Prunus salicina (Japanese Plum fruit tree) in comparative VIS and UV exposures

[igoriginal]

I'm stuck with Elements 11, but I don't think it is missing anything. It is more that the interface lacks usuable space. I cannot keep the bottom tool choice area closed. Keeps popping open to take up space. Poor design.

 

Correct. It's not so much that Elements 11 has actually stripped away many of its useful functions. It's just that it has "kiddied" up the intuitiveness of the interface (As if they decided that Elements, from now on, would be for some 9 year old, and not a professional or semi-professional on a limited budget).

 

Many of the more robust and configurable options for each tool are no longer grouped in a more intuitive, and efficient manner, while being space-efficient. And yes, there is a lot of waste of actual screen space, for the sake of making some over-sized panels, buttons, and windows pop up.

 

The floating layers are also no longer displayed in a more logical workflow dynamic and organization. You have to jump through some hoops, to figure that out. (It can be done, but no longer is it as clearly evident or intuitive, like Elements 10).

 

Also, some of the tools now seem more "primitive" (such as the "healing" tool, which isn't nearly as robustly 'context-aware' as the previous Elements version).

 

Finally, you can no longer author and design your own custom "actions", like previous Elements versions (which indicates that Adobe clearly no longer wants to give away as much flexibility to those who choose to skimp on their ridiculously price-gouged flagship product).

 

I don't know. Maybe I just didn't give my own copy of Elements 11 enough due time ... so I might be wrong from my initial impressions. However, I shouldn't have to suddenly have one of my hands tied behind my back, or feel like I am trying to pull teeth, to figure out something that was clearly more intuitively laid out and efficiently organized, from the previous version.

 

I suppose that if it does the job for you, then that's all that matters. But as for me, it feels like a step backwards, from Elements 10.

 

Important note: If you do ever consider trying Elements 10, though, make sure it is expressly listed by the seller as either "never activated" (if sold as "new"), or "properly deactivated" (if sold as "used, but viable.") This is because Elements can only be activated to a fully-usable version on up to two computers, max. And, before anyone decides to "uninstall" it, or the hard drive wiped ... then it first has to be properly "deactivated", or else the activation certificate / permission is forever lost, and the associated "activation code" with that copy of the software forever rendered inoperable. Moreover, Adobe does not offer any additional activation codes for sale, for older versions (should you need a usable activation code for two more computers), if that's what you mean by "no more software support." Heh.

 

 

I see some Elements 10 for sale on the 'Bay and on Amazon.

But can those be registered with Adobe if Elements 10 is no longer supported?? Don't know.

As I don't use PS Elements all that often, I'm just living with the version I've got.

 

Yes, they can still be registered and activated (provided that the seller or re-seller hasn't used up the "activation codes" included with the copy of the software, or has remembered to "deactivate" the associated codes, before uninstalling the software and selling it as "used.")

 

As for any other claims made by the company, when it comes to photo-editing / processing software ... I'm not too worried about all of this over-emphasis on "what is still supported." I think it's a bunch of big-corporate fear-mongering, all in the name of mass-profiteering ... so that they can keep bilking the "sheep" out of their hard-earned dollar, once every 3 to 6 months (about the rate at which a "new" version is crapped out of their corporate meat grinders).

 

Ex: "Oh, looky here, people! We just released version 2,892! Get it now, or else!"

 

Seriously? Pa-leeeeeease, don't insult my intelligence.

 

I mean, until I got into 'Photoshop Elements' (the "poor man's Photoshop") just three years ago, I was using the very first version of Paintshop Pro (1.0) for 16 years! (Version "1.0" was released back in 1995! It came pre-loaded as "freeware" along with my ancient Packard Bell Windows 95 CD) In fact, I still use that version for some of my post-photo editing workflow, and it still gets the job done, even for some of my paid / professional work (weddings, modeling, sporting events, etc). Yet, I bet all "support" for that version stopped about 19 years ago or so. Ancient history. Hehe.

 

Guess what, though? It may not have the latest and greatest tools ... but ... it doesn't crash, slow down, or freeze up like these overly bloated "newest" releases. Sometimes, less is more, and can actually IMPROVE overall productivity.

