This is the item to discuss digital manipulation of phtographic images.
Examples might include, what is your favorite photoshop filter, what projects
are you working on, what refernces do you find helpful?

119 responses total.

This is really interesting to me, but I know ZERO about it.  I am considering
spending some hard earned cash to play around with digital photos in general.
I hope we get some informed people to start a healthy discussion here.
Thanks.

I am interested in purchasing one of the software programs to change/modify
the photo image from disc.  Could this technology make the darkroom obsolete?
If the poducts are half as good as the adds claim, they just might.  Is 
anyone familiar with such software?

Popular Photography (magazine) has had a number of articles about this
recently, and many examples. 

I have no experience with digital manipulation, but Adobe Photoshop seems to
be most frequently mentioned.  Another thing to consider is the RAM level
of your computer.  Again, I am not experienced, but I think you need 16 M and
perhaps as much as 32 M.  Anyone else?

I'm considering buying a Microtek 35T slide scanner, which comes bundled
with Photoshop LE (limited edition).  It offers 8 bit times 3 passes
scanning for color.  The difference between this and a typical flatbed
scanner is a higher optical resolution: more dots per inch.  BTW, this
requires 8 Meg to run (which I have :) ).  This unit seems about the same
in optical quality as a Polaroid model costing around 2X as much which
features faster scanning.  I wonder if anyone in this cf has any
experience with these types of scanners.  The 8 bit models run from $950
to $2,000, while fancy 10 or 12 bit models now being advertised go for
upwards of $2,500 to $6,000.  As I am mostly interested in an archive of
of files I can use via a browser like Netscape, and not for a Nth degree
quality presentation, I won't be considering the top end models...


  Maybe this item should be linked to one of the computer cfs so we can
learn something from some of the users of this sort of hardware that
might not be on the photo cf.

I have droped an e-mail note to the fw's of the micro cf - (Omni & Jshafer)
asking them if they think it is appropriate to link, and if so to go ahead.
We'll see!

  I use Photoshop on my Mac...it's a great program, though for basic
functions (contrast/brightness/hue/saturation adjustment) there are
cheaper/free programs.  It's also an incredible memory hog...I run it
with just 8 megs of RAM (half of which is used for the operating
system), which makes things darned slow, but even with 16 megs it's
pokey.  Depends on image size too...Adobe offers some rule of thumb,
like you ought to have 8 megs plus two or three times as much RAM as
the image size, or something like that.
 
  I'm not too familiar with darkrooms, but from what I've seen, if you
have an okayish print, you can scan it and run software to do anything
you'd do in a darkroom.  Though the resolution on the computer is
usually lower, and converting the image to hard copy, with screen &
printer colors synched, is an art unto itself.  On the other hand, it
wouldn't surprise me to see film pretty obsolete in a couple decades.

Can you burn and dodge on a computer?  (Selectively over or under expose?)

one pixel at a time....

  I'm not sure of the exact effect you want, but you can select
a subsection of an image, and apply a transformation on it
(brightness adjustment would be similar to under/over-expose).
Normal retouching of part of a picture this way is quite easy.
You could also easily make a section redder, sharper, or blurrier.
If you're trying to make neon-like glows around parts of the
image, it's a bit trickier, but you can do that too.

The big problem is reproducing in the digital realm the effect known as "the
magic of film".  If you have ever seen a "making of" about a movie and all
the explosions look super-cheesy, it is because the special is on video tape
vs. film.

Yes you can burn and dodge in photoshop (3.0). Select the "toning tool"
it looks like a lollipop. Double click it to set options (and brush
size/shape). It also offers a "sponge" option. I'll have to go get the
manual to figure out what that does.

Photoshop is demanding on your hardware, but if you feed it enough iron,
and ram, it works really well.

I currently don't have enough power to run Photoshop.  If I get 8 meg ram to
add to my 486 dx would that do it?  Do I need anything else like a Graphics
accelerator card (whatever that does)?  Finally, if I don't invest in a super
snazzy color printer, can I go to any place in AA (Kinko's) and have the files
printed from a disk?

I am only familiar with the Mac ports of Photoshop. THe original port,
requires a 68020 or better MC68k processor and requires 6MB of
application memory. For a 68K Mac running System 7, 8MB would be a squeeze,
but you could do it.

For the PowerMac version, it requires a PPC601 and 11MB application
memory. A 16MB system would be required.

For the 386/486 PC version, I don't have any literature. My guess is
that 8MB Ram would be inadequate, although Rob Argy says he can do it.
I am not familiar with Photoshop on this architecture, as I said, 
so I'm only guessing. 16MB ought to be enough I would think, unless
you were running Windows NT.

Photoshop includes its own virtual memory implementation, so if you
are willing to wait while it swaps images in memory, it can do a lot
more than you might think with less memory. I have gotten fed up
with waiting and added more RAM to my system, though. I don't
recommend challenging Photoshop's VM by running it in a small space unless
you just can't afford more.

  Actually, I run PS on my Mac with 8MB of RAM, though I'm not sure if
I need virtual memory for that.  I prefer PS 2.5.2 to PS 3.0 for most
things because it's quite a bit faster.  A friend of mine uses a PowerPC
Mac with 8MB RAM with PS 3.0 a lot, but it is excruciatingly slow, and
I know it uses virtual memory.
 
  The downtown AA Kinko's has the best publicly usable computer equipment
I've seen.  They have a nice new Apple color postscript printer, though
it's $2/page, and an HP black & white printer, and perhaps some others.
Photoshop is available at least on their Macs, and they can read PC disks
if they don't have it installed on their PCs.  They also have an Apple
OneScanner on one Mac ($20/hr to use it), or they can scan images for you
on either platform for $10/scan.

Thanks.  I guess if I decide to go for it, it'l have to be 16meg (ouch).

A PowerPC Mac with 8MB is going to be very slow. I have my PPC Mac
set to give Photoshop 3.0 it's 11MB suggested. It works great!

There is also something called "Ram Doubler" which is a background
application to double your ram via various economies, with disk swapping
as a last alternative.  It is supposed to work much better than virtual
ram in terms of not slowing down a system.  I'm not familiar with how well
it would work with a real hog like Photoshop.  I also understand that it
works best when you are starting with 8 or more meg, but will also work
with a minimum of 4 meg.  I have it installed on my 8 meg Mac, giving me
an apparent 16 meg of ram.  I haven't put it to a serious test yet,
though.  IT is available for both Mac and Windows for about $55.

  Another alternative is to get something other than Photoshop!  HSC
(publishers of Kai's Power Tools) recently released a competitor, with
one of its main claims to fame being *speed*...it allegedly edits half
gig images faster than PS can edit half meg images.  Quark is also
coming out with a competitive product, which is supposed to be more
speed-oriented than PS.  I'm not totally clear on the details, but
both sound like they're more into storing images and modifications to
the images, giving a speed boost over PS's approach of changing each
affected pixel of an image as its modified, even if it's off-screen or
too small to see on screen.  Apple also publishes an intro-level
image-editing package for around $100 that handles the basics.
 
  I'm thinking of popping $100 for a new 3d graphics package that
models the human body.  It looks like a fun tool to play with.  Not
sure if I'll need something else to render the wireframes though.
Can anyone recommend a cheap-but-decent ($100 or less) general-purpose
3d package for the Mac?  Seems like the good ones are $500 or more.

I strongly recommend Ray Dream Designer. It is not under $100, but it is
within reach at about $250. I like how it does solid and surface textures,
and text, especially (bevelled 3-d letters, for example). Relatively
fast rendering, too. No animation (I can live without it).
Modeling is pretty good too, but it doesn't allow you to edit a
surface point-by-point once you have constructed it, like the really 
expensive packages can. I think it's a great bargain, anyway.

Or get POV (shareware) for PC. It's much more limited with textures
and text, but less money. Not for my taste, though.

I bought a Microtek ScanMaker II, which works very nicely.  I'm not really
interested in creating 1G images, but that's what it would take to make a
decent size, high resolution color image.  Luckily, images scanned at
fairly low resolution look great, too.  (a newspaper image is only about
80 dpi), and besides who needs millions of colors when your hardware is
blind to all that resolution.  For compiling a fairly good collection of
images from photos and documents this seems to work well.  You *can*
create nice looking color images for <100K, with trial and error.  I
usually make a "rich" scan (2-4 meg) and then knock it down, paring away a
little quality and a lot of memory.  Some types of pictures look great in
16 colors, 16 grey scale or even straight B or W.

  One buggy problem I've been getting seems to be related to memory
allocation on my Mac.  I have enough memory to run the software (Color It!
with a Photoshop plug-in for scanning)  but I have started to get "not enough
memory" errors *on other programs* after using the scanner.  This has me
puzzled because a check of available memory shows I am using only a
fraction and should not be running into any walls.   I have virtual memory
turned of, but am using Ram Doubler.  The problem persists whether RD is
switched on or off.  Eventually the problem clears up, but I have not been
able to keep it from returning or decide exactly what the cause is.

  Have you tried removing RAM Doubler from your system folder, as
opposed to clicking the "off button?"  Weird problem...I think every
Mac has a couple unique oddities like that :).
 
  I heard that the human eye can only consciously discern about 4,000
different colors.  I'm not sure I believe that, but if true, it seems
the "millions of colors" used in high quality images is either wasted
on us or maybe works at a subconscious level.  If my computer could
display millions of colors, I'd be curious to compare an image using
that with an image converted to 4,000 colors, to see if I could detect
any difference.  I can definitely see the loss when I go to 256 colors.

I don't think it's related to the doubler, but I might try physically
removing it.  I can debug the bug by using the "get info" menu and
tweaking up the preferred memory on the balking program.  The strange
thing is that it's a one time solution and not a fix.  The program runs
fine even if I turn around and lower the memory allocation... until the
next "blockage" occurs.  And leaving an increased memory allocation won't
prevent the bug from its return. 

Does the problem persist after rebooting (as we discussed f2f)? RAM
fragmentation could persist after running several applications
simultaneously.

Yes, and, as I share use of this computer, see:  Hot Water.

Does Color It! leave an INIT (extension) active upon reboot? If so,
are you have an extension (or control panel) conflict? If there is
one associated with Color It!, stick it in the disabled extensions
folder, and check for the problem after reboot. 

Re #22: The human eye actually has two color thresholds; we are
much more sensitive to differences in color when the two colors
are next to each other than we are when they're separated.
So it may be that 24-bit color is useful for providing smooth
color gradients, even though we might not be able to individually
discern all of the colors used.

I haven't studied this in any depth but.... the human eye can only
respond to three colors as it has only three visual pigments. All the
other colors are admixtures of responses of the three pigments. 256 -
or 4000 - colors are therefore differences in levels of intensities of
the admixtures, and in fact would depend on light intensity as well
as the source intensities (since the pigment responses are nonlinear). 
In view of all this, I am not sure that one can categorically state
that the eye is "more sensitive to difference...when (they) are next to
each other". First, I am not sure what is meant by "more sensitive", and
secondly, one has to define "next to each other" and "separated", and
thirdly, I think it would depend on the placement of the pairs in the
tristimulus space.

It is probably not correct to say that "the eye" is more sensitive
to such combinations, since all the eye does (as you stated) is
respond to stimulus as a combination of red, blue, and green.  However,
the perceptual centers of the brain may well be better at discerning
that color A is "different" from color B when they are next to each other,
versus on opposite sides of the visual field and separated by a third color.
This is similar, I would think, to our perception being more sensitive to any
kind of difference when we can compare the cases side-by-side.

Well, soon I will be launched into the computer age in photography.  My wife
is getting a super mac (#7500) with all the bells and whistles.  She will also
get Adobe Photoshop.  I was starting to save for a PC capable of doing photo
work, but now, I can divert these savings toward the other stuff, like
printers, negative scanners, & possibly some sort of digital camera.  Anyone
have any experience/suggestions where they would start?

I have done black & white darkroom photo printing for 30 years plus, and I
thought I would start out with b&w digital if it is significantly lower in
initial cost. I would also appreciate any advice you may have here.

I just used my new APple Quicktake 150 Digital Camera (and some help from
photoshop) to produce the images on the GrexWalk photo homepage.
http://www.hvcn.org/info/grexwalk/grexwalk.html

I am a little disappointed that the jpeg compression it uses is so harsh.
It compresses 640x480x24 images to 68k in high res mode, and 34k in standard
mode. I have found standard mode just about useless. HIghres mode gives you
16 marginally usable pictures per camera load (1MB Flash EEProm).

It did a fine job for the Grexwalk, because I shrank the pictures to fit the
web site. If I left them at 640x480, I would have remained disappointed.
I wish it had a third resolution which was 132k and could only fit 8
pictures. It might be very useful.

If I wanted larger pix, i would use 35mm and photo CD. It's much higher
quality. I just hate waiting 3 weeks for developing. That's what it took.

I haven't looked into it yet, but I thought I remembered ads for negative
scanners which were in the $500 range.  Do you know anything about these? 
As I recall, the scanner would do negatives or slides and they were supposedly
for high resolution scans.

I have never used a negative scanner. I would expect the quality of the
resulting scan toobe excellent in comparison to the low-end digital camera,
but the price you quoted seems way low to me.

The only transparency scanner in the mail order catalog I happen to be 
looking at is the Nikon LS-1000 (2700 dpi, slide feeder optional) at $2000

THere are a lot of flatbed scanners near that price range, though.
Some have transparency adapters, but because they are flatbed scanners,
they don't offer the resolution you really want for scanning negatives or 
slides.

Relisys has a REL2412/T Mac single pass 24 bit scanner with 1200x300 optical
resolution, It's a SCS devices which includes the transparency adapter
and runs $770, but 1200x300 is unacceptable resolution for negatives or slides.

That's the low end. At the high end of the Relisys line is the
RELI 9624/P Mac 2400x600 optical - $1500. Much better resolution, but still
not up to par for slides, and already 3/4 the price of that Nikon.

Admittedly these do come with bundled software, some of which is valuable.

Well, it may be later rather than sooner when I buy the scanner, but I think
I'll keep it on my shoping list.  Meanwhile, I will try to locate that $500
scanner I "think" I saw.  If I locate it, I may post another note about it.

Sounds way low to me too, but ya never know.  Choice of output device 
depends a lot on what you want to do with the output.  For proofs or
newsletters or casual use, most postscript laser printers are good
(especially some of the 600dpi ones with "resolution enhancement
technology" or whatever the particular manufacturer calls it).  For
high quality output (things you'd frame, or want a poster of), I'd
do some reading on the options available, and get the same picture
printed using a number of methods through service bureaus.  I wouldn't
pick any particular high-end device until you've compared the output
and understand the tradeoffs.  My dad did a number of color prints
using Iris prints (I think that was the one) a couple years ago, and
already the colors are changing.  Not desirable unless you're Andy
Warhol!

Thanks for the insight & the precaution.  It'll be a while, but I will post
when I get the funds close and the research to my satisfaction.

Does anyone have any knowledge about the "replacement" of standard emulsion
photography by digital photography?  Is there a future for standard
photography in any of the following fields:     
        (1) amateur     
        (2) Custom (weddings, etc)      
        (3) Special Corporate

I am interested if anyone knows if continued growth is predicted for the
standard wet chemistry/emulsion photography industry.

Thanks

Hrm...looks like the conference is dead? At least this post is...

Well, this item...
My experience is that when viewing a test pattern 32K colors leaves
significant steppings between colors.  64K colors is the same but with better
smoothness in the green range.  16M colors is smooth.  This would make 256
colors fine for 'office' work, but 16M would be needed for any kind of
graphics work at a fairly serious level.  Thousands of colors is probably
enough for the graphics that most regular people use.
YMMV.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss