PortraitPro 22 Save An Extra 20% With Code: EZJ22

Activity : All Comments

Profile
  • Commented on 'ePHOTOzine Most Improved'

    In that case I'll nominate myself as the first time I picked up a camera was last march when I joined! Although looking through my portfolio I'm now thinking that perhaps it's only my powers of self-delusion that have improved... Wink

    b
    • 25 Apr 2005 8:53AM
  • Commented on 'RIP software'

    We've got several rips running in our studio for epson printers (1290, 2100 etc.). Basically the main benefits are:

    1. Much better colour management/profiling, especially in CMYK - most inkjets are designed for printing photos, so are a complete nightmare when you're trying to match your visual to a pantone colour!
    2. Job queing & allowing a directly connected printer to function on a network - very useful as you can send lot's o' jobs to the rip & leave it.
    3. Postscript support, most inkjets seem to have very flaky, or indeed no PS support.
    4. Better image quality (allegedly) - don't really notice if there is any for photos but for artwork (maps, illustrations etc) and flat areas of colour there's a noticable improvement.

    Dunno if this'll help, but I've typed it now so you're stuck with it... Wink

    b
    • 25 Apr 2005 7:57AM
  • Commented on 'Logos in Photoshop'

    Flash will take both .gif and .png files in quite happily. Without seeing the logo I can't really advise you but we tend to create logo's as vector graphics - in illustrator or similar as it makes life much easier if you need to use them for exhibitions, websites etc.

    If it's a graphic logo (i.e. no photograph) then .gif will give you the best quality, if there's a photograph involved I'd suggest you save it as jpeg with as little compression as possible - remember that flash will compress jpegs when it exports the movie, so I suspect your logo has been compressed twice...

    Hope this is of some help.

    b
    • 25 Apr 2005 7:06AM
  • Commented on 'photoshop cs & elements'

    One of the main differences is that Photoshop supports more colour models i.e. CMYK, LAB etc. not just RGB. Probably of no use to you photography-wise but if you have anything to do with print then it's well worth the money. As mentioned you get the curves etc. and the pen tool is useful - especially if you're doing dtp and need to export an image with a clipping path.

    Unless you're planning on moving into graphic design in the future I'd stick with elements, you probably won't use the extras enough to justify the extra cost.

    Just my view....

    b
    • 21 Apr 2005 11:31AM
  • Commented on 'MAC Data Transfer'

    cheapest & easiest way would be to just pop down to PC world & buy a twisted pair ethernet cable and just connect the two together. Haven't done it with a mini mac but we do it all the time to transfer stuff from old powerbooks etc to new ones.

    b
    • 14 Apr 2005 2:26AM
  • Commented on 'Anyone own an ipod?'

    I bought the original iPod when it first came out & can heartily recommend it - I plug it into the car when I drive to work... plug it into speakers & listen to it all day at work... plug it back into the car for the drive home & then plug it into my hi-fi at home. Battery life is still at the 9 hours mark & it all still works fine despite me dropping it & kicking it across the carpark on many an occasion!

    Without doubt the best & most used gadget I have ever bought.

    b
    • 21 Oct 2004 1:17PM
  • Commented on 'MAC G4 laptop screen - good enough for editing?'

    We use Mac's exclusively (graphic design) & I'd recommend you get at least 1Gb of ram if possible - OS X really needs 512Mb at least to run comfortably. The screen resolution, to a large extent, is just down to personal preference - you don't NEED to edit in 1280 x 854... it's just nicer as you can see more of your image & have more room for your toolbars.

    To put it in perspective - we used to edit using a Mac Quadra on a 14" monitor at 640 x 480!

    With regards to calibrating the screen - personally I've always found that laptops show a larger contrast range in the shadows than you'll get when you print or view on a properly configured crt monitor, so be aware of that. Also, make sure you get a mouse - editing using the track pad is v. horrible indeed! Plus, if you're getting one of the G4 titanium powerbooks be aware that if you use them while they're plugged in (i.e. charging) they do get VERY hot and get more unstable the hotter they get.

    Hope this is of some help

    b
    • 21 Sep 2004 8:10AM
  • Commented on 'Help me with cutting out and backgrounds'

    Much better cut, you've lost the jagged 'cut out with scissors' look. The hair still looks a little bit odd, but hair is always a pain to cut out.

    b
    • 10 Sep 2004 7:55AM
  • Commented on 'Elements 2 versus Photshop 7'

    I think you'll find that Elements has no support for cmyk & setting up images for print i.e. no support for spot colours etc. Plus I don't think it has the automation stuff etc.

    I'd imagine that for a photographer (as opposed to a designer or printer) it has everything you'd need, although if you have the choice I'd go for PS 7 - it's more complicated but you can do a lot more with it.

    b
    • 9 Sep 2004 10:19AM
  • Commented on 'Help me with cutting out and backgrounds'

    Personally I always use the pen tool to cut things out, if you click & drag when creating a point you will create adjustment points which allow you to change the curve between two points - useful if you've made any mistakes as you can just move/adjust your earlier points rather than having to cut the thing out again. Plus you'll be able to save it as a clipping path, which is useful if you do any dtp work.

    You can turn a path into a selection & vise versa quite easily and for feathering the edges I usually use between 0.5 - 1.5 px feather, depends on what you're cutting out. You can get away with a much smaller feather with a nice sharp studio shot for example. Once selected I normally copy & paste the image to form a new layer - background layer being the original, new layer being the cut out, ready for whatever further work I need to do.

    tiptoe - the mask is different since all it does is mask the layer it is applied too - i.e. just hides/shows different bits of it. Using the selection tools on a layer you are actually changing that image - i.e. by deleting bits of it. If you chop off someones ear & only notice it later (i.e. when your history palette has gone past it.) you have no option but to cut it out again, with a mask you can just adjust it, as the layer it is masking is complete.

    Hope this is of some use, it's a bit early for making complete sense...

    b
    • 9 Sep 2004 8:16AM
  • Commented on 'Laptops'

    Personally I'd say that unless you're doing a graphic's based course you might as well buy a relatively cheap low to mid range laptop, which will be fine to do essays, run photoshop, play dvd & games etc for about 700 - 800, thus allowing you to save some money for textbooks, food and of course, lashings & lashings of beer - which is what you'll be spending all your money on for the next three years anyway!

    As far as Mac vs PC - it's up to you, some people prefer the look & feel of Macs, some don't. The stablity issue is to a large extent a myth, we run both Macs & PC's and I can assure you that they are both as bad as each other.

    As far as Athlon vs Celeron, personally I've always liked AMD processors - they give you a lot of bang for your buck & you used to be able to overclock them far easier than intel processors. They do run hot though, but I've never had a problem with one.

    Just my two pence worth...

    b
    • 6 Sep 2004 9:56PM
  • Commented on 'Nikon D1'

    I've got one (on loan from work) and can say it's a nice camera to use, even though it's only 3m pixels & weighs a ton! Seem to remember we paid a lot more than 5K for it at the time...

    b
    • 6 Sep 2004 3:40PM
  • Commented on 'PS help - Create the illusion of DOF'

    I always find it really difficult to fake dof - since you know the shot it'll always look fake to you. Here's a version of yours, not sure if this is what you're trying to achieve.

    Did this by duplicating the layer, applying a gausian blur, then a quick mask, applying a gradient to the mask & touching it up with the paint brush. Repeated a couple of times with different amounts of blur to simulate the depth. Slight adjustments to the transparency of the layers & there you go. Took about 5 mins, but I was in a hurry Wink would suggest you spend a bit more care & attention on your one.

    Sabretalon - just had a look at yours, shouldn't the plane of focus be parallel to the camera? I.e. the entire length of the chain shouldn't be in focus.

    b
    • 6 Sep 2004 11:12AM
  • Commented on 'Shameless self promotion.....'

    Links opening into new windows annoys me too, but I've had clients in the past who wanted it so just thought I'd mention it.

    Good luck with the photography lark Smile

    I'm a webdesigner, so if you decide to get stuck into flash & get stuck then feel free to ask if you need any help.

    b
    • 17 Aug 2004 10:51AM
  • Commented on 'Shameless self promotion.....'

    Nice site Tim & great photos (no surprise there!)

    Couple of things with the site I personally would change:

    1. The buttons: I'd reverse the functionality - i.e. the text is the button & set the white square to display as an indicator. It's the natural response to want to click on the word & the square is just a little bit fiddly.

    2. I'd put in a button to scroll the opposite way through the thumbnails, don't know how your web designer has implemented it but easy enough to do.

    3. Personally I find the size of the site perfect - many people do still view at 800 x 600 ish on large screens as they tend have the browser in windows, rather than full screen. I do for example despite my display being set at 1280 x 1024. I'd be tempted to perhaps have the large picture as a link to a higher res version perhaps? You could add in a little javascript to open it in a new window..

    4. Font size looks fine to me in 'about tim' but I guess it depends on your eyesight / monitor.

    5. You might want to consider adding meta tags for keywords & description to the site if you want search engines to pick it up.

    Other than that, nice site Wink

    b
    • 17 Aug 2004 10:23AM
  • Commented on 'Email forms'

    Formmail.pl is one of the most common ones used - you can download it from here

    b
    • 16 Aug 2004 1:34PM
  • Commented on 'Pants photo's need comments too!'

    I have to admit to being guilty of usually only commenting on pictures I actually like, not necessarily great photos, but ones that appeal to me, but to a large extent this comes from viewing the site on dial up. Basically a shot needs to catch my eye in the gallery to make me want to click on it & wait & wait until it loads...

    Having said that I do try to visit the portfolios of those who comment on my pictures & usually have a good look through them, so I think there's a lot of truth to the 'if you want comments you have to comment on others' school of thought.

    b
    • 13 Aug 2004 11:13AM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    Well done Dan

    Should I point out that if you'd set a template up in Dreamweaver all you'd have to do was change one page & the changes would propigate thoughout the entire site?

    Maybe not.... Wink

    b
    • 11 Aug 2004 2:39PM
  • Commented on 'Java ?'

    Actually the posts are about javascript not java.

    Javascipt is a scripting language for use on the web, used for all manner of things from rollover images to working out dates etc. You will already have on your pc as all modern browsers are capable of interpeting & executing it.

    Java is a cross platform programing language, used for writing programs, although you'll see it on some websites as java applets - self contained java programs embedded in the web page.

    You'll have Java intreper on your pc as well, it's installed by default with windows.

    Hope this helps answer your question.

    b
    • 11 Aug 2004 12:14PM
  • Commented on 'Print Size Confusion!'

    There was a thread that covered some of these issues here that might help.

    Basically the 300 dpi 'standard' comes from litho printing which usually prints at 200 lpi (lines per inch). Dpi is roughly 1.5 x the lpi so for litho you save your images at 300 dpi.

    If you're printing on an inkjet printer - I think the maximum lpi on one is 200 lpi, so 300 dpi would be the max resolution you'd need & you can often get away with lower.

    The original poster is correct as far as it goes, a 6 mp camera would give us an image just big enough for full page A4 without interpolation. Which is why we use 12 mp cameras at work now... Wink

    I should also point out that if you're scanning at a resolution higher than the optical resolution of the scanner then it is interpolating the scan - basically no different from scanning at the optical res & increasing the size in PS.

    b
    • 11 Aug 2004 8:50AM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    No worries Warb, look forward to seeing the site on my mac soon... Smile

    b
    • 11 Aug 2004 8:30AM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    Right, all fixed - It was a school boy error & one I should have spotted last night, sadly I was mentally exhausted from playing Ninja Gaiden...

    Warb, I'm guessing you cut&paste the javascript from another site & missed a little bit from the end, have added it in & all works.

    The top navigation bar doesn't appear in any of the Mozilla flavours - have done a quick fix which I'll email you. Basically the problem is because you've used just one big table for the whole page, personally would suggest you nest the tables - you get more control over the look & it'll sort out this problem.

    b
    • 11 Aug 2004 8:07AM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    Pretty sure I've sorted it out now, will run it through all our testing platforms to make sure then email you the code Warb.

    b
    • 11 Aug 2004 7:52AM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    It's got nothing to do with flash or norton.

    It's the javascript - tried moving it to the head section, no joy. Deleted it - page displays in IE. I'm off to bed now, but I'll have a look first thing & see if I can see what the problem with the script is.

    b
    • 10 Aug 2004 10:52PM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    Will have a look first thing tomorrow warb.

    Javascript looks like the most likely culprit at the moment, have problems like this in the past where IE (or more usually Evil & Unkind Netscape Navigator 4.7) hits something it doesn't like & just stops rendering the page.

    b
    • 10 Aug 2004 10:39PM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    Stupid forum, has deleted the head & body tags from my post :-(

    Previous post will make more sense if you put head & body, well, pretty much randomly any where in it Wink

    b
    • 10 Aug 2004 10:28PM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    Sadly markulous it is referring on to the url & it's still blank in IE using that link.

    Warb - you've got some javascript sitting between the & the sections, try moving it either into the or the sections & see if it makes a difference. The java implementation in IE is notoriously flaky, especially on Macs.

    b
    • 10 Aug 2004 10:26PM
  • Commented on '*the warbdrobe is now open*'

    Blank screen on IE 5.2 on OS X, although I see mark a. has beaten me to it. Seems to work ok in Safari.

    I'm a web designer & will have a look at work tomorrow if you want - we run several different machines/OS combo's with all the main browsers on them.

    Browser compatability is the bane of my life I can tell you Wink

    Site looks good btw, nice & clean & modern.

    b
    • 10 Aug 2004 10:19PM
  • Commented on 'Black and white backgrounds on still life'

    I usually use paper myself, washing & ironing sounds far too much like work for my liking... Wink

    b
    • 10 Aug 2004 3:45PM
  • Commented on 'Black and white backgrounds on still life'

    Don't know how much help it'll be but we use very large background rolls of white/coloured paper at work, although for small items we use a curved, milky white perspex table with a matt finish : (example pic ) never had a problem with reflections with it. Unless you're after reflections I'd go for something with a matt finish, art paper would be fine I'd say...

    b
    • 10 Aug 2004 3:29PM