive workflow in
elements but it's not really designed for it, so it's really a pain in
the ass to do.
> >> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
> >> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
> >> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
> >> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
> >> >
> >> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
> >> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
> >>
> >> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
> >
> >then you're going to need a more capable camera. the nikon d800 is
> >currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
> >245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
>
> That should be more good enough.
enough already.
> >> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
> >> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
> >> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
> >>
> >> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
> >> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
> >> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
> >
> >16 megapixels is actually more than your friend's 12 mp slr (although
> >not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
> >smaller too.
>
> But are those real megapixels or virtual ones if uncompressed?
pixels, it just changes the quality of the output. the lower the
quality the smaller the file, and the more photos that fit on a given
card. there's a separate setting for pixel dimensions.
keep it set to highest quality jpeg and maximum resolution. you can
always reduce that later if needed, such as emailing a small version,
or a thumbnail on a website that links to the full size.
> >> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
> >> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
> >> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
> >>
> >> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
> >> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
> >
> >the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
>
> They are more interested in the photo, but not in the same way as a
> photography geek.
>
> >is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
> >the painting itself?
>
> The painting itself. The photograph (or the photography) is irrelevant.
one says the photo is irrelevant. how can that be?
> >what happens if they notice that the photo is not
> >tack sharp?
>
> They probably will be polite and not say anything.
they don't buy the actual painting because the photo wasn't perfect, or
they don't return to wherever this will be displayed?
> >the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
> >look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
> >if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
> >people can tell the difference.
> >
> >> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
> >> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
> >> says when he gets back.
> >
> >ok.
>
> And he also has a high-end photo printer so we can see how it will look.
> I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
once you get everything tack sharp, presumably you'll want the colours
to be accurate.
> Thanks for the help.
any time.
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 2, 2013, 2:44:29 AM4/2/13
to
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:22:04 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <ppnkl8hjd74bd63av...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
>> >> file.
>> >
>> >make sure it's the last step. if you have to make a change, go back to
>> >photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
>> >makes this a breeze.
>>
>> Someone else suggested that. I was all set to buy PS Elements, until
>> someone mentioned the cataloging capability and that it keeps the
>> original unchanged.
>>
>> I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
>> calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
>> editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
>
>they're two different apps with overlapping features.
>
>lightroom does pretty much everything you need to do, including
>managing your library, the usual adjustments and in a non-destructive
>way, plus export images in a variety of formats, including web pages,
>books and prints.
>
>elements is better for retouching, but lacks all the management and
>export features. also, you can have a non-destructive workflow in
>elements but it's not really designed for it, so it's really a pain in
>the ass to do.
I think I'll get one or the other and see how I like it -- or if I can
even make it work.
>> >> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
>> >> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
>> >> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
>> >> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
>> >> >
>> >> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
>> >> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
>> >>
>> >> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
>> >
>> >then you're going to need a more capable camera. the nikon d800 is
>> >currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
>> >245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
>>
>> That should be more good enough.
>
>that's what i figured, but i'm not convinced what you have isn't good
>enough already.
You may be right.
>> >> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
>> >> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
>> >> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
>> >>
>> >> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
>> >> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
>> >> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
>> >
>> >16 megapixels is actually more than your friend's 12 mp slr (although
>> >not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
>> >smaller too.
>>
>> But are those real megapixels or virtual ones if uncompressed?
>
>they're real megapixels. jpeg compression doesn't change the number of
>pixels, it just changes the quality of the output. the lower the
>quality the smaller the file, and the more photos that fit on a given
>card. there's a separate setting for pixel dimensions.
>
>keep it set to highest quality jpeg and maximum resolution. you can
>always reduce that later if needed, such as emailing a small version,
>or a thumbnail on a website that links to the full size.
The 8200 has 9 image size settings from VGA (640x480) to 16M (4608 x
3456). The 16M setting has 1:8 and 1:4 compression options. The print
sizes at 300 dpi range from 2.0x1.5 to 15x11 inches.
I don't see any other settings for resolution.
>> >> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
>> >> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
>> >> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
>> >>
>> >> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
>> >> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
>> >
>> >the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
>>
>> They are more interested in the photo, but not in the same way as a
>> photography geek.
>>
>> >is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
>> >the painting itself?
>>
>> The painting itself. The photograph (or the photography) is irrelevant.
>
>the first statement says they're interested in the photo and the second
>one says the photo is irrelevant. how can that be?
Yes, well, I was talking out of both sides of my mouth, there. It's
about the painting unless the photo is of such poor quality that it;s
noticeable. So the photo is of interest only if it's a problem.
Otherwise, it's about the painting.
>> >what happens if they notice that the photo is not
>> >tack sharp?
>>
>> They probably will be polite and not say anything.
