I also use XnView MP on Windows and while I prefer Faststone, XnView MP supports HEIF files so I have been using it recently.  It can also do all the stuff I mentioned above about Faststone, but the UI is not as polished or as easy to use.  Unfortunately, the Mac version has bugs with HEIF so it is unusable on Mac.

Anyone know of a program I can use?  Preferably inexpensive or even free.  Thank you.

Is anyone processing their negatives with Luminar or do I really have to switch to PS/Lightroom? Luminar´s manual is pretty limited on this topic and I have not been able to figure out how to, for example, create a fill layer with the frame border in order to reduce the color cast. Thankful for tips.

with its 'customer service' hat on,have  chosen to discontinue the 'OWL' cartridges that the machine uses.

This will mean recourse to 3rd party ink,so I'm interested to know members opinions of the cheaper alternatives.

I got the Canon Pro-200 since it is still pigment inks and the closest to the i9900. Larger than 13x19 would be nice but not necessary. Made a nice print of this shot, so all is good again. Looks great. Not sure it is BETTER than the i9900 but just as good. The setup went smoothly. For those in a similar printing space, it seems to be a good instrument.                  Regards.

The buzz is that the Mac Studio with M2 is blazingly fast in all photo editing aspects, while there are no accounts of the PC speed, which I presume would be no slouch as configured.

Should I take the plunge into Apple, or stick with PC.  The purported ease of Apple sounds inviting, but I like the option of being able to open the case and make upgrades myself.

What would you recommend and why.

Thank you.

Any thoughts on why there would be such a difference between these two programs using the same monitor settings and same paper profile? That seems very odd to me.

So, I just printed a print test target. One from the LR print module and one via PS. Neither are spot on (but they are not way off either), but the PS is one much more washed out (color wise) VS the LR one. However, on a good note I guess that is what the soft proofing sort of suggested would happen. I just am not exactly clear on why it varies so much from one program to the other keeping all the variables the same (I think). 

So:

A - why there would be such a difference between these two programs using the same monitor settings and same paper profile?

B - I read a lot about QImage for its soft proofing. If it's worth it I'd drop the $100, though surely I shouldn't "need" another program outside of LR and/or PS. I can sharpen and DeNoise with my Topaz Lab stuff so if I got it, it would be solely for printing.

C - I need to re-educate myself about color management. Open to suggestions and links to get me up to speed. It's been years but I recall DigitalDog had some good stuff so I will check out his site again.

The last version I downloaded was version 5.  It wasn't always free, but it was much cheaper than Photoshop and Lightroom. The good thing was that once purchased, you had 24/7 access to the Author of this software. He would usually get back to you via email within a couple of days. The software was kind of quirky in that it worked like no other photo editing software I ever used. It used a Tree-based method of editing that preserved each and every change you made incase you had to go back to it. So if you made 20 changes to an image, you would have 20 versions of the image on your screen. I think Photoshop found an easier way by using the "History" function. There is/was an extensive manual both in print and online. I heard that version 8 does not handle RAW files , but I think there was a plugin to allow you to handle RAW files (you might have to contact the author?) ? My version handles all types files including RAW easily. I still use this software for certain things because it does it better than more popular software packages, but unfortunately, due to its "quirkiness", or way of doing things, it never became an Industry standard. 

Here's my idea.  I'll be cutting LOTS of wood squares out about 1"x1", baking them in the over at varying times/temps so they have different hues, taking a picture of each one, labeling the blocks on the back to keep track of them, and then load the pics into some mosaic software to create a large picture.  If the software were to allow the input pictures to be rotated in the final mosaic, not only could you not tell as these are pictures of wood blocks, but the end picture will end up looking better for it.

Thanks for the help.

However, these profiles designed for processing images in Lightroom and Photoshop for printing seem a little dull for general computer usage.

What should I use when I'm not editing photos? In my Mac's display settings, there are a lot of choices for the color profile:

• Apple RGB
• Color LCD
• Display
• Display P3
• sRGB

Or should I make something different with my Eizo's ColorNavigator profile maker?

Thanks,
Russell

Now, I’m scanning color negatives and again I become aware of the color palette from that film. But, Here lies my rub. I don’t seem to be able to escape the palette. This image is about the best I’ve been able to accomplish so far. I don’t think it looks bad, I just think it looks like color negative film. I was hoping to get a more natural “what I saw” color, similar to what I was able to accomplish with transparency film.

Any thoughts of getting away from these colors? Or, do you think I’m I barking up the wrong tree? I really do not mind the colors. I just though photoshop could escape the C-41 look without it looking disastrously unnatural.

Thanks, Deon

My process: Hasselblad 501 C/M 60mm CF lens - Kodak Ektar 100 shot @100 ISO out-lab run normal. To scan, I’m on Mac OS 12.6 / Mac calibrated monitor, Epson V-700 scanner with scan bed. I’m using Silverfast 9 software IT8 calibrated and Silverfast’s “Kodak/Ektar” profile, I tried other profiles just for the heck of it, the correct one seemed the best (I have found not always true with some films). I scan every image as big as quality allows (don’t let Epson interpolate size), ProPhoto RGB color space. I’m editing in Photoshop CC (24.0), after I straiten, crop the image to the rebate edge, spot away dust and flaws I add in layers. First Levels, then in Curves I open each color channel and adjust each color to get a global color I like. Then Hue/Saturation, going through each color (not global) I “WAY” over saturate each color so I can see what effect each color has on the image. I adjust the hue (baby steps) if need, then desaturate back to normal, repeat for every color. Last, I open Selective Color going through only the colors I feel need help and adjust. Save with layers. The 40x40 scan with four correction layers = 1.75 GB file.

