Peter,
Nearly correct In terms of RAM, KB=1024 bytes.
However, for storage it is KB=1000 bytes

I am not sure exactly when this difference in terminology arose, but certainly today it means that flash based devices can "accurately" say they are 2GB (meaning 2,000,000,000 bytes). They do this because (a) some flash blocks are marked as bad from factory, (b) bad blocks can be acquired through use.
In both cases, they have enough spare capacity (2.4%) to be able to map out these bad blocks without affecting the overall storage.

A similar thing applies to modern HDDs where they can map out dud sectors within the HDD's internal controller and you don't even have to know about it.

No wonder people get it wrong
Matt

EDIT: This Wikipedia entry may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte

Layer masks are not a native part of Elements. However, you could always use "Clipping Masks". A long while ago I did some tutorials on them:
http://www.photon.me.uk/PSE/PaintingPSE.htm
and
http://www.photon.me.uk/PS/ps_layers_tutorial_1.htm

There are plug-ins that expose the Layer Masks that are buried inside Elements... but clipping masks will easily sort out sky replacement issues

The best thing is that you can continually adjust the mask... rather than trying to get the image perfectly cut out in one hit

Matt

The dynamic range is about the same... however, film does not fully saturate as you approach the highlights. In contrast, the CCD being basically linear in response, will hit the blown highlights and stop there.

That's why there's so much talk of slightly underexposing when on digital. You can quickly correct the scene, and even simulate film response curves (as Silkypix does). But once you get the blinking red highlights on the LCD preview - there's absolutely no information there at all.

You will find, though, that "pushing" a digital shot into the "correct" exposure - raking detail out of the shadows - is a far, far cleaner thing than on film. Likewise, high ISO on digital is much cleaner than film (e.g. Fuji ISO1600)!

Just a case of slightly re-learning the bounds... that's all
Matt

ETTR is correct - if you want to retain the whole contrast range.

Normally you use ETTR when using fully manual mode. And in that circumstance you can choose to decide which highlights to sacrifice for shadow detail.

However, when the camera makes the judgment, it tries to keep the majority of the highlights in. I, for one, appreciate this - especially when using fill-in flash with the AF360/540. Wedding dresses are a particularly troublesome area for photographers... and with the K10D every shot had the dress detail fully there (which couldn't be said of my mate's 30D )

Blown highlights are completely unrecoverable (unless you are an absolute master at Photoshop and can generate detail from nothing).

Dark shadows, as has been pointed out, can be recovered.


If you want the maximum amount of colour detail, then you should switch to fully manual mode and ETTR

Matt

ROFL! Very good George
Matt

Thanks Martin! Monday morning typo
(Edited and fixed)
Matt

I would have to disagree with that statement.

There should be a three step process to sharpening:

The actual capture onto CCD/CMOS introduces some softness (because of the Bayer filter matrix), and this needs to be addressed before you start editing. It is what some call "Capture Sharpening". This capture sharpening is best done by Silkypix - because it has more information available to hand (before it's outputted to TIFF).

Secondly, there's creative sharpening - ie introducing a little "zing".

Finally, there is output sharpening. This is your statement - and the sharpening should be applied appropriate to the specific output device you are targeting. Inkjet output needs a certain amount of over-sharpening, for instance.

TheLightsRightStudio.com has a good guide to the sharpening processes (some is specifically PS, but much applies to PSE too).


Silkypix provides sharpening even in the "Natural" setting Depending on the ISO setting, and the scene, I'd use Natural, or Emphatic Sharp. It just depends on the shot you have.

Matt

I found Bryan Peterson's book very helpful "Learning to See Creatively"

It's something that can be learned
Matt

Powweb in the US. I have 5 sites running from there. Not been down yet...
www.powweb.com

Matt

I have hosting all over the show

For general web-hosting I've used Powweb ( www.powweb.com ) for many years. Low price, and very reliable.

For photographic stuff I've been using Photium.co.uk - although I started with a home brew site using SimpleViewer, it got too much work, and Photium has been superb (written and maintained by the guy who started ePhotozine).

Hope that helps!
Matt