Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 05:07:17 AM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by FranciscoDisilvestro
Great images! Agree with the previous posters about vibrance and DOF. Thanks for sharing

 2 
 on: Today at 04:31:00 AM 
Started by N Walker - Last post by BartvanderWolf
It appears that Lightroom changes the PPI to 240 in the print module, hence Canon Print Studio Pro plugin showing the PPI as 240 - indicating CPSP is only printing using 240 PPI.

Does 240 PPI correspond to the number of pixels divided by the output size in inches?

Cheers,
Bart

 3 
 on: Today at 04:20:05 AM 
Started by Dan Berg - Last post by Farmer
That's is SO weird, Dan.  The fact that other images are showing correct colours, but these particular ones aren't.

Hmmm, what's the colour space of the problematic images and what file format are they in?  I know that shouldn't be an issue since you've printed on other printers without issue, but so far everything points to there being nothing wrong.  The printer clearly works with other images and the images work on other printers and your computers and workflow work for the same reason.  It doesn't make sense.

Can you print a black to white grey gradient wedge - make it maybe 18 inches in length - and see what it looks like?  I'm still trying to think of a way to reproduce the/a fault so we can then start to narrow down on it.

 4 
 on: Today at 04:13:11 AM 
Started by Tapezu - Last post by Farmer
I'm so used to seeing Japan in colour - cherry blossoms, neon lights, and so on.  This gives a very interesting and different perspective!

 5 
 on: Today at 04:11:47 AM 
Started by Alan Smallbone - Last post by Farmer
Stunning.  From your brief description it seems like there's a whole LuLa article worth of info in detailing how it's done and what's involved - maybe you should make a submission?

 6 
 on: Today at 04:08:46 AM 
Started by bobtrlin - Last post by bobtrlin
OK, finally got it to work but only after uninstalling and reinstalling the camera updater software which is weird because the version number hasn't changed.

 7 
 on: Today at 04:08:33 AM 
Started by HSakols - Last post by Farmer
These are lovely, and like others, I particularly like the first and last.  The 8mm is absolutely working for these shots!

 8 
 on: Today at 04:05:53 AM 
Started by uptownguydenver - Last post by BartvanderWolf
I opened a support case with Phase One and sent them the logs and a copy of the photo.

Just a little update.
When I am in Capture One and select the 10 files in the focus stack and do "Open With HeliconFocus" the resulting tif crashes Capture One when I go to import it.

If I bring this file into Adobe Camera raw and make a minor change and then save it the resulting file imports fine.

When I export the 10 files as tif from Capture One and process those and export the result as a tif Capture One imports it fine.

I add this information to the support case and waiting to hear back.

Yes, the Adobe saved TIFFs cause fewer problems for other programs, hence my earlier workaround suggestion of open and save with Photoshop. But it should not be necessary.

TIFF is a very flexible file format, so there are tons of parameters (Tags) that can be used. Apparently some of the Tags from Helicon Focus do not meet the expectations of Capture One. Only Phase One knows what those expectations are, so it seems more logical to start analyzing there, even if ultimately HeliconSoft might need to change something for better TIFF exchange compatibility.

Please let us know if a solution is found. There must be others who run into similar issues and would benefit from having this solved.

Another workaround for dense stacks (very small changes in focus and with wider apertures) is by exporting highest quality JPEGs. The small amount of blending between individual focus layers will create intermediate tones that can then be preserved in the TIFF export.

Cheers,
Bart

 9 
 on: Today at 03:58:49 AM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by BernardLanguillier
Thank you all very much for your kind words, much appreciated.

Cheers,
Bernard

 10 
 on: Today at 03:56:37 AM 
Started by jamgolf - Last post by Stefan Ohlsson
Being a perfectly flat film, it lends itself to a perfectly flat appearance with no texture behind acrylic. Practically any paper print material will show a texture behind acrylic because of paper pulp.

I don't agree that the paper texture will show up behind glass or acrylic. We do quite a lot of prints that then will be mounted behind acrylic or anti-reflex glass. After tests with the company that does our mounting we are using Epson Luster or Canson Platine Fibre Rag. None of the prints that we have done on these materials show any texture after the mounting.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10