 

Never mind, that I would never even CONSIDER paying the ridiculously price-gouged offering of Adobe's latest Photoshop "flagship" product.

 

("You're not a pro, unless you buy *THIS.*")

 

They can keep dreaming, if they believe that I have an ego to bruise ... with such dysphemisms.

[igoriginal]

The problem with false colour white balancd in ACR has nothing to do with demosaic-ing or Bayer filters, imho.

It is rather that there is no way to tell ACR not to apply the Nikon camera white balance temperature boundaries.

Even when using Adobe generic profiles, ACR still sees that it has a Nikon photo and won't let it go

outside a certain WB temperature range.

Generally speaking, the WB temperatures for UV click-white work

run between 1800-2000, depending on which converter is being used.

 

I've noticed that "click" white-balancing (via the dropper tool) sometimes works in ACR, to some extent, but it rarely nails it down to the precision of what is processed into my JPEG copy of the same image (in terms of the in-camera CWB, that is).

 

And, good luck using that dropper tool for "clicking" in the optimal white-balance if you're hard-pressed in finding a "neutral grey" target anywhere in the image. Sometimes, you find it. Sometimes you don't. Unless I am doing something wrong?

 

In either case, my best workflow around this issue ... has been to come as close as possible, first using that "click" (dropper) white-balancing tool. Adjust all of my other sliders in ACR. Then, open the image in Elements (10), as a loss-less / uncompressed (16 bit, not 8 bit) "TIF" file, and use Element's version of that "click" tool (called the "remove color-cast" dropper), which seems to do an even better job than ACR! Interesting, huh?

 

(Not to mention, the "auto color correction" function in Elements sometimes does a surprising job, too, if you've met it half-away and have adjusted the UV color distribution with enough color separation / distinctiveness.)

 

If that still doesn't cut it, then I have usually settled for using my out-of-camera JPEGs, instead (for proper UV CWB, in-camera), when all else has failed. Well ... up until now, since you have reminded me about that "Photo Ninja" option. I am excited about giving that a go!

 

Most times, though, my JPEG copies of the exposure have gotten the job sufficiently done (provided, I didn't blow my exposure to begin with). That is, when I cannot get the white-balance to cooperate enough, in RAW / ACR.

 

(Yes, I know that many photographers would frown at me for resorting to JPEGs, instead of RAW files, like it's some sort of "heresy" or "blasphemy." Haha. However, I would rather nail my UV custom-white-balance, in-camera, and compromise some loss in detail ... rather than worry about any additional RAW detail to the point that my UV colors never quite nail it. And that's just me and my preference, of course.)

 

Besides, unless you are planning to make giant prints of your work, then differences in detail between JPEG ad RAW images for smaller images / prints are not as apparent.

 

I will tell you, though, that starting your workflow off by first converting your original image into a loss-less TIF format does squeeze the maximum use out of your image in post-photo processing ... even a JPEG.

 

Makes me wonder why TIF was abandoned from camera image-capturing options? TIF is the best of both worlds (high detail retention because of less compression, and yet, properly-retained CWB information with a minimally-processed image). I have a few older full-spectrum-converted cameras with TIF as a file-processing/saving option, and the TIF images out-of-camera yield IMPRESSIVE detail (not quite as good as RAW, but way better than JPEG), and yet, the in-camera custom-white-balance is added to the image processing, just like a JPEG.

 

Anyway, now that "Photo Ninja" is on my radar screen, I will certainly check it out. Thanks!

[igoriginal]

Oh, thank you so very much for those very excellent image examples!

 

Your work is certainly gorgeous, and your suggestions are truly useful! I am grateful for this.

 

(By the way, I too, am a "clarity tool junkie!")

 

I think we need to start a new group: CTAA (clarity-tool-aholics, anonymous).

 

Heck, I even like some of the "halos" produced by the abuses of a heavy-handed clarity tool junkie. Hah!

[colinbm]

CTAA (clarity tool addicts anonymous)

Col

[igoriginal]

CTAA (clarity tool addicts anonymous)

 

Right. Even better!

 

(Except that we're not so "anonymous" about it, are we? Hehe.)