Image: Great Basin National Park, Nevada. Alpine Lakes Loop trail. September 13th, 2017 early fall colors, not the colors I'm worried about.

On my main PC drive, I have a folder in my Pictures folder named 'Lightroom Folder' I haven't cleaned out my past catalogs so I know there are a ton of very old LR files I could delete. But which ones?
My current LR is using a catalog named Catalog-2-2-V12. Inside the Lightroom folder there are 3 folders and one white icon for 'V12'.

Folder 1: Catalog-V12 Helper.lrdata
Folder 2: Catalog-V12 Preview.lrdata
Folder 3: Catalog-V12.lrdata-data

White icon named Catalog V12.

See photo.

How do these all work together and what do they each do?
If I want to clean up my Lightroom folder, how can I delete what I don't need and keep the most recent backups? Maybe the last 3 or 4.

Any help on how to maintain a clean and tight Catalog system on my PC will be appreciated.

Thanks, Bob

For many years, my photos were shared digitally with friends, family and online groups.  Then, a couple of years ago, I was looking through some old photo albums of mine, and I missed having hard copies of the photos.  So I had a few printed at a retail camera store and was disappointed at how underexposed they turned out.  The smaller size and cropping that was necessary because of differences in print size and digital size further reduced the appeal of the photograph.  So I switched from 4x6 to 5x7, then couldn't find photo albums for that dimension, although was finally able to find some online.

I understand, somewhat, that I have to change the settings in my photo editing software (I currently use ON1 Photo RAW).  What is confusing, is that when I order prints, such as from Black's (a popular camera company in Canada which closed its brick and mortar stores and sells all their products/services online, there is a section you can check off for them to make adjustments needed; however, I'm not sure to what extent. 

So, the questions I have are:

1. If I submit my photos for printing based on the default settings in the photo editing software that is tailored to the computer, will they be able to make the necessary adjustments on their end?

2. If not, what settings should I use to most closely match a 5x7 print?  There appears to be two factors - the ratio and pixel size, is that right?  What are the equivalent dimensions (e.g. 1000 x 5000) and ratio?

3. Should extra sharpening be added?

4.  Should I increase brightness/exposure?

5. How will changing these settings for print change how these photos will look on screen?

6.  Can anyone recommend any tutorial on this?

Thanks very much.

Thanks for any help with this!

Even though I wasn't planning on doing any macro work that day, I quickly put the finder on my Canon 6D. For some reason it was very loose ? The reason was that the eyepiece on my camera was too small for the finder. I figured maybe I could use some gaffer tape to hold it down... That's until I finally read the instructions ! The instructions stated that the Finder comes with an adapter for the two sizes of eyepiece that Canon uses on all their cameras. There is an Ed-c adapter and a  Ec-c adapter in the box. Apparently, my camera uses the Ec-c adapter. OK but would I have to do a bunch of complicated, time consuming screwing and unscrewing ? Nope, the adpaters just slide on and off.

So I removed the Ed-c adapter and replaced it with the Ec-c adapter.  The good thing about this finder is that it has a mirror so your images do not appear upside down once you look trough it. it is also pretty bright, but I wish it was a tad brighter. It also has a 2.5X magnifier to help in focusing . The stem of the Finder also rotates from left to right for added convenience and flexibility.  

This Finder has now become indespensible to me ! I use it on my Real-Estate job to take pictures in tight corners and spots that without it would be impossible. No flippy screen, no problem ! Well almost...       

I will put all of my catalog backups in the same place on the new SSD, namely, in my 'Pictures' folder.

Even though it is in the Pictures folder on the new drive, will LR still go to the 'Pictures' folder to open from the last backup? Will it have a problem finding/recognizing the new drive and my backup catalogs?

Thanks

Can someone help please? Thanks in advance.

Here is a link to the course: https://www.creativelive.com/class/adobe-photoshop-cc-the-complete-guide-ben-willmore   Unfortunately,  its not free. The course costs $15 per month with a subscription,  but the good thing is that you can watch it over and over again in case you missed something.  You can also buy the course for $49 which might save you money. 

Another good thing is that the Host really knows what he is talking about and is very clear and consice. There are no ahhs, hmmms and other empty 'filler' spaces. 

I would not recommend this course to Green beginners, more like a brush-up/upgrade for people who already know the basics and have used Photoshop for a while.    

Before I invest in a macro lens rental to copy my negatives with a digital camera, I’d like to try Denoise. Do you have a raw file made by photographing a B&W negative on a light box? (preferably 35mm) If you could send me a file, I could see how Denoise handles real film grain, which is just one type of "noise."

Thanks,
Russell
 

Size 13" x 13" or 14" x 14", though down to 10" x 10" would be welcome.

For use on Canon Pixma Pro-100

I have found only Fotospeed.  They sell 12" x 12".