Prieni,

Many thanks for that information... it's encouraging me to try some A2s too

Matt

Malcolm,

(Answering on Joshua's behalf...)

Add a layer mask to the copied top layer (click the grey rectangle with circle inside on the layers palette). Click on the layer mask in the layers palette so you are painting on the mask, and not the image itself (otherwise you are going to get black and white splodges )

The layer mask only allows greyscale. You can then paint black and white to allow and disallow the layer to show through. I find that selecting a lower opacity (like 50%) is helpful so you can blend the effect in really naturally. Black on the mask hides that layer (thus showing the underlying layer through).

If you need to see what the mask looks like, hold Alt down and click the mask - you'll see just the mask in black and white. Incidentally, all the filters can be applied to the mask itself (like gaussian blur etc), as well as copy and paste etc.

It's also useful to use the magic wand to select areas of colour from the image, move to the layer mask, then delete the selection - a great way of quickly producing a mask.

It's a great technique, definitely worth mastering
Enjoy!
Matt

Cool

Mind you, I can't claim it was my idea. Learned loads of stuff from www.russellbrown.com
Just bought his latest book - some really great tips buried in there. Definitely worth a look, though on face value there doesn't seem to be much. Just the way he describes the layer blending modes is very helpful.

Yup, I looooove PS for image editing. The more you learn, the more you want to find things out!

Matt

Joshua,

Thanks for that I understand completely!

Yes, double layers are great. I like them especially for painting in sharpening for portraits (top layer very/over sharp, paint with 50% brush onto layer mask around eyes etc). I'd really put it to use for handling shadows and highlight like that - very nice!

Try the channel mixer, rather than saturation. It gives a really great "zing" to an image, especially digital. Of course, you can always blend it with the layer mask too

Once again, great result

Matt

Joshua,

Very nice result
Any chance you can elaborate on the workflow? I just love learning new ways of looking at things through Photoshop

Matt

Malcolm,

Great
Looks like you had a fabulous time!
Thanks for putting the images online too. Looks like some need a bit more work on curves, maybe.

Try adding a channel mixer layer on top:
Red: R:120, G:-10, B:-10
Blue: R:-10, G:-10, B:120
Green: R:-10, G:120, B:-10

It'll enrich the colours a bit more (you can play around with the value, as long as each channel adds up to 100%, of course). If you add a small S-curve underneath you'll get a Velvia look to the result

The other trick is to duplicate the layer, USM at 20%, radius 50, 0 and set the layer blend to luminosity. You can adjust the strength by adjusting the layer opacity. (Then stack the curves and channel mixer on top - you'll get more "punch".)

You can adjust the shadows/vignette (eg on 4873) by adding a gradient layer. Start with the black-to-nothing gradient, change the black to white, and change the layer mode to Lighten. Then adjust opacity, and the gradient angle to tease out the shadow on the right. (Angle of 165, and opacity of 20% worked for me).

Also, you should be able to use the dodge and burn tools, set to a low percentage, to tease out the reflections.

(Hope I'm not teaching you to suck eggs here )
Regards,
Matt

Malcolm,

Nice assignment

If you have the storage, shoot in RAW mode - especially if you have access to Photoshop CS. It's great at sorting out chromatic aberrations and sharpening. Plus you'll get a better range of shadows etc. If you don't have a couple of gig of storage, then probably set the *istD to bracket mode - you don't want blown out highlights.

If you set to ISO200, and enable Auto Sensitivity, then the *istD will pump up to ISO400 or even 800 or 1600 depending on the lense and available light. Alternatively, since there's probably going to be a bit of vibration (unless you're gliding ) aim for a stop or two above the "shake" value (ie at least 1/40 on a 20mm lens etc).

I would probably set the program line to MTF as well to get the sharpest result out of the lens.

Have fun
Matt

George,

Hmmm. Well, the concern was down to internal resistance of the cell. I understood that NiMH had a lower internal resistance, compared to NiCAD. The lower the internal resistance, the more current the cell can deliver... and consequently, more heat too.

However, I got it wrong. Actually, NiCADs have a lower internal resistance than NiMHs. But NiMHs can deliver the current for longer (generally being of a higher capacity, in mAh).

There's a great, and very complex, guide: http://www.buchmann.ca/part1.asp - well worth a look over.

Matt

George,

It could only have been a problem in the sense that the extra current can produce more heat. And, some designs can't cope with the extra current, the design expecting a maximum current given by standard NiCads. Generally, though, such a design is not a good one Most flashguns are designed well enough to cope with high surge currents.

Thanks for confirming things though
Matt

Carl,

You're right about the age. If NiCads are okay, then NiMHs should be fine. I use them in the AF360FGZ and they work a treat I use 2200mAh which seem to just run on and on and on with a fabulously fast cycle time.

The only thing to be aware is the higher capacity NiMHs can obviously deliver a real whack of current, which can add up to quite a bit of heat.

What you try is up to you, but I wouldn't give it a second thought if I had an AF400FTZ flash. Perhaps someone here on the board actually uses NiMHs (especially the ones in the 2000mAh region) who could comment

Matt