>
>sure, but what i mean is does it cause some sort of problem, such as
>they don't buy the actual painting because the photo wasn't perfect, or
>they don't return to wherever this will be displayed?
There is no commercial aspect to this at all. The painting was done by a
member of the extended family. This project is a gift to say "thank
you".
>> >the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
>> >look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
>> >if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
>> >people can tell the difference.
>> >
>> >> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
>> >> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
>> >> says when he gets back.
>> >
>> >ok.
>>
>> And he also has a high-end photo printer so we can see how it will look.
>> I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
>
>which brings up another issue...colour management.
>
>once you get everything tack sharp, presumably you'll want the colours
>to be accurate.
I have been assured by the printer people that they will get the colors
right. I've used them before, so I believe this will be fine.
wrote:
>In article <ppnkl8hjd74bd63av...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
>Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> I'll check with the printer tomorrow, but I think they can use the PSD
>> >> file.
>> >
>> >make sure it's the last step. if you have to make a change, go back to
>> >photoshop, make the changes and then export another jpeg. lightroom
>> >makes this a breeze.
>>
>> Someone else suggested that. I was all set to buy PS Elements, until
>> someone mentioned the cataloging capability and that it keeps the
>> original unchanged.
>>
>> I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
>> calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
>> editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
>
>they're two different apps with overlapping features.
>
>lightroom does pretty much everything you need to do, including
>managing your library, the usual adjustments and in a non-destructive
>way, plus export images in a variety of formats, including web pages,
>books and prints.
>
>elements is better for retouching, but lacks all the management and
>export features. also, you can have a non-destructive workflow in
>elements but it's not really designed for it, so it's really a pain in
>the ass to do.
even make it work.
>> >> >> Now I think we need to reshoot the painting at a higher resolution. The
>> >> >> printer that will be making the print wants an image that is 300 DPI at
>> >> >> whatever size the print is to be. It seems to me that the resolution of
>> >> >> the images we have are at least 50% too low. Right?
>> >> >
>> >> >ideally, 300 ppi is what you want for 'tack sharp', but 20x24 prints
>> >> >are viewed from a distance so it doesn't have to be that high.
>> >>
>> >> I need 'tack sharp' (I like that term), see above.
>> >
>> >then you're going to need a more capable camera. the nikon d800 is
>> >currently as good as it gets for 35mm slrs, which will get you to about
>> >245 ppi. that's close enough, unless you want to take a big step up.
>>
>> That should be more good enough.
>
>that's what i figured, but i'm not convinced what you have isn't good
>enough already.
>> >> >for 20x24 @ 300 ppi, you'd need about 43 megapixels, which is more than
>> >> >any 35mm slr currently has, although the nikon d800 at 36 mp is close
>> >> >enough (~245 ppi). still, it's overkill.
>> >>
>> >> Interestingly, my little Nikon S8200 has a setting labeled '16M*', which
>> >> it defines as 4608 X 3456 pixels, which is just under 16 mega-pixels.
>> >> They are stored with a compression ratio of 1:4.
>> >
>> >16 megapixels is actually more than your friend's 12 mp slr (although
>> >not by much), but its lens is not as good and the sensor is a lot
>> >smaller too.
>>
>> But are those real megapixels or virtual ones if uncompressed?
>
>they're real megapixels. jpeg compression doesn't change the number of
>pixels, it just changes the quality of the output. the lower the
>quality the smaller the file, and the more photos that fit on a given
>card. there's a separate setting for pixel dimensions.
>
>keep it set to highest quality jpeg and maximum resolution. you can
>always reduce that later if needed, such as emailing a small version,
>or a thumbnail on a website that links to the full size.
3456). The 16M setting has 1:8 and 1:4 compression options. The print
sizes at 300 dpi range from 2.0x1.5 to 15x11 inches.
I don't see any other settings for resolution.
>> >> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
>> >> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
>> >> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
>> >>
>> >> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
>> >> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
>> >
>> >the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
>>
>> They are more interested in the photo, but not in the same way as a
>> photography geek.
>>
>> >is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
>> >the painting itself?
>>
>> The painting itself. The photograph (or the photography) is irrelevant.
>
>the first statement says they're interested in the photo and the second
>one says the photo is irrelevant. how can that be?
about the painting unless the photo is of such poor quality that it;s
noticeable. So the photo is of interest only if it's a problem.
Otherwise, it's about the painting.
>> >what happens if they notice that the photo is not
>> >tack sharp?
>>
>> They probably will be polite and not say anything.
>
>sure, but what i mean is does it cause some sort of problem, such as
>they don't buy the actual painting because the photo wasn't perfect, or
>they don't return to wherever this will be displayed?
member of the extended family. This project is a gift to say "thank
you".
