What software