🚀 go-pugleaf

Larry, I can understand using two cameras or multiple settings to achieve different looks if you're shooting jpegs, but I'm not sure of the value when shooting RAW (given the latitude that exists for tweaking during the RAW conversion).

I may be missing the obvious since I tend not to use ACR all that much, preferring NX2 for preprocessing shots that I care about.

      I may be missing the obvious ...




Ditto. With DSLRs and RAW, I don't see any benefit at all. (shooting JPEG isn't even a consideration for me)

With film, it's standard practice to choose a stock based on a specific "look". However with digital, I can create as many different looks as I want. Apps like Lightroom make this brain-dead simply by creating Virtual Copies of a file - you don't actually duplicate it, you just create a separate set of processing instructions. The benefit to this is that it takes up very little hard drive space - you could have a hundred different looks that takes up less room than a single duplicated RAW file.

Just pick the camera with the best quality (or desired feature), and go with it.

-phil

Geof,

The instructions are very clear on the downloads page. However, if you don't read them�

Thank you to the forum host that cleaned up #89. :)

      I guess this and other recent posts I've made have got me onto Ramon's
      plonk list




As I have said earlier, being on Romaine's plonk is a good thing. So far, I haven't been attacked or insulted in at least two days.

The really cool thing is that being on his plonk list means that I don't have to plonk him. Less work for me, less chest beating for him. It's all good.

(I think my plonk-freedom is going to be short-lived, but I hope I'm wrong.)

      being on Romaine's plonk is a good thing




Now that I've re-read that, I need to apologize to everyone here.

Personally I need no technological help to ignore whatever I deem necessary. I just... ignore it. To each his own I guess.

Indeed, if I put someone who might be making untrue statements about me, or posting incorrect information about matters on which I am knowledgeable, on a technologically implemented ignore list, that would appear to be kind of counterproductive, as I would then be unable to put matters straight (in a calm and reasonable matter, this being the most effective way of proceeding, in my experience) and the statements would then be reinforced by lack of challenge. But perhaps I'm missing the point.

Ramon there were no on-screen instructions with the Camera Raw plug in. Camera profiles loaded automatically but the were no instructions in the read me document. There were instructions for for Photoshop Elements but not for Photoshop..also can I point out that some readers will read the forum when they are stuck, as a last resort with a problem, like on a shoot on the other side of the world when the gurus are asleep...the place I put the camera raw DOES work and although not correct allowed me to process G10 files until I had the definitive answer as to where to put the file.Of course this information should be overwritten as soon as possible aka Wikopedia but meanwhile the work around did work....Geof

Geof-

You have have to understand that simply answering your question with:

HD/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-Ins/CS4/File Formats

doesn't provide an opportunity for drama and turmoil. No chance to admonish you for your confusion or posting in the wrong forum, no chance for screaming, no chance to use big fat red letters ...

And calmly explaining that your justified confusion stems from the fact that there's also a Plug-Ins/File Formats folder path contained within PS's application folder itself wouldn't show you who's the boss.

Some people need that kind of stuff. ;)

Most of us, however, prefer to help in whatever way we can. Feel free to ask anything.

"Plonking"?
What an absolutely stupid thing to do! Seems to me that if someone had an actual "list" of people they need to avoid, they should look inward ... or stop coming.

-phil

Geof:

 <http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4219>

Here are the instructions from the link:

Installation Instructions

To open a DMG file:
Double-click the file. This will open Disk Copy, which mounts the image on your desktop.

To install with Adobe Creative Suite 4 or Photoshop CS4:

Automated installation on Mac or Windows:
1. Select Updates... from the Help menu.
2. Follow the onscreen dialog boxes to download and install the latest available Camera Raw update.