>> >the reason i ask is because you can up-rez what you have and it will
>> >look pretty good, possibly even good enough for the intended audience.
>> >if that's the case then what you have is probably fine. however, some
>> >people can tell the difference.
>> >
>> >> I have another techie friend who tends to have the latest and greatest
>> >> photography gear. He;s on vacation until this weekend. I'll see what he
>> >> says when he gets back.
>> >
>> >ok.
>>
>> And he also has a high-end photo printer so we can see how it will look.
>> I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
>
>which brings up another issue...colour management.
>
>once you get everything tack sharp, presumably you'll want the colours
>to be accurate.
right. I've used them before, so I believe this will be fine.
nospam
Apr 2, 2013, 3:24:50 AM4/2/13
to
In article <b2ukl8h183d211reh...@4ax.com>, Jennifer
be sure to read/watch as many tutorials as possible, especially for
lightroom because it does quite a bit and works a little differently
than most other apps.
> >> >> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
> >> >> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
> >> >> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
> >> >>
> >> >> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
> >> >> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
> >> >
> >> >the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
> >>
> >> They are more interested in the photo, but not in the same way as a
> >> photography geek.
> >>
> >> >is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
> >> >the painting itself?
> >>
> >> The painting itself. The photograph (or the photography) is irrelevant.
> >
> >the first statement says they're interested in the photo and the second
> >one says the photo is irrelevant. how can that be?
>
> Yes, well, I was talking out of both sides of my mouth, there. It's
> about the painting unless the photo is of such poor quality that it;s
> noticeable. So the photo is of interest only if it's a problem.
> Otherwise, it's about the painting.
unless they plant their nose right up to the photo, which is not
generally what people do, it should be fine. also keep in mind, someone
can always find *something* wrong with any photo. nothing is perfect.
> >> >what happens if they notice that the photo is not
> >> >tack sharp?
> >>
> >> They probably will be polite and not say anything.
> >
> >sure, but what i mean is does it cause some sort of problem, such as
> >they don't buy the actual painting because the photo wasn't perfect, or
> >they don't return to wherever this will be displayed?
>
> There is no commercial aspect to this at all. The painting was done by a
> member of the extended family. This project is a gift to say "thank
> you".
based on what you've said and done so far, i think they'll be quite
happy with the results.
> >> And he also has a high-end photo printer so we can see how it will look.
> >> I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
> >
> >which brings up another issue...colour management.
> >
> >once you get everything tack sharp, presumably you'll want the colours
> >to be accurate.
>
> I have been assured by the printer people that they will get the colors
> right. I've used them before, so I believe this will be fine.
how will they know what is right? will there be test prints? will they
have the painting for reference?
just because it may look right on your monitor doesn't mean they will
get the same colours that you see. matching colours is not always easy.
Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:
> >> I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
> >> calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
> >> editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
> >
> >they're two different apps with overlapping features.
> >
> >lightroom does pretty much everything you need to do, including
> >managing your library, the usual adjustments and in a non-destructive
> >way, plus export images in a variety of formats, including web pages,
> >books and prints.
> >
> >elements is better for retouching, but lacks all the management and
> >export features. also, you can have a non-destructive workflow in
> >elements but it's not really designed for it, so it's really a pain in
> >the ass to do.
>
> I think I'll get one or the other and see how I like it -- or if I can
> even make it work.
both have trial versions.
> >> I did a little research comparing Elements with Lightroom. (I keep
> >> calling it Lightbox, for some reason.) It looks like Elements has more
> >> editing features, but either probably has more than I will ever use.
> >
> >they're two different apps with overlapping features.
> >
> >lightroom does pretty much everything you need to do, including
> >managing your library, the usual adjustments and in a non-destructive
> >way, plus export images in a variety of formats, including web pages,
> >books and prints.
> >
> >elements is better for retouching, but lacks all the management and
> >export features. also, you can have a non-destructive workflow in
> >elements but it's not really designed for it, so it's really a pain in
> >the ass to do.
>
> I think I'll get one or the other and see how I like it -- or if I can
> even make it work.
be sure to read/watch as many tutorials as possible, especially for
lightroom because it does quite a bit and works a little differently
than most other apps.
> >> >> >what's the intended purpose of the photo? is it for camera geeks who
> >> >> >will analyze it for any technical flaw or is it for art lovers who will
> >> >> >admire a photograph of the original painting?
> >> >>
> >> >> Neither. I dont mean to be mysterious, but it will be scrutinized at
> >> >> very close range, but by a different kind of geeks.
> >> >
> >> >the question is are they more interested in the artwork or the photo?
> >>
> >> They are more interested in the photo, but not in the same way as a
> >> photography geek.
> >>
> >> >is the goal to demonstrate how well you can photograph a painting or
> >> >the painting itself?
