Don't Shortchange Adobe Camera Raw or Bridge
If you scored a new digital camera this year, maybe you're also working with the latest version of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. Both of these applications come with Adobe Bridge, which you might be tempted to ignore. Don't! Bridge is your direct link to Adobe Camera Raw, which is a far more capable application than I'd realized. Because I've heard from so many readers and listeners than you want to hear more about digital photography, I'm planning to increase the number of articles on that topic this year and this is the first one.
I have a new appreciation for Camera Raw thanks to Photoshop CS5 Essential Training by Michael Ninnes at Lynda.com. In just 11 hours, Ninnes covers everything you need to know. I watched this class over a 2-day period and found that I've been doing some things the hard way. "Camera Raw for global and Photoshop for local" is the message. What this means is that when you want to make overall image changes, they should be made in Camera Raw and Photoshop should be reserved for the finer details.
I know that Camera Raw needs to touch raw images first and that it can be used to great advantage even with JPG images, but I got to first base with Camera Raw when I should have been using it to get to third base and for an occasional in-the-park home run.
This may surprise you: The image you take with your expensive SLR digital camera will probably not look as good as what comes from a point-and-shoot camera that sells for a tenth of what you paid!
Relax. Don't call the lawyer.
A raw image has far more information than a JPG, which is what you'll get from the point-and-shoot camera. The cheap camera will have applied some processing to the image and the result will be a better image right out of the camera.
But the difference is that the raw image has everything the camera's sensor saw and can be manipulated in ways that the JPG can't be. So your raw image is better, but because your camera was built for use by a professional you'll need to do a little more work.
This is Phoebe* the way the image came from the camera. It's an OK image, but it's too soft, the contrast is too low, and the color isn't quite what I would like for this cat.
Here I've worked on the color balance, exposure level, highlights and shadows, overall brightness, overall clarity, and the vibrance and saturation of the image. In the past, this is where I would have stopped and I would have done the rest of the work in Photoshop.
Every raw image will need to be sharpened. In creating a JPG image, a point-and-shoot camera will add sharpening. Adobe Camera Raw gives you precise control over sharpening and, on the same panel, the ability to reduce color noise and luminance noise that will be present in images from even the best digital camera.
Because this is a raw image, Adobe Camera Raw allows me to modify the hue, boost the saturation, or change the luminance of any of the primary or secondary colors. Because of Phoebe's coloration, I boosted reds, oranges, and yellows, and greens.
Now I've used Adobe Camera Raw to add some vignetting to force the viewer's eye more toward the center of the image.
Although I knew that Camera Raw could be used to add various graduated effects, I never considered the feature set to be robust. About this I was totally wrong. The ability is little short of phenomenal. Here I've added several neutral-density vignetting filters on the left side of the image.
The result is an old-master painterly lighting effect that's a gigantic improvement over the original image. And keep in mind that everything I did here was done in Camera Raw. I could now take the image to Photoshop for more specific modifications.
*Phoebe was found, abandoned in a cat carrier, in a park in Dayton around 2001. Late in 2010, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and this image was taken prior to surgery. By the end of the year, she was healing and recovering well but her future is very much in doubt.
Libraries on Technology's Front Lines
Thirty years ago, at the beginning of the digital revolution, few people would have considered libraries to be high-tech operations. Twenty years ago, card catalogs were beginning to be replaced by electronic catalogs and some libraries allowed patrons to dial in and check the catalog. Ten years ago, your library might have provided online book reservations and access to some databases. Today, library patrons at many systems can download music, audio books, and electronic books without even visiting the library. In other words, libraries are often on the cutting edge of new technology.
On today's program, we'll be talking with Monica Baughman, manager of the Worthington, Ohio, library and with the library's director of technology services, Susan Allen. It's important to note that while our discussion will touch on some of the specific programs and services offered by this library, which was named Library of the Year nationally in 2007, much of what we'll be talking about applies to libraries throughout the world.
Listen to the interview (16:18):
Short Circuits
Your E-mail Account is Over Quota?
An annoying fraud is back and, even though it's not being executed very well by the fraudsters, some people are undoubtedly falling for it and, in the process, making themselves vulnerable to identity theft.
Here's what you see:
- A message claims to be from "webmail.org". The domain does exist and is registered in China, but there is no associated Web page. (Strike 1.)
- The message you receive has been sent to "undisclosed recipients" (all BCC, in other words). If you have an e-mail account that has a quota and you exceed the quota, you will receive a personalized message from your e-mail provider. (Strike 2.)
- The message begins with two dashes, a space, and a newline character. This is the indicator that everything below is part of the message signature. This could simply be an oversight by the fraudsters or an attempt to make it difficult for someone to forward the message. (Either way, it's strike 3.)
- "You will not be able to send or receive new mail until you boost your mailbox size." "Boost"? (Strike 4.)
- The link (to a site registered to the "to" top-level domain, which is Tonga) is disguised to look like a link to a school. The final part of the address ("system–support.edu") is actually just a directory name at "beam.to". Beam.to is a redirector service in Switzerland. It's a legitimate service, but it's often used by fraudsters. (Strike 5.)
- The supposed signature looks like this:
Technical Support
192.168.0.1
Apparently this is supposed to convince the reader that the message is legitimate and the sender is reliable. It does neither because the IP address listed is commonly known as "localhost". If you ping this address, you'll probably receive a response, but the response is coming from your computer. Exception: If you have set up your home network to use a number other than 0 in the third position, as I have, the ping will fail. (Strike 6.)
Recommended Response
Whenever you receive a message that appears to be from your Internet service provider, Web hosting service, or e-mail provider, call to confirm the message. Don't follow the link that's in the message.
No Longer Just a House of Mud
It seems that I write and talk a lot about Adobe. Maybe as much as or even more than Microsoft. In part this is because Adobe's products do cool things (improve photos, video, publications) while Microsoft's products mainly perform essential but less enticing functions. That's a major misrepresentation of both companies overall, but generally speaking it has some merit.
Adobe posted quarterly earnings late in December. This was Adobe's first billion-dollar quarter. The company earned $269 million in the fourth quarter, which compares with a loss of $32 million the year before.
For the year, Adobe earned $775 million on $3.8 billion of revenue compared to earnings of $387 million on $2.95 billion of revenue the year before.
Oh, and actually Adobe never was a "house of mud". The company name comes from Adobe Creek, which ran behind the house of one of the company's founders.
Notice Any Site Changes This Year?
Probably not and that's because I made only a few subtle changes. Some new technologies exist, but I'm not yet comfortable using them here.
During 2011, I'll be evaluating those new technologies to determine whether they should be considered for inclusion in 2012.
The author's image: It's that photo over at the right. This explains why TechByter Worldwide was never on television, doesn't it?
