StanRogers: No choice *but* to volunteer, I guess. Some of the "restorations" in the site's portfolio are disasters unto themselves, and people deserve better. "Free" and "volunteer" are not excuses for shoddy work.
The third example given here, for instance, has managed to turn a delighted little girl into a somewhat tipsy middle-aged woman by faithfully turning damage into "facial features". Ringlets on the right would make me think that ringlets would be appropriate on the left as well (but maybe that's just me) and the slightest bit of research would have revealed that her middy blouse was probably a pale blue — or, less likely, pink — and should be considerably darker. I'm no Ctein, but I can do better. And that means I have to.
You might have made mention of that -- specifically the hair. I was instructed not to make up any details ("no retouching"), and the areas in question do not appear to be damage, just grainy highlights. But have it your way.
kiskam: Mr. StanRogers,We await your test photo.Quality Control, OPR
It has already been sent -- two days ago.
VojkoStrahovnik: I am suspecting that the first "rescue" is fake. But some expert opinions would be appreciated.
Not at all. You may be surprised at what can be done, especially if you have control of the scan. (Not the case with OPR — there's simply too much to do, so spending an hour getting each scan perfect and high-depth isn't practical.)
Once you have recovered what *is* there, filling in the blanks simply takes a different set of skills than a photographer typically uses. There are things you can be sure of and can reconstruct from references. Other things might simply be good, informed guesses (and how much guessing you can do depends on the nature of the restoration: does it need to be historically accurate, etc.). That takes artistic skill as much as Photoshop skill.
I'd suggest reading Ctein's "Digital Restoration from Start to Finish" to get an idea of what's possible (and what's permissible). You can't really cover it all in one book, but that one's a good start.
I understand the sentiment, but sometimes the thought isn't all that counts. These are irreplaceable memories we're talking about, so "good enough, considering the price" isn't good enough. The last thing anyone wants is to have to find a way to feel grateful for a permanent reminder of how much they've lost. And for what it's worth, I have stepped up.
I've been doing restorations since it meant rephotographing and working large, often under loupes, with pencils, 6-0 sable brushes, airbrush, matte knives and glue. Photoshop, etc., makes the task easier ("undo" or "delete a layer" is a lot less swear-worthy than "print another set and start over") and the tools are more accessible to more people, but the skills required are still more than technical, and a mechanical QA based on histograms, etc., doesn't begin to cover it.
I'm not knocking the volunteers, just saying that there's a good reason for more skilled practitioners to step into the fray.
No choice *but* to volunteer, I guess. Some of the "restorations" in the site's portfolio are disasters unto themselves, and people deserve better. "Free" and "volunteer" are not excuses for shoddy work.
NancyP: I think that Adobe has just created a market for OS emulators and other reverse-engineered methods for keeping LR and PS current versions running. Newer cameras should have either DNG RAW format or provide simple proprietary to DNG converting program.
I just don't see how this will work well in bulk. In text-based medical records processed through the cloud, there still can be lag time even with hospital grade (fast) connection, and the amount of data is miniscule in comparison.
OTOH, you may never need to buy another computer.
LR cloud would add problems. How many people are willing to have their catalogs on-line and only available on-line? LR is not "just" a rendering engine.
Not all of it is installed and run locally, no; some of the features are "server crunched".
crow24: Locking us out of our plug-ins too?
Framer, you seem to be missing a whole lot of vital points along the way. In this instance, there's the simple fact that some 8BA plugins won't work at all outside of Photoshop ("plugin-compatible" programs aren't always compatible; Portraiture is a good example here, but it's hardly alone). When you lose Photoshop (for whatever reason, but let's say you haven't had online access for more than 30 days) you also lose access to software licensed on other than a subscription basis from a third party, despite the fact that the license agreement between yourself and that third party is intact and all conditions met. Sounds like tortious interference to me, but what do I know?
backayonder: Great if you are on a fast broadband service with lots of data allowance each month. But I am on Wireless Broadband with only 8GB per month. So most of that usage will dissappear will it with programme downloads and picture uploads to Cloud Cuckoo land?
That, and losing the ability to work offline for extended periods (months at a time with NO connectivity other than super-expensive satellite) seal the deal for me. I'll be on CS6 for a lo-o-ong time, it seems.
Bali_Mirage: Wonderful.........crashing on startup.
No, it's not, particularly if the cause of the crashing goes to the same route. In a bug tracker, you'd consolidate reports of a single bug wherever possible. In a public beta program, you acknowledge a problem and reduce the noise where possible. "Reduce the noise" doesn't mean "hide the issue", it means making it easier for people to see that the problem has already been reported -- folks have this horrible tendency to start new threads, and you have to open all of them to see if they're reporting the same problem you are experiencing. (I've been on the "other side" of public betas. Not sure they're a good idea, really: the public, to generalize a bit, don't know how to play the beta game, and it takes a lot of work to get useful information from the feedback. And a lot of that feedback isn't even in-channel -- you have to search the rest of the web to find out what's happening to your "beta testers".)
sotirius: By changing the focal length you also change the magnification. The proper way to do this is by keeping the lens at max magnification and using a slider to move the whole camera. If not done like this you will distort the actual dimensions of the object you are taking images of. You need something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwyBzPdeq2s
At very high magnifications, moving the camera in tiny increments also changes the subject size on the sensor by a significant amount, so a focusing rail (which is not the same thing as a "slider") is not better or worse (other than tending to suffer from backlash and being another piece of kit to carry). And if the lens you're using is a "pure" internal-focus design, it actually focuses closer by reducing the focal length of the lens rather than by increasing the lens-to-sensor distance, maintaining both magnification and field of view (and, by he way, compensating automatically for exposure by maintaining the same physical aperture size while reducing focal length and increasing "bellows draw", which is pretty neat).
Doug Pardee: Are my eyes broken? When I look at the "globe" crops, it looks to me like the D7100 image is full of (non-color) moiré, particularly noticeable in areas without detail. Is that merely what the globe looks like, or is the globe printed with a half-tone and we're seeing moiré due to the absence of an OLPF?
It's halftone (4-colour process), and the patterns are also there (and only slightly less distinct) in the D5200 crops. Without using a significantly higher or lower resolution, or blurring to the point that the dots can't be resolved at all, moiré will happen on any sensor, OLPF or not, when two grids of slightly different sizes collide (in this case, the sensor and the halftone). That will be a constant in digital photography until a pseudorandom layout of sensels happens (and someone figures out how to extract colour information from it without paying a high sensitivity tax).
Indio888: To repeat from earlier: No. I'm not happy that photos I upload, which are my copyrighted IP, are being exploited by some unauthorized service so they can compete with me and sell prints. I sell prints myself and a third party does NOT have my permission to do so.
If this company was selling coffee mugs with Disney characters on them, you better believe they would be sued into oblivion.
dsjtecserv — I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong, there. The only limitation to the transferable rights you are assigning is that they are non-exclusive. That is, you still retain the rights to use and license your work outside of the Facebook channel, but the rights you have licensed to Facebook (and by transfer necessary for the sharing mechanism, which for security reasons means that a separate copy of the image, attached to the Facebook ID that shared the image, needs to be created) are pretty much all-inclusive. Read the Facebook (IP) License again, and try to find the part where it says that printing, etc., is excluded, or where it says that the rights are limited in any way to use within Facebook. Wishing does not make things so; you have assigned the rights already, and even if you subsequently delete the original images, any shared copies still exist and still have that rights assignment attached.
Clyde Thomas: The only rights you have to any artwork that you didn't create, is to look at it. You do not have the rights, by law, to reproduce it.
Reproductions rights are purchased from, and granted by, the creator, for a specific need, time, medium, circulation... Unless of course you purchase a full buyout. Pricey.
Sorry, but you're missing the point. You have assigned the appropriate rights by posting the image to Facebook; that you didn't charge for those rights is an oversight on your part.
tarnumf: For all you, f-o-o-l-s: read FB fine print! They hold ultimate copyright for any picture you upload.
Ed is the first person here to bring up a case in which rights are *not* granted (and for which a DMCA takedown notice would be in order). However, while you can do a sort of cease-and-desist, it would be difficult to collect damages from anyone downstream (including an online on-demand printing service) since the original uploaders are representing themselves as having the relevant rights in the images.
(And it's often the case that they do have those rights; it's "normal" for a wedding/portrait/head shot photographer to supply small low-rez files specifically for that purpose, although, again, s/he may not have considered all of the implications of that license. Small, visibly watermarked and heavily shared, they're great ads but they make lousy "real" prints. But if you think of them as free advertising and treat them that way from the get-go, it's easy to make peace with the idea.)
Peter K Burian: SOLUTION: Top right of your FB page, there's a little roundish icon to the right of your name.
Click on that .... for a drop down menu;
Click privacy settings. Then in the far left column, click Apps, then towards the bottom, Apps Others Use and UNCHECK photos. (I have all the apps unchecked).
OR put an X next to Apps to prevent that app from finding your photos.
That works UNTIL one of your friends/fans shares your image. Then it depends on that person's settings. If you don't want your images reproduced, then don't put them anywhere that requires you to grant reproduction and derivative works rights (and the whole sharing mechanism, along with thumbnail generation, relies on those rights).
Josh152: The fact of the mater is Photos at My Door/More Photos and/or your Facebook friends do not have ANY reproduction rights to your images just because you put them on Facebook unless Facebook formally transfers to Photos at My Door/More Photos or your friends the license you grant Facebook so it is legal for them to display your photos on their site. Which as far as I can tell Facebook hasn't done and probably never would as it would be against the spirit of the license and an egregious violation of trust.
Um, yeah, you have granted reproduction rights, and they transfer automatically. You know how people can "share" your photos? You do understand that in order to do that, a new version of the file, attached to the friend who shared the photo (so that visibility can be managed according to that friend's privacy settings for the account and the image) needs to be created, right? Again, neither Facebook nor this service/app are doing anything you haven't granted license for—you just haven't considered the implications of that license.
Peksu: I'm not on Facebook so I'm probably missing something, but what stopped people from downloading those Facebook photos before (and then printing them)?
Peksu - in many countries it is illegal to download/copy/use images unless you have been granted an explicit right to do so. I'm involved with an internet hosting provider here in North America, and one of the most frequent reasons we have for terminating accounts is repeated violations of US copyright law by people who are doing things that would be perfectly legal in parts of Europe. Since the host is in the US and subject to US law (and individual accounts are only subject to other national law if a country-code top-level domain is used), that's the law we have to go by. We don't even offer free hosting accounts to most of Europe anymore due to the legal and administrative costs of providing service to people who assume that what's legal at home is legal on our servers. (Most printers here won't touch an image that has copyright info in the EXIF or even *looks* professional unless you can provide proof of license.)
Peter, you've been around long enough (and certainly have been in the pro game long enough) to have gained a little more of an intuition around copyright and licenses by now. On Facebook, you are granting a license for your images to be used this way via the "Facebook (IP) License".
It's not "stealing" if you give it away, and the service/app isn't selling your images, they're selling a print service and an end product of that print service to people who already have your permission to create compilations and derivative works of your IP.
We've just won a MAJOR victory here in the Great White North by having section 10.2(a) of the Copyright Act voided thanks to PPoC and CAPIC. It's up to us, now, to make sure we aren't giving away what we have a right to keep.
ARShutterbug: This looks like just another way to suck uploaded photos from Facebook, and print them royalty-free. The insult is that they are facilitating and encouraging this activity.
So are you, by uploading images to a site that specifically states that you are granting a transferable license to do so. If you don't want your images used that way, don't put them anywhere where "sharing" is part of the deal, and make sure that you are only granting/leasing rights that you actually intend to grant.
zos xavius: F*** THAT! This company does not have permission to print my work. If they do it will be their lawsuit!
zos xavius -- You would be right, except that they DO have your permission.
jadedGamer -- Very close, but not quite. Facebook isn't granting rights to the app/business; your friends and/or likers are. The Facebook terms of service mean that you have given Facebook permission to give your friends/likers (or everybody, if you've tagged the image as "public") permission to use the image. (And it's contagious. If your friends share the image, they are granting rights to all of their friends/likers, and so on.) The app is just a service by which they can exercise those rights, which include giving permission to the printer to print the images.
Folks, you really need to start considering the implications of the licenses you grant to your work. If you don't know what you're doing, it's probably best not to do it.