> >>
> >> The painting itself. The photograph (or the photography) is irrelevant.
> >
> >the first statement says they're interested in the photo and the second
> >one says the photo is irrelevant. how can that be?
>
> Yes, well, I was talking out of both sides of my mouth, there. It's
> about the painting unless the photo is of such poor quality that it;s
> noticeable. So the photo is of interest only if it's a problem.
> Otherwise, it's about the painting.
generally what people do, it should be fine. also keep in mind, someone
can always find *something* wrong with any photo. nothing is perfect.
> >> >what happens if they notice that the photo is not
> >> >tack sharp?
> >>
> >> They probably will be polite and not say anything.
> >
> >sure, but what i mean is does it cause some sort of problem, such as
> >they don't buy the actual painting because the photo wasn't perfect, or
> >they don't return to wherever this will be displayed?
>
> There is no commercial aspect to this at all. The painting was done by a
> member of the extended family. This project is a gift to say "thank
> you".
happy with the results.
> >> And he also has a high-end photo printer so we can see how it will look.
> >> I don't think he can print 20x24, but close.
> >
> >which brings up another issue...colour management.
> >
> >once you get everything tack sharp, presumably you'll want the colours
> >to be accurate.
>
> I have been assured by the printer people that they will get the colors
> right. I've used them before, so I believe this will be fine.
have the painting for reference?
just because it may look right on your monitor doesn't mean they will
get the same colours that you see. matching colours is not always easy.
nick c
Apr 2, 2013, 3:37:10 AM4/2/13
to
David Hare-Scott wrote:
> nick c wrote:
>>>>> The point
>>>>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>>>>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>>>>> independently reflect light.
>>>>
>>>> The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a
>>>> statement that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of
>>>> incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection.
>>>
>>> Lloyd is quite right. The surface is textured, with facets reflecting
>>> light in all different directions.
>>
>> Is it your intention to say that because the surface is textured with
>> light reflecting surfaces "the angle of incidence is equal to the
>> angle of reflection" axiom is not applicable?
>>
>
> It is applicable at the microscopic level but there are a zillion angles
> of incidence due to the almost random nature of the surface, hence the
> light is scattered in a zillion reflections in many directions not
> reflected in a single ray in one direction. At the macroscopic level
> you only get a clearly observable angle of reflection from a flat
> polished surface.
There can be no "but." Regardless of how light may be scattered, whether
> nick c wrote:
>>>>> The point
>>>>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>>>>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>>>>> independently reflect light.
>>>>
>>>> The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a
>>>> statement that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of
>>>> incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection.
>>>
>>> Lloyd is quite right. The surface is textured, with facets reflecting
>>> light in all different directions.
>>
>> Is it your intention to say that because the surface is textured with
>> light reflecting surfaces "the angle of incidence is equal to the
>> angle of reflection" axiom is not applicable?
>>
>
> It is applicable at the microscopic level but there are a zillion angles
> of incidence due to the almost random nature of the surface, hence the
> light is scattered in a zillion reflections in many directions not
> reflected in a single ray in one direction. At the macroscopic level
> you only get a clearly observable angle of reflection from a flat
> polished surface.
it be macroscopically random or in a singular controlled path "the angle
of incidence is [always] equal to the angle of reflection."
Reflected light must have a point of origin. A shiny surface alone
cannot reflect light unless light is present and directed to the shiny
surface. If, as you say, there are a zillion angles of incidence then it
follows, there must be a zillion (or more, or less) angles of reflection
(if there are reflectable surfaces). To think it to be otherwise then
the law of physics would not be applicable and it could not be
considered axiomatic. However, if we are to accept and apply the
principle of physics then "the angle of incidence is equal to the the
angle of reflection" is an an accepted truth, ergo, an axiom.
Perhaps the first step to take is know whether you do or do not believe
"the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection" and that it
is applicable to and even in conditions that scatter light. If you don't
believe it is applicable then there's no need to converse. If you do
believe it is applicable then to present the argument that there may
exist a "zillion angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
otherwise, is of no consequence.
>
> And "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" is *not* an axiom (which
> is a fact assumed for the point of argument which requires no
> observation) but a law of physics derived from observation.
neither be a law of physics nor an accepted fact or an axiom. It would
be relegated to being an assumption; which is merely being /thought/ to
be a truth, or a hypothesis that may be taken for granted, subject to
being disputed.
>
> See
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)
Thank you for directing me to this site but I've known about this site
(and others) for some time.
>
> David
>
Eric Stevens
Apr 2, 2013, 5:08:02 AM4/2/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:36:39 -0700, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
Of course not. Nevertheless the point remains that "Even if light is
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
directly incident on an oil painting it may be reflected from the
brush strokes at various angles."