Manual installation on Mac:
1. Exit Photoshop CS4 and Adobe Bridge.
2. Open the download file, double-click CameraProfiles.dmg, and follow the onscreen instructions.
3. Open the Finder.
4. Navigate to the root of the local disk (not the user's home folder).
5. Navigate to: (Please read directory carefully)

Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-Ins/CS4/File Formats

6. Move the existing plug-in to another location (for example, a new folder on your desktop). Ensure you keep this version in case you need to revert back.
7. Copy the Camera Raw plug-in, Camera Raw, from the download into the same folder as in Step 4.
8. Launch Photoshop CS4 or Adobe Bridge.

For PC:

 <http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4220>

Geof,

You are exceedingly clueless if you did not see the installation instructions on the downloads page.

Also note that my first post in reply to your question was to direct you to the appropriate forum, the ACR forum, which you chose to ignore.

Lawrence has copied the instructions for you. They are indeed on the downloads page, before you hit the download button.

Phil,

It seems to me that you should mind your own business instead of sanctimoniously preaching to the winds.

Incidentally, Phil, the last comment in your post is a waste. The s.o.b. who can tell me what places to visit or not to visit hasn't been born.

      Incidentally, Phil, the last comment in your post is a waste. The s.o.b.
      who can tell me what places to visit or not to visit hasn't been born.




Same here - I'll decide which posts of mine are a waste.

Ramon there is no doubt that you are correct and your advice was extremely helpful....the fact was it was too late to solve my problem and with help from another forum user I thought I knew where to put it..I put it in the wrong place, I think you have made that point...but it DID process the files and get me out of a problem..I am a working photographer and apparently a clueless software downloader but I have to be adaptable to get things to work....now please calm down as there are a lot of people with problems out there....Geof

      now please calm down as there are a lot of people with problems out there




It is precisely because "there are a lot of people with problems out there" that your posts were reprehensible, Geof.

You failed to read the instructions, you failed to post initially in the most appropriate forum, you failed to heed the explicit advice to post there, you failed to believe me from the start and you still do not grasp why your solution was/is a huge mistake even if it sort of "worked" for you.

I didn't blame anyone else it was their post that got me working even though I made an error. Ramon just for a minute look sideways out of your ivory tower and realise that a lot of people use digital as a necessity not choice and do not have your super human understanding.I will guarantee that I will not be the last poster to have the same problem.
Pleeese look at others point of view for a moment.Your post was also incorrect but hasn't been removed. It is possible to run Photoshop with 2 camera raws in different folders that is contrary to what you said..Geof

      the last comment in your post is a waste




Just about everything Ramon wrote here apart from providing the correct Mac path is exactly that. A complete waste of bandwidth.

I'm against it in principle, but to save having to wade through such sanctimonious piles of waffle in future I'd like to plonk Ramon. Can anyone remind me of the link that describes how to do that, please?

I got scared when i saw the word wade.

Wherever he goes he spreads irritation and exasperation in equal measure.

He seems to be incapable of correcting people's mistakes without being disparaging at best and insulting at worst.

In short he is a right royal pain.

LOL at Donald. :)

      Can anyone remind me of the link that describes how to do that, please?




-------------------------------------- 

      Hopper - 5:33pm Jan 18, 09 PST (#286 of 330) 	 	





      if anyone is interested in the plonk script, you can see it on dave's
      site: <http://milbut.org/afPlonk.html>





      again, it works with firefox and the add-in called greasemonkey.

I'm with you, Donald. I had to look to see if it was capitalized, and even then,???

I have to say that Ramon was quite civil and polite in the exchange of profile meanings, even as he didn't quite see it my way.

Thank you, Ramon. Keep it up. :-)

Years ago, there was a program on NPR called "Wade in the Water". i often think of that when we get into it with him, but I decided not to sully the program with comparisons or innuendo.

Okay thats enough. dont jinx things. and keep your fingers crossed for good measure.

If you need to check the MacBeth chart peridically shoot a new one in absolute controlled lighting conditions, process to a known parameter and colour drop the colours. Do this again now and again if and see if anything changes.....as others have said though a grey card is probably all you need in most situations but make sure it is in a critical area nd at the right angle of the view area.
Most important is a profiled monitor and printer then you can see what's happening.

Geof

That might be a quick and dirty check, provided you can recreate said lighting conditions at will and be confident of their reliability, including the framing of the Color Checker card �a highly unlikely circumstance.

There are at least two methods of comparing two allegedly identical digital images:

Comparing allegedly identical images in Photoshop

(The time-honoured Photoshop "Difference" Test should be reviewed. If there should be a very small difference in a given pixel, the otherwise 255,255,255 pixel would then appear as 255,254,255 or 254,255,255 or something similar, which you would still see as black on your monitor, regardless of magnification.)


Two better, more definitive testing methods would be (a) one suggested by Bruce Fraser himself (below), and (b) a new (to me) method suggested by someone in the Color Managament and Photoshop Windows forums, which follows:

(NOTE: only the methodology is of interest and pertinent, not the questionable context in which it has brought up and used.)

* 1) Open the two images to be compared in Photoshop

* 2) Move one image as a layer over the other one

* 3) select "Difference" as blending mode in the layers palette

* 4) now the whole image should appear seemingly black on the monitor

[So far this is the traditional, "time honored" method.]

* 5) select the magic wand tool with these settings: Tolerance: 0/ Anti-alias: no/ Contiguous: no/ Sample All Layers: yes

* 6) click somewhere into the formerly gray area

[This refers to an image of a Color-Checker type of card that had wide gray border around it. The test, therefore, requires a pure gray image in the image, something highly unlikely to change, in order for the magic wand to select all pure-black images (255,255,255). Such a border can easily be created around an image by increasing the canvas size and filling the newly created space with pure gray (128,128,128). ]

      Explanation: you just selected all completely black pixels (0,0,0) i.e.
      all pixels that are identical in both layers.

* 7) you should see "marching ants" forming rectangular patterns

* 8_) invert the selection (Shift Command I)

      Explanation: the selection now covers all the other pixels, i.e. all pixels
      which are different between both layers.

* 9) create a new empty layer and select it in the layers palette

* 10) set the foreground color to white

* 11) fill the selection with white (Alt+backspace on Windows, accordingly on Mac)

* 12) set the blending modes of all layers back to normal

      Explanation: you now see all identical pixels in their respective color
      and all different pixels in white.

This method is a lot more sensitive than the traditional one which stops at step #4 above.

========================================
 [more below]

Another method suggested by Bruce Fraser:

A better way of comparing images with identical pixel dimensions is to use Apply Image > Subtract with an offset of 128.

Difference only shows pixels that are lighter in the source than in the target (or maybe it's the other way around�I forget) where Subtract with Offset 128 shows differences in both directions.

Pixels that are identical in both images come in as RGB 128 gray, those that are different come in at a value that exactly reflects how different they are.

It also makes it much easier to spot subtle differences�

That might be a quick and dirty check, provided you can recreate said lighting conditions at will and be confident of their reliability, including the framing of the Color Checker card �a highly unlikely circumstance.

There are at least two methods of comparing two allegedly identical digital images:

Comparing allegedly identical images in Photoshop

(The time-honored Photoshop "Difference" Test should be reviewed. If there should be a very small difference in a given pixel, the otherwise 255,255,255 pixel would then appear as 255,254,255 or 254,255,255 or something similar, which you would still see as black on your monitor, regardless of magnification.)

Two better, more definitive testing methods would be (a) one suggested by Bruce Fraser himself (below), and (b) a new (to me) method suggested by someone in the Color Managament and Photoshop Windows forums, which follows:

(NOTE: only the methodology is of interest and pertinent, not the questionable context in which it has brought up and used.)

* 1) Open the two images to be compared in Photoshop

* 2) Move one image as a layer over the other one

* 3) select "Difference" as blending mode in the layers palette

* 4) now the whole image should appear seemingly black on the monitor

[So far this is the traditional, "time honored" method.]

* 5) select the magic wand tool with these settings: Tolerance: 0/ Anti-alias: no/ Contiguous: no/ Sample All Layers: yes

* 6) click somewhere into the formerly gray area

[This refers to an image of a Color-Checker type of card that had wide gray border around it. The test, therefore, requires a pure gray image in the image, something highly unlikely to change, in order for the magic wand to select all pure-black images (255,255,255). Such a border can easily be created around an image by increasing the canvas size and filling the newly created space with pure gray (128,128,128). ]

      Explanation: you just selected all completely black pixels (0,0,0) i.e.
      all pixels that are identical in both layers.

* 7) you should see "marching ants" forming rectangular patterns

* 8_) invert the selection (Shift Command I)

      Explanation: the selection now covers all the other pixels, i.e. all pixels
      which are different between both layers.

* 9) create a new empty layer and select it in the layers palette

* 10) set the foreground color to white

* 11) fill the selection with white (Alt+backspace on Windows, accordingly on Mac)

* 12) set the blending modes of all layers back to normal

      Explanation: you now see all identical pixels in their respective color
      and all different pixels in white.

This method is a lot more sensitive than the traditional one which stops at step #4 above.

========================================
 [more below]

Another method suggested by Bruce Fraser:

A better way of comparing images with identical pixel dimensions is to use Apply Image > Subtract with an offset of 128.

Difference only shows pixels that are lighter in the source than in the target (or maybe it's the other way around�I forget) where Subtract with Offset 128 shows differences in both directions.

Pixels that are identical in both images come in as RGB 128 gray, those that are different come in at a value that exactly reflects how different they are.

It also makes it much easier to spot subtle differences�

[EDITED formatting]

Differential measurements are a time honored method of close examination, aided by an offset capability. In my days in oscilloscope work, I could routinely make accurate measurements into the microvolt range sitting on top of 100 volts. I frequently use this method in Photoshop as well, but usually to discover inaccuraciees of other kinds.

I'll have to try the Apply Image method. Thanks for sharing, Ramon.

As to the John Williams piece, embarrassing is a curious choice of words. As I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to listen again without the visual clues and found the work rather dry. Also, the almost direct quote in the final exposition of the "Gift to Be Simple" by Williams of Copeland to be so close it generated the feeling not of embarrassment, but rather of regret. It sounded as if it was lifted verbatim from the Copeland to the Williams, stopping only to transcribe it for piano.

I want to hear it again recorded in a different venue.

      As to the John Williams piece, embarrassing is a curious choice of words.




Well, embarrassment is what I felt.

The choice of musicians was a nice bow to diversity.

Yes, I thought so too.

Well, embarrassment is what I felt

Yes, of course.

I wasn't being very clear. What I meant to infer is that embarrassment in such a context is something I felt when obviously ungifted musicians proceed to prove it to the world. My comment is about me, not you, Ramon.

I should have let morning coffee take over first!

"That might be a quick and dirty check, provided you can recreate said lighting conditions at will and be confident of their reliability, including the framing of the Color Checker card �a highly unlikely circumstance. "

Yes totaly confident Ramon, as we used to do batch film checks to +/- wratten 2.5cc. Simple, if you know what you are doing.. not like a clueless knitwit !!

I was a consultant to a major professional film processing and print organization, Geof, and i would rather do the digital version.

Getting consistency with respect to the people involved in those days was 99% the battle. They thought nothing of tweaking the screwdriver calibration screw for VC printing heads all the way to the stop, on an occasional print head!

So far as lighting conditions, north light has always been my standard, diffuse north light to be exact. I still use it to do the final check of my prints. No need to wonder about the client's viewing conditions. Of course, if their viewing conditions are set in stone, and is other than north light, I have to replicate it if I have major submissions required. Yet, I'll still start with north light as a standard.

Good point to discuss Lawrence but if you mean North light as natural daylight this can vary 2000 to 3000 kelvin + depending on where you live and the time of year. I would suggest a static know light source for testing colour balance. Bulbs change kelvin temperature during use so do electronic flash tubes from the same manufacturer. but used at the same setting and recharging at the same speed should be accurate....but won't always be. A check with a colour temperature meter shows a whole swath of inconsistences to manufactures claims.
But accurate enough for most non-scientific purposes.Geof

I know it can vary and I don't have information as to those shifts where i live.

Since recal at the camera level needs not to be often, one can pick the same time of year and cloud cover type as the reference point. So far, that even works for film. The equinox and Solstice make good reference points.

An OCD approach would be to buy a really fine colorimiter and have it calibrated against a Primary Standard such the it becomes a Secondary Standard. Then you use still another meter cal'ed against that for routine measurements.

like I said, OCD.:D

      that even works for film.




What is film?

:)

Fil'm, as in fill 'em up! :D

      What is film?




Heretic.

WARNING....don't try the north light test in New Zealand ! Geof

Film, it's sort of plastic rolls or cut up into pieces then you load it in the dark and put an invisible image on itand put it in caustic chemicals for 1/2 an hour......Bob Newhart could
have a Walter Raleigh story to tell. G

WARNING....don't try the north light test in New Zealand ! Geof

Hmmm, what to do at the Equator?

No! Don't go there! :D

How funny is it that Perlman et al were faking it? I thought the Williams piece was dull, although it was the first thing of his I can remember that wasn't the theme from E.T., refried.

      How funny is it that Perlman et al were faking it?




Not funny, but perfectly straightforward. See my post from yesterday (before the official confirmation) at <http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3841450-post70.html> - there was much debate among audio people on whether it was live or recorded and I'm happy to say I plumped for the right answer after some careful study. But I spent an absurd amount of time on the matter, and really should get a life. And I should give more respect for the subject of this thread! :)

One of the things about the replay of the piece on KBPS was the remarkable lack of background noise, although it could have been the result of close miking.

The other quality was the remarkable intonation, especially with respect to the piano. Either it had been covered and kept reasonably warm with heaters, or the piano had been out in the cold for many hours then retuned. Or, electronic piano, perhaps?

Somehow, the specter of a Ma and a Perlman faking it feels wrong.

      Somehow, the specter of a Ma and a Perlman faking it feels wrong.




I think it was probably a daft idea in the first place to try to play such a piece live in a noisy location out of doors. It would have sounded pretty naff if they'd gone for the real thing, and what's wrong is that these fine musicians were put in the situation in the first place. Their professionalism in the way they handled it is a great credit to them.

From the New York Times:

 <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/arts/music/23band.html?_r=1&hp>

Cannot believe a photograph or a live performance any more. :-(

Mr. Ramon G or anyone,

Please help I have followed your directions to a T. I went to the root folder all the way to CS4 and put the plugin for camera raw there. I then open up CS4 look under about plugins I have one camera raw listed, when I click on it it say version 5.2. If i try to open camera raw under bridge I get "Camera Raw editing requires that a qualifying product has been launch at least once to enable this feature."

Please help photography student here trying my hardest to understand.

      CS4 look under about plugins I have one camera raw listed, when I click
      on it it say version 5.2.




Then you've installed that correctly. :D

      If i try to open camera raw under bridge I get "Camera Raw editing requires
      that a qualifying product has been launch at least once to enable this
      feature."




Just how are you trying to "open" Camera Raw? The only way to launch Camera Raw is by opening one or more raw image files. Camera Raw is only available when you have at least one raw image file open in it. You cannot just launch or access Camera Raw by itself.

Benjamin,

Try posting in the Adobe Camera Raw forum and the Bridge forum for your platform, Macintosh or Windows, and read the FAQs and pertinent existing threads there.

Thank you very much Ramon G. your instruction where correct, and everything is working...You have no idea how much this helps me for school...thank you.thank you thank you....