Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 01:13 PM EST Contributed by: charles Views: 4
Photoshop CS 2.0
Among the new features arriving in the next and ninth version of Photoshop, code-named Space Monkey, will be the ability to scale placed bit-mapped and vector files losslessly, including the ability to edit the original and have Photoshop update the file; an object-based user interface that will enable, for example, the ability to select multiple layers and perform manipulations across all of them at the same time; Editable Filters, allowing filters to update when filtered content is adjusted; HDR support; a customizable user interface; and a WYSIWYG Font menu.
Photoshop CS 2.0 will not feature 64-bit support, but lays the groundwork for that support, which will arrive with Photoshop 10 (presumably CS 3.0). Photoshop users will also have to wait until Version 10 for the software to use more than 2GB of RAM. Like the rest of the new Creative Suite 2.0 applications, Photoshop CS 2.0 will take advantage of Adobe's new cross-suite file browser, dubbed Bridge.
There have been rumblings that Creative Suite 2.0 will require stricter product activation than previous Adobe products, and sources say this new product activation mechanism could manifest itself in the stand alone version of Photoshop CS 2.0, as well.
2 comments Most Recent Post: 02/03 09:04AM by Anonymous
Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 07:35 AM EST Contributed by: charles Views: 10
I've been making photographs for years -- and ever since I started, I have always loved clear, sharp photographs. In the 1970’s, when I began, that meant a 35mm film camera, as opposed to the little point-and-shoot jobs that used smaller films with fixed-focus cameras, and later, it meant going “retro” with medium or large format cameras – which of course were of considerable expense…not something to be overlooked by a hobbyist.
Naturally, optics played a big roll too, and after forays into Minolta and Canon cameras, I settled on Nikon, because in my view, Nikon has the best price/performance ration for optics. Add to that, Nikon cameras seem to be far more durable than other brands, and I am known to really give my cameras a workout during their lifetime.
Then came digital. And digital comes with it's own issues. But it also comes with a wealth of new flexibility and opens up a world of new options. Despite some of it's shortcomings, it makes it possible to exceed the acutance of nearly any camera ever made -- and that can be done by any average digital camera!
Tuesday, January 04 2005 @ 04:44 PM EST Contributed by: charles Views: 24
Silent, without warning, on a clear day, a 75-foot wave of water sweeps up from the ocean and overwhelms the Outer Banks on it's way inwards. Traversing the protective sounds and minor barrier islands with precision and sure force, moments later, Beaufort, Elizabeth City, Wilmington and Southport are all engulfed in water and swept inward. Within minutes tens of thousands, vacationers, residents, workers, millitary personnel, others, perhaps up to a million in North Carolina alone, are dead.
Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST Contributed by: charles Views: 8
Once upon a time, before digital photography was more than a glimmer in a Star Trek fan's eyes, and computers were rated "powerful" if they could display capital and small case letters, people attempted to render objects into distinguishable digital art. Here's such a thing, and it truly displays how far we have come in a mere twenty years.
Monday, December 20 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST Contributed by: charles Views: 21
I think of digital photography as the "Third Wave" of the art. The first was the original photographs, using Daguerrotypes, glass plates and the like, one where photography was only available to professionals and the very-well-to do. The second wave was after George Eastman started Kodak, and invented flexible film -- and that put cameras into the hands of the ordinary, and the snapshot was born as a way to record moments with family and friends. Along the way in the second wave, we got Polaroid instant photgraphy, one-hour processing and the like. Finally, the Third Wave of photography dawned in a meaningful way sometime in the late 1990's: the digital generation of photography was born. Instead of film, photos are recorded as electronic bits, and printed using the home computer. Today, in very late 2004, compact film cameras are getting to be as rare as Carolina Parakeets. The third wave has overwhelmed the second wave at least in the household.
Film, however, lives on with artists, professionals and serious hobbyists. Some are purists, to be sure, but also film still survives with others simply because digital photography has not quite surpassed film in terms of sheer technical quality. These are folks who are not solely concerned with convenience, to them, the final image is all that matters. If an old tintype photo was better, they'd be using those cameras and not film. And for them, digital is good, but not good enough.
Anyway, guys like me have moved on to digital, and our digital SLR cameras have relegated film cameras to the bottom of the camera bag. I still use mine, but only with Fuji Velvia transparency film. It's one of the most acutant (sharp) films on the marketplace, and it's color curves are as vivid as any. In short, if it is a serious landscape shot that I took, more than likely I used a 35mm with Velvia film to capture it. I can always scan it in later for digital usage, but the serendipity of the view I am photographing is fleeting, and therefore I need to use the best tool I have in my bag at that given moment. After all, the scene won't exist an hour from then, and it certainly won't be easily available to me when I am four thousand miles away back at home.
But love I do my D100. I like the inifinite phot ability, and with a few 1GB Flash memory cards, I can shoot a few hundred pictures at the highest possible resolution prior to needing to "dump" the data (photos) off of the cards and "refresh" them by reformatting once that's done. Film on the other hand is pay as you go, and at$8/US for 36 exposures of Velvia (plus developing), a trip to Yosemite can be expensive if for nothing but the price of film. Thing is though, as far as Yosemite is from North Carolina, I can afford the film, as I am not sure I will get back to the Tuolomne Meadow any time soon.
Another simple fact about digital cameras is that they are like computers -- today's hot road is tommorow's boat anchor, on a comparitive basis. I have had my $1700 Nikon D100 a little over a year, and I can already see the handwriting on the wall for it in about 1.5 -- 2 years time. By then, new cameras with more resoution, more dynamic range and features missing from today's generation will be mainstream...and my D100 will become the knock-about family camera that's little used when the time for serious work approaches. Somewhere around the 24 megapixel mark is where I expect this will all slow drastically, because that is about the crossover point to where a digital is even superior technologically to a medium format camera's film. We're not there yet, and I plan to upgrade as reasonably as possibly while the tecnology winds it's way in that direction.
I've tried to find a way to illustrate this to people through the last few years, as the D100 is my third digital camera, and each has cost more than $1,000. Ken Rockwell, a professional photographer who uses both formats, perhaps sqaid it best in his essay on film versus digital phgotography. Read the whole article at his fine web site:
Friday, December 17 2004 @ 12:45 PM EST Contributed by: charles Views: 11
Here's a tidbit of science for you: if an atom were the size of a huge cathedral, then the electrons would be dust particles floating around at all distances inside the building, while the nucleus, or center of the atom, would be smaller than a sugar cube.
Therefore, in between, there is nothing -- so everything (matter) is nearly nothing (empty space.)
Monday, December 13 2004 @ 12:25 PM EST Contributed by: Admin Views: 59
C'mon, admit it, you've probably felt this way at least once
Every Who Down in Who-ville
Liked Christmas a lot...
But the Grinch,
Who lived just North of Who-ville,
The Grinch hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that his head wasn't screwed on quite right.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of al
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
Whatever the reason,
His heart or his shoes,
He stood there on Christmas Eve, hating the Whos,
Staring down from his cave with a sour, Grinchy frown
At the warm lighted windows below in their town.
For he knew every Who down in Who-ville beneath
Was busy now, hanging a mistleoe wreath.
"And they're hanging their stockings!" he snarled with a sneer.
"Tomorrow is Christmas! It's practically here!"
Then he growled, with his grinch fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find a way to keep Christmas from coming!"
I must say that I am disappointed that the major TV networks have forgotten my favorite Christmas cartoon, and it's the one I looked forward to the most even as a young kid. I guess I knew that Charlie Brown was smarmy even back then.
But the Grinch? Oh, the Grinch was pure. He did what he did, and he made you laugh. Best of all, Tony the Tiger sang the song "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch." (Bet you didn't know that...)