>
>>>
brush strokes at various angles."
>
>>>
>>> I can see you've developed a mind-set but your mind-set is not good
>>> enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
>>> rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
>>> of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
>>> what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
>>> is not axiomatic.
>>>
>> You haven't understood what you have read.
>>
>
>I understand that the axiom is applicable regardless of the surface
>texture. There is a direct correlation between light reflection and the
>incidence of light that cannot be off-set due to the number of surfaces
>reflecting light.
That doesn't mean that all the reflections go in the same direction.
>>> enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
>>> rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
>>> of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
>>> what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
>>> is not axiomatic.
>>>
>> You haven't understood what you have read.
>>
>
>I understand that the axiom is applicable regardless of the surface
>texture. There is a direct correlation between light reflection and the
>incidence of light that cannot be off-set due to the number of surfaces
>reflecting light.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Floyd L. Davidson
Apr 2, 2013, 8:27:29 AM4/2/13
to
nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>otherwise, is of no consequence.
That is just plain wrong. You don't apparently understand
> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>otherwise, is of no consequence.
what "angle of incidence" means.
Nobody has even remotely suggested that the angle of reflection is
not equal to the angle of incidence. Not a hint of it! So why
are you arguing as you are unless you simply don't realize what
an angle of incidence is when applied to reflections from a non-flat
surface?
>Thank you for directing me to this site but I've known
>about this site (and others) for some time.
situations!
James Silverton
Apr 2, 2013, 9:03:50 AM4/2/13
to
On 4/2/2013 8:27 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>> present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>> angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>> otherwise, is of no consequence.
>
> That is just plain wrong. You don't apparently understand
> what "angle of incidence" means.
>
> Nobody has even remotely suggested that the angle of reflection is
> not equal to the angle of incidence. Not a hint of it! So why
> are you arguing as you are unless you simply don't realize what
> an angle of incidence is when applied to reflections from a non-flat
> surface?
>
>> Thank you for directing me to this site but I've known
>> about this site (and others) for some time.
>
> And have yet to understand how it applies to real life
> situations!
>
I would think it means that a polarizing filter will eliminate some but
> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>> present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>> angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>> otherwise, is of no consequence.
>
> That is just plain wrong. You don't apparently understand
> what "angle of incidence" means.
>
> Nobody has even remotely suggested that the angle of reflection is
> not equal to the angle of incidence. Not a hint of it! So why
> are you arguing as you are unless you simply don't realize what
> an angle of incidence is when applied to reflections from a non-flat
> surface?
>
>> Thank you for directing me to this site but I've known
>> about this site (and others) for some time.
>
> And have yet to understand how it applies to real life
> situations!
>
not all of the reflected rather than scattered light. However, it should
improve the image some. I've never examined an oil painting closely
enough to tell if the brush strokes have a prevalent direction.
Something for my next trip to the art gallery since I don't own any oil
paintings.
nick c
Apr 2, 2013, 4:18:22 PM4/2/13
to
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>> present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>> angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>> otherwise, is of no consequence.
>
> That is just plain wrong. You don't apparently understand
> what "angle of incidence" means.
It refers to the angle of light striking on a surface, does it not? If
> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>> present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>> angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>> otherwise, is of no consequence.
>
> That is just plain wrong. You don't apparently understand
> what "angle of incidence" means.
it is so, then I've always understood its meaning.
The thought that I have been trying to convey is without light there can
be no angle of incidence. There seems to be a related opinion that
multi-directional surfaces (flat or otherwise, macro or otherwise) is a
more important element in the transmission of light than the light
source itself. It's like saying, in a darkened room, shiny surfaces will
reflect light. Light cannot be reflected (bounced or transmitted) where
there is no light. In this case it's wrong to put the cart before the
horse. Ergo, the most important problem to overcome is to first consider
the light source and not the numbered magnitude or type of surfaces
being exposed to the light. By saying there may be multi-directional
surfaces to become concerned with only deepens the confusion that's
normally associated with a photographic set-up. Something considered to
be impossible remains impossible until it becomes possible.
Something else I learned a long time ago is "The opinion of a majority
does not necessarily constitute what's right but merely indicate that
many people could be wrong." I think it was a French philosopher who
said that .... but I could be wrong.
David Hare-Scott
Apr 2, 2013, 6:29:39 PM4/2/13
to
nick c wrote:
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
>> nick c wrote:
>>>>>> The point
>>>>>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>>>>>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>>>>>> independently reflect light.
>>>>>
>>>>> The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a
>>>>> statement that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of
>>>>> incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection.
>>>>
>>>> Lloyd is quite right. The surface is textured, with facets
>>>> reflecting light in all different directions.
>>>
>>> Is it your intention to say that because the surface is textured
>>> with light reflecting surfaces "the angle of incidence is equal to
>>> the angle of reflection" axiom is not applicable?
>>>
>>
>> It is applicable at the microscopic level but there are a zillion
>> angles of incidence due to the almost random nature of the surface,
>> hence the light is scattered in a zillion reflections in many
>> directions not reflected in a single ray in one direction. At the
>> macroscopic level you only get a clearly observable angle of
>> reflection from a flat polished surface.
>
> There can be no "but." Regardless of how light may be scattered,
> whether it be macroscopically random or in a singular controlled path
> "the angle of incidence is [always] equal to the angle of reflection."
>
True at the detailed level but not observable by the human eye. Try to get
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
>> nick c wrote:
>>>>>> The point
>>>>>> you still don't get is that there are many many angles of
>>>>>> incidence, simply because there are many facets that each
>>>>>> independently reflect light.
>>>>>
>>>>> The subject seems to be beyond your comprehension. You make a
>>>>> statement that has no bearing on the fact that the angle of
>>>>> incidence is always equal to the angle of reflection.
>>>>
>>>> Lloyd is quite right. The surface is textured, with facets
>>>> reflecting light in all different directions.
>>>
>>> Is it your intention to say that because the surface is textured
>>> with light reflecting surfaces "the angle of incidence is equal to
>>> the angle of reflection" axiom is not applicable?
>>>
>>
>> It is applicable at the microscopic level but there are a zillion
>> angles of incidence due to the almost random nature of the surface,
>> hence the light is scattered in a zillion reflections in many
>> directions not reflected in a single ray in one direction. At the
>> macroscopic level you only get a clearly observable angle of
>> reflection from a flat polished surface.
>
> There can be no "but." Regardless of how light may be scattered,
> whether it be macroscopically random or in a singular controlled path
> "the angle of incidence is [always] equal to the angle of reflection."
>
your head around the fact that the world looks and behave differently
according to scale. You can make generalisations about observations at the
micro level or the macro but it comes as no surprise when those observations
are not always exactly the same. You seem to be saying these observations
must all be same. Sorry, the world isn't like that. Stop chanting "the
angle of incidence is [always] equal to the angle of reflection." that is
not improving your understanding.
> Reflected light must have a point of origin. A shiny surface alone
> cannot reflect light unless light is present and directed to the shiny
> surface. If, as you say, there are a zillion angles of incidence then
> it follows, there must be a zillion (or more, or less) angles of
> reflection (if there are reflectable surfaces). To think it to be
> otherwise then the law of physics would not be applicable and it
> could not be considered axiomatic. However, if we are to accept and
> apply the principle of physics then "the angle of incidence is equal
> to the the angle of reflection" is an an accepted truth, ergo, an
> axiom.
usually assumed to form the base of some further deductive reasoning. It
has no necessary relationship to observation or the real world. We are
talking about a physical law which is accepted because it is based on common
observation not because it is an axiom.
> Perhaps the first step to take is know whether you do or do not
> believe "the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection"
> and that it is applicable to and even in conditions that scatter
> light. If you don't believe it is applicable then there's no need to
> converse. If you do believe it is applicable then to present the
> argument that there may exist a "zillion angles" of incidence or
> reflection, macroscopically or otherwise, is of no consequence.
>
>>
>> And "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" is *not* an axiom
>> (which is a fact assumed for the point of argument which requires no
>> observation) but a law of physics derived from observation.
>
> Regardless of it being a law of physics if it were disputable it would
> neither be a law of physics nor an accepted fact or an axiom. It would
> be relegated to being an assumption; which is merely being /thought/
> to be a truth, or a hypothesis that may be taken for granted, subject
> to being disputed.
>
observations they can be changed. They can be disputable in principle and
in some cases they are in fact disputed. It is NOT the case that once a law
of physics is formed it remains perfect and unchanged, a thing of beauty for
evermore.
An axiom is an assumption for the point of argument or deduction, it is not
based on observation. A physical law is never an axiom - it is always based
on observation. Stop confusing the issue by using words in your own private
sense and try using words the way they are in the dictionary.
David
Eric Stevens
Apr 2, 2013, 6:57:53 PM4/2/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:36:39 -0700, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
"Reflectance is directly related to the angle of incidence, however
that may occur. It's an axiom."
Most people who have read your response have taken you to be
disagreeing with James Silverton when he wrote that "light [is]
is what you intended.
>
>>>
>>> I can see you've developed a mind-set but your mind-set is not good
>>> enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
>>> rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
>>> of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
>>> what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
>>> is not axiomatic.
>>>
>> You haven't understood what you have read.
>>
>
>I understand that the axiom is applicable regardless of the surface
>texture. There is a direct correlation between light reflection and the
>incidence of light that cannot be off-set due to the number of surfaces
>reflecting light.
Do you not realise that a textured surface consists of zillions of
small surfaces (facets) each of which reflects light in a different
direction from its differently aligned neighbours?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
All of this discussion started when on 31 March James Silverton wrote:
"Even if light is directly incident on an oil painting it may be
reflected from the brush strokes at various angles."
... and you responded:
"Even if light is directly incident on an oil painting it may be
reflected from the brush strokes at various angles."
"Reflectance is directly related to the angle of incidence, however
that may occur. It's an axiom."
Most people who have read your response have taken you to be
disagreeing with James Silverton when he wrote that "light [is]
directly incident on an oil painting [it] may be reflected from the
brush strokes at various angles."
It will be helpful if you tell us whether or not this interpretation
brush strokes at various angles."
is what you intended.
>
>>>
>>> I can see you've developed a mind-set but your mind-set is not good
>>> enough. You should conduct a search and educated yourself that light
>>> rays do bend as the intensity (or perhaps a better term may be 'speed'
>>> of light falls off). Google post a site that agrees with you and that
>>> what I have said is untrue and/or otherwise prove that what I have said
>>> is not axiomatic.
>>>
>> You haven't understood what you have read.
>>
>
>I understand that the axiom is applicable regardless of the surface
>texture. There is a direct correlation between light reflection and the
>incidence of light that cannot be off-set due to the number of surfaces
>reflecting light.
small surfaces (facets) each of which reflects light in a different
direction from its differently aligned neighbours?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Floyd L. Davidson
Apr 2, 2013, 6:58:07 PM4/2/13
to
nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>>> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>>> present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>>> angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>>> otherwise, is of no consequence.
>>
>> That is just plain wrong. You don't apparently understand
>> what "angle of incidence" means.
>
>It refers to the angle of light striking on a surface,
>does it not? If it is so, then I've always understood
>its meaning.
So you say, and then you go on to prove absolutely
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net> wrote:
>>> If you do believe it is applicable then to
>>> present the argument that there may exist a "zillion
>>> angles" of incidence or reflection, macroscopically or
>>> otherwise, is of no consequence.
>>
>> That is just plain wrong. You don't apparently understand
>> what "angle of incidence" means.
>
>It refers to the angle of light striking on a surface,
>does it not? If it is so, then I've always understood
>its meaning.
that you are clueless:
Peabody
Apr 2, 2013, 7:12:10 PM4/2/13
to
Jennifer Murphy says...
> I have been assured by the printer people that they will
> get the colors right. I've used them before, so I
> believe this will be fine.
I'd suggest you ask your printer about scanning the
painting. I was at a local printer this afternoon, and they
said they can scan paintings up to 4x6 feet. It can be on a
stretcher, but not framed.
You might also want to ask them about printing on canvas
(giclee) rather than paper.
My printer said he could scan in a 24" x 24" painting, and
print a life-sized (1:1) copy on canvas for $100 ballpark.
If this will be a gift, it might be worth doing it that way.
> I have been assured by the printer people that they will
> get the colors right. I've used them before, so I
> believe this will be fine.
painting. I was at a local printer this afternoon, and they
said they can scan paintings up to 4x6 feet. It can be on a
stretcher, but not framed.
You might also want to ask them about printing on canvas
(giclee) rather than paper.
My printer said he could scan in a 24" x 24" painting, and
print a life-sized (1:1) copy on canvas for $100 ballpark.
If this will be a gift, it might be worth doing it that way.
nick c
Apr 2, 2013, 8:53:34 PM4/2/13
to
without light there can be no reflections and you seem to have a
mind-set towards an entirely different direction. Alter light and the
observations become subject to change.
> Sorry, the world isn't like
> that. Stop chanting "the angle of incidence is [always] equal to the
> angle of reflection." that is not improving your understanding.
>
>
>
>> Reflected light must have a point of origin. A shiny surface alone
>> cannot reflect light unless light is present and directed to the shiny
>> surface. If, as you say, there are a zillion angles of incidence then
>> it follows, there must be a zillion (or more, or less) angles of
>> reflection (if there are reflectable surfaces). To think it to be
>> otherwise then the law of physics would not be applicable and it
>> could not be considered axiomatic. However, if we are to accept and
>> apply the principle of physics then "the angle of incidence is equal
>> to the the angle of reflection" is an an accepted truth, ergo, an
>> axiom.
>
> An Axiom is NOT just an accepted truth.
> An axiom is an assumed truthusually assumed to form the base of some further deductive reasoning.
> It has no necessary relationship to observation or the real world. We
> are talking about a physical law which is accepted because it is based
> on common observation not because it is an axiom.
>
>> Perhaps the first step to take is know whether you do or do not
>> believe "the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection"
>> and that it is applicable to and even in conditions that scatter
>> light. If you don't believe it is applicable then there's no need to
>> converse. If you do believe it is applicable then to present the
>> argument that there may exist a "zillion angles" of incidence or
>> reflection, macroscopically or otherwise, is of no consequence.
>>
>>>
>>> And "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" is *not* an axiom
>>> (which is a fact assumed for the point of argument which requires no
>>> observation) but a law of physics derived from observation.
>>
>> Regardless of it being a law of physics if it were disputable it would
>> neither be a law of physics nor an accepted fact or an axiom. It would
>> be relegated to being an assumption; which is merely being /thought/
>> to be a truth, or a hypothesis that may be taken for granted, subject
>> to being disputed.
>>
>
> Wrong. Laws of physics are based on observation. If there are new
> observations they can be changed. They can be disputable in principle
> and in some cases they are in fact disputed. It is NOT the case that
> once a law of physics is formed it remains perfect and unchanged, a
> thing of beauty for evermore.
I never said the laws of physics were unchanging, eternal, or artful
> are talking about a physical law which is accepted because it is based
> on common observation not because it is an axiom.
>
>> Perhaps the first step to take is know whether you do or do not
>> believe "the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection"
>> and that it is applicable to and even in conditions that scatter
>> light. If you don't believe it is applicable then there's no need to
>> converse. If you do believe it is applicable then to present the
>> argument that there may exist a "zillion angles" of incidence or
>> reflection, macroscopically or otherwise, is of no consequence.
>>
>>>
>>> And "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" is *not* an axiom
>>> (which is a fact assumed for the point of argument which requires no
>>> observation) but a law of physics derived from observation.
>>
>> Regardless of it being a law of physics if it were disputable it would
>> neither be a law of physics nor an accepted fact or an axiom. It would
>> be relegated to being an assumption; which is merely being /thought/
>> to be a truth, or a hypothesis that may be taken for granted, subject
>> to being disputed.
>>
>
> Wrong. Laws of physics are based on observation. If there are new
> observations they can be changed. They can be disputable in principle
> and in some cases they are in fact disputed. It is NOT the case that
> once a law of physics is formed it remains perfect and unchanged, a
> thing of beauty for evermore.
evermore.
>
> An axiom is an assumption for the point of argument or deduction, it is
> not based on observation. A physical law is never an axiom - it is
> always based on observation. Stop confusing the issue by using words in
> your own private sense and try using words the way they are in the
> dictionary.
Confusing the issue!!! Every time you post you seem go off in another
>
> An axiom is an assumption for the point of argument or deduction, it is
> not based on observation. A physical law is never an axiom - it is
> always based on observation. Stop confusing the issue by using words in
> your own private sense and try using words the way they are in the
> dictionary.
direction; a direction of your own choosing.
>
> David
Taken from the World Wide Web dictionary:
Assumption: A hypothesis that is taken for granted.
Axiom: (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or
disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident.
nick c
Apr 2, 2013, 8:54:23 PM4/2/13
to
>
David Hare-Scott
Apr 2, 2013, 9:11:42 PM4/2/13
to
D
nick c
Apr 2, 2013, 9:37:32 PM4/2/13
to
important element in photographing objects that have surfaces that
reflect light is the light itself. Where there is no light, reflecting
surfaces (be they macro's, multi's, or brush strokes) are of no
consequence. How light is administered to a scene has a direct bearing
upon any surface subject to its reflection.
When James Silverton introduce brush strokes into the conversation,
which was intended to be instructional, it tended to deviate from what
should have been the most important subject and that is light; how the
light should be administered to the scene intended to be photographed.
In my early youthful years I worked for a company called Farnsworth
Laboratories. I photographed hundreds of paintings which were works of
art valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars (that's dollars in the
late 1940's early 1950's). The photographs were printed using the Carbro
process so that the brush strokes could be clearly seen, and in some
some cases, felt (Carbro, as you know, is pigment not dye). The photo's
were taken for insurance purposes for companies that insured the
paintings. Painting brush strokes were never a problem but what was a
problem is how the set-up was made and the application of light.
Someone learning to drive a car need not be first-off frightened by
being told that there's crazy drivers using the roadway. When someone
wants to learn how to drive, the "how to" is what should be taught and
not the fears. I just felt that James Silvertons post contained more to
be fearful about than being helpfully constructive.
nick c
Apr 2, 2013, 9:38:56 PM4/2/13
to
Jennifer Murphy
Apr 3, 2013, 12:35:00 AM4/3/13
to
I called two local printers. They said they couldn't do it unless I took
it out of the frame, which is not an option.
Thanks
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages