Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: DebAnn
Page: <<prev 1 ... 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 next>>
Feb 23, 2013 10:46:33   #
Here they are today. The kid on the right in the original is the man at front left. The kid on the left is the bald man at centre back. Ain't it amazin' what time does to a person!
jerryc41 wrote:
DebAnn wrote:
Hi All. I am scanning negatives for a book I'm doing on family photos I've shot over 35 years. This one is direct off the scanner. I cleaned the neg thinking the mark on one boy's arm was dirt. But I think it is a wierd light reflection. I haven't been able to eliminate it properly. Is there a Photoshop expert out there who can do it for me? I'd be very grateful.

I don't suppose you could post a "today" picture of those two.
Groomsmen at Tom's wedding

 
Feb 23, 2013 08:23:11   #
Thanks guys for the work and the laughs. I like the scars and the bandaids too. If you knew these two kids (they are now men) you would know that they were always into trouble so their knees were usually skinned!
OddJobber wrote:
Put it back! You're treating this shot like they were your own kids. :) Aren't they cool subjects before they get older and selfconscious.
Feb 22, 2013 12:58:30   #
Thank you Rick - you're the best too!
Rick36203 wrote:
We like to practice refining our skills. One more, tried to keep texture consistent with remainder of arm after color repair.
Feb 22, 2013 12:30:27   #
JR1 and Weddingguy, you are the best! Thank you so much for helping me.
Weddingguy wrote:
DebAnn wrote:
Hi All. I am scanning negatives for a book I'm doing on family photos I've shot over 35 years. This one is direct off the scanner. I cleaned the neg thinking the mark on one boy's arm was dirt. But I think it is a wierd light reflection. I haven't been able to eliminate it properly. Is there a Photoshop expert out there who can do it for me? I'd be very grateful.


Here ya go.
Feb 22, 2013 11:28:39   #
Hi All. I am scanning negatives for a book I'm doing on family photos I've shot over 35 years. This one is direct off the scanner. I cleaned the neg thinking the mark on one boy's arm was dirt. But I think it is a wierd light reflection. I haven't been able to eliminate it properly. Is there a Photoshop expert out there who can do it for me? I'd be very grateful.
Boy on right, left arm reflection

Feb 21, 2013 14:24:14   #
How's this? Just a little tweak in Portrait Professional.
quonnie wrote:
I took this shot of my grandson about a year ago and am unhappy with the mottled look of his cheeks and chin. There are a couple of spots around the nostrils that I want to clean up too. What software do you recommend to enhance skin tones like this? Thanks for any help.
Danny edited in Portrait Professional

 
Feb 18, 2013 11:56:02   #
Save it for your 2013 Christmas Card.
Frank S wrote:
Church in McCall, Idaho
Feb 18, 2013 11:54:26   #
Lovely shot!
neilds37 wrote:
OK guys and gals, is this any better? I'm sure happier with it, but it's always difficult to look at your own baby objectively.
Feb 18, 2013 11:49:13   #
Lovely. Number 3 is gorgeous!
Joe F.N. wrote:
Haven't posted in awhile but I thought you might like these.
Thanks for looking.
Feb 18, 2013 11:46:22   #
Portrait Professional works best for me - be careful not to overwork it. You can enhance portraits with Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro but the learning curve is heavy. I find PP simple and effective.
Festina Lente wrote:
Portrait Professional continues to be my favorite,
(and I'm embarrassed to admit I own three different portrait programs)
but there is always growing competition vying for the top spot.

It really depends on how much control you want (versus automated presets and artificial intelligence) and...
whether or not it operates from within your primary work flow tool (like Lightroom or Aperture).
Feb 12, 2013 18:49:27   #
Thank you Captain for being the voice of clarity. Glad I was doing something right!
CaptainC wrote:
jeep_daddy wrote:
Effjayess wrote:
I have seen and heard good arguments for both. Would fellow UHHers weigh in on the question. If your camera has both what do you select and why.


AdobeRGB because it has 8000 different levels of brightness and sRGB only has 256. Huge difference.


NO. You are confusing bit-depth with color space with brightness levels. No connection at all. I shoot sRGB, Process sRGB, and print sRGB. And I send 16-bit files to my Epson 3880.

Read this: http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

The reason is that for portrait work, virtually all the colors that matter are well inside the sRGB space. If I did landscapes or wildlife, I would use AdobeRGB 1998.
quote=jeep_daddy quote=Effjayess I have seen and... (show quote)
 
Feb 12, 2013 12:37:57   #
Interestingly, the photo book publishing company I use asks for all the uploaded photos to be sRGB.
Frank T wrote:
I'd say srgb if it's going to be on a computer screen and Adobe RGB if you're going to print it.
SRGB was designed for computer screens and Adobe for print media.
Can I see the difference? Not really.
Feb 12, 2013 12:34:22   #
I just read the David Brooks article on scanning that was posted in this topic. I'm now clear on what is happening when I scan on the Canoscan 4200F.

When I choose 600 dpi and then enter a print size, the scanner scans so that the end product file has enough pixels to print the chosen size at 600 dpi. For example, the file for the picture of the baby posted earlier is 1798 pixels by 2195 pixels for a print measuring 5.993 x 7.317 inches. There's room to play with the image size since it will print at only 300 dpi. So, I think I'm doing it right. Hallelujah!
Papa Joe wrote:
DebAnn wrote:
I'm at a loss to understand why you would need to scan at 12,800 dpi which I'm assuming could print something the size of my living room wall! This picture was scanned from a BW negative at only 600 dpi and sized to about 7" x 6.5". I get a pop-up warning that such a big scan could be hard on my computer. Could you explain what I'm missing, please?
jimbrown3 wrote:
Re scanned some slides at 24bit color,12,800 dpi on the Epson V700 and they held up very well. File sizes are BIG, 540mb.
Mortimer, what is the brand you got from Hammacher ?
I'm at a loss to understand why you would need to ... (show quote)


Hi DebAnn,
600 dpi is the highest I used on scanning my slides and I've made quality 11X14 inch prints. That B&W you posted is good and sharp. Nice shot.
quote=DebAnn I'm at a loss to understand why you ... (show quote)
Feb 12, 2013 12:16:04   #
Thanks Jim and Papa Joe.
jimbrown3 wrote:
Hi DebAnn and Papa Joe,
Thanks for your input. I don't print my shots. I used to be an active provider of stock photography. What I am trying to replicate is the same fidelity in digital as on existing film so they can be re-submitted. 100% seems to be the magic number and I am experimenting to see if it is possible, and what magnification. Great B&W.
Feb 11, 2013 21:59:56   #
I'm at a loss to understand why you would need to scan at 12,800 dpi which I'm assuming could print something the size of my living room wall! This picture was scanned from a BW negative at only 600 dpi and sized to about 7" x 6.5". I get a pop-up warning that such a big scan could be hard on my computer. Could you explain what I'm missing, please?
jimbrown3 wrote:
Re scanned some slides at 24bit color,12,800 dpi on the Epson V700 and they held up very well. File sizes are BIG, 540mb.
Mortimer, what is the brand you got from Hammacher ?


Page: <<prev 1 ... 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.