is fred miranda a must?

[tikkeltokkel]

I've read in the forum that when you shoot digital inevitably one must up the contrast and brightness or saturation abit for best results. I saw a post about a week ago of a picture taken in the "jordanian region" perhaps petra where the guy managed to salvage a rather poor looking picture ... if it was all due to a Fred Miranda piece of magic then is this software an absolute must for us digital users... i have photoshop 6

[sjprg]

Well its either that or really learn PS. He doesn't do anything you can't do yourself if you learn how. Its all PS functions

[lightandlife]

I saw Fred Miranda's two progarms for 10D, and was underwhelmed to say the least. In the first set, there is hardly any difference between before and after FM processing. The second set brightened and increased contrast, which you can do with PS. PS additionally has color balance control.

It is difficult to understand what FM is doing without going through their technical exercise. I have touched on this topic in a related thread some time ago.

Let me explain my understanding in plain language.

10D's sensor is not perfect. If T represents TRUE information, the sensor which compresses a lot of logic using minimum amount of money will not accurately represent T. Inevitably, it will introduce errors, say e. Thus, the image we get is

A = T + e.

Hopefully, e's are unbiased errors, or a white noise. On average, it should average to zero (i.e., its expected value is zero). The hissing noise in an audio or video tape is a perfect example.

How do we get rid of this white noise to get a clearer picture?

There is no one-size-fit-all program that will give you a clearer picture once the picture is taken. We only abserve A, not T, because we see through the processor. In other words, no FM program or any other ingenious program will eliminate or minimize e after the picture is taken. We have to live with that. One may design a program that seem to minimize perceived errors for some pictures, but then it would do worse for other pics.

One can design a program to make recorded e smaller, like dolby program, which will compact the range of e when recorded and somehow it will rduce perceived noise. But this is done before sound is recorded, not after.

It is much better to use PS after the fact, because you can edit it case by case. FM does it in a wholesale manner without looking at individual pictures. Through PS, each picture gets personal service. Through FM, you only get a recorded voice, no personal response. No matter what you say, it will keep talking and not listen to what you have to say.

[Vegas Poboy]

I believe you should do all of your editing with a PC or Mac with PS & it's plug ins. Why alter a $1500.00 of equipment when you have to use a PC anyway. You get a much better view of what you're doing on screen instead of the back of your camera. Look for a book named Photoshop Book for digital photographers, its simple tells you what to do and cheap. PS comes with the Camera for a reason.

[robertwgross]

Vegas Poboy wrote:
I believe you should do all of your editing with a PC or Mac with PS & it's plug ins. Why alter a $1500.00 of equipment when you have to use a PC anyway. You get a much better view of what you're doing on screen instead of the back of your camera. Look for a book named Photoshop Book for digital photographers, its simple tells you what to do and cheap. PS comes with the Camera for a reason.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood.

Nobody is advocating alteration of a $1500 piece of equipment.

The discussion is how much automation is necessary for Photoshop to give good results.

---Bob Gross---

[openspace]

Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen Plugin is fantastic, especially if you use the "opacity tweak" option which allows you to exercise precise control over the effect.*

I have not used the 10D version, but I really don't see the point either. The original version is all you need.

*Intellisharpen comes with 14 preset levels of intensity. Opacity tweak allows you to scan through all 14 levels and all areas in between using a slider. Yee haw!

[eos10dmacosx]

I have been using Photoshop since v.2 and often sit down to scanning 200+ photos, saturation, brightness & USM in a day. Add to that any digital images -- my own & other sources that may require sharpening. While you can create your own sharpening actions, I have found Fred Miranda's Actions invaluable, and for US$15, hardly expensive.

[Vegas Poboy]

No I'm sorry i misunderstood. I truley believe good in /good out, meaning take quality shots and you will not have to do much in PS. I use Elements 2 for most of my work, PS7 for when I want to be creative or trying to save a bad picture.
Try using this workflow in Elements or PS7 and see if it suits you and if not also try looking for the above book anyone that uses PS should have some type of book for tips.
1. Crop your Image
2. Density & Adjust your levels (auto can clear things up quickly)
3. Color correction
4. Sharpness & print

Most of all try to calibrate your monitor.
I've blown alot of $$$ trying to come up with short cuts not realizing I already had what I needed :)

Good luck

[henkbos]

I guess that was my picture. Posted again here. It was NOt salvaged with Fred's actions, although I have these.
Currently I process all my pictures with Capture One. PS is used for cropping and fine tuning.
Fred's actions are sometimes used, mostly sharpening, digital velvia and frames.

Unprocessed:
http://www.henkbos.com/web_pics/crw_1287_std.jpg

Processed:
http://www.henkbos.com/web_pics/crw_1287-1_std.jpg

[lightandlife]

Thanks, Henkbos, for wonderful shots! Were you trekking like Indiana Jones or what?

I grant that the processed shot is stunning. Do I believe such a shot? No. It is too surrealistic. In such a world, there would be no dust, no humidity, no odors, no fog. Anyway, it is an interesting pic enhancement.

[henkbos]

Not really sure if I understand your comment. There was virtually no enhancement, just simple processing. I was quite amazed about the difference by making just a few clicks with the mouse. So besides curvers, there was a little sharpening and I reduced the blue a little in the top. Not enough to call it surrealistic, I think.

[Jorge]

lightandlife wrote:
I grant that the processed shot is stunning. Do I believe such a shot? No. It is too surrealistic. In such a world, there would be no dust, no humidity, no odors, no fog. Anyway, it is an interesting pic enhancement.

Well, I actually think that the "processed" one looks pretty real. As far as enhancements goes "auto levels" will take you pretty far down the road from the "unprocessed" version.

By the way both shots are processed in the sense that the data from the sensor is interpreted to present the image. There's no rules that says that what leaves the camera is closer to reality than an image postprocessed in PS by the eyes who saw the real thing.