Help for new owners

[Roger_Cavanagh]

I've spent some time over the Xmas break writing up some info' intended to ease the D30 learning curve for new owners:

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/tips/t10_whatnow.htm

I'd be interested in your comments and suggestions for improvements.

Regards,

Roger
www.rogercavanagh.com

[phebelewan]

That's a great tutorial! It was written clearly and simply, and makes me think I CAN master the D30! Thanks for all that information.

[David Ramage]

Roger....thank you for all the good work. As a mac user, however, much of the software you mention is not available to me. Is there anyone out there who could adapt this useful info to include software choices for the mac platform... Thanks

David

[TulsaRod]

Questions... Are the paramatures that you can only set while hooked to a computer any different than the settings you can choose when you convert a raw file?

Is this mostly used for when you shoot as jpeg and not raw?

And just why is the sky blue anyway?

[loulou]

Roger, you have done a great job on the tutorial, thanks. l will be a new d 30 owner in a week or two and you have answered a lot of my questions.

[denlex]

Roger
You have done all a great service-- you can never get enough ideas about how to manage your workflow.
Question- when processing a whole batch of images, using Pekka's linear sharpen can be tedious because you have to set each level for every image.
What do you do or what actions do you use when you want to batch process a whole folder of images.
Thanks
Stan W

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Stan,

Thanks for the compliment. :)

denlex wrote:
What do you do or what actions do you use when you want to batch process a whole folder of images.

I'm still trying to work it out... I have got Fred Miranda's LinearPRO action, which does run without intervention and has different saturation options, which I like. But there are still some issues that need clearing up.


1. The colours produced by each method (and 16-bit TIFF with a straight profile) are all slightly different. Which is correct? Ummm. I posted a query to Fred about LinearPRO. In his response, he said he didn't like the curves Pekka used because they caused a colour shift. See here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=10). So I been spending the last day trying to work out which is better. Wish I hadn't started. :eyes

It is, as they say, like "peeing in a sponge" - lots of activity with no visible effect. :D I'm not sure I will be able to come up with the answer without investing in some fancy colour measurement kit. Adobe Gamma does not cut the mustard.

2. Sharpening: even Fred's "high" setting produces results that are softer than the recommended LS VR2, which I think produces superb sharpening everytime. Of course, it's trivial to edit LinearPRO to change the USM settings... after you've worked out what settings will work _every_ time. ??? I have worked out a "no brain strategy" (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/tips/t09_linearsharpen.htm) to process images without having to think.

3. I have found that images processed with either action can still benefit from a further levels adjustment. Unfortunately, autolevels will sometimes completely mess up the colours. :( That wouldn't be so bad, if Adobe would deign to give us 16-bit layers. :(

Mind you, apart from the colour shift issue. I think both LS and LP produce great looking results. So long as you don't put them side by side. If you want me to come down off the fence, then I can't. :p At the moment, I would use LinearSharpen for a single image, but would use LinearPRO with autolevels for a large batch knowing that I will have to reprocess some images from scratch because of colour shifts.

Regards,

Roger
www.rogercavanagh.com

[MartinM]

Roger_Cavanagh wrote:
1. The colours produced by each method (and 16-bit TIFF with a straight profile) are all slightly different. Which is correct? Ummm. I posted a query to Fred about LinearPRO. In his response, he said he didn't like the curves Pekka used because they caused a colour shift. See here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=10). So I been spending the last day trying to work out which is better. Wish I hadn't started. :eyes


This is bothering me too. Here's a couple of processed images from the same shot:

...from normal TIFF (shot in RAW, Breeze converted to normal TIFF, no PS processing apart from resize and Save As Web)

http://www.world-data-systems.com/rb5/uploaded_files/1010094490.jpg

...from linear TIFF (same shot, Breeze converted to linear TIFF, Pekka's linear sharpening using Fred's ICC profile, resize and Save As Web)

http://www.world-data-systems.com/rb5/uploaded_files/1010094633.jpg

So, they're substantially different in terms of colour (you can't see the sharpening effect much at these image sizes, but that's not the point of this example).

Which one is right/most close to reality?...well I think its the normal TIFF one..although that seems a bit saturated on the blue compared with how I remember the scene

Any thoughts anyone???

[denlex]

Roger, and others...
I was glad to read your post because that is exactly what I have been doing. I like pekka's action better for the people colors and it is what i would use on selected images. However, for bulk processing I need Fred's linear pro, By the way, for landscape I am ok with Fred's action as a first choice, but for people I like Pekka!
I think that bulk processing still needs to be worked out and I see that although d30 photos can be great you need lots of photoshop time for it.
I wonder how it is with the other Digital SLR's?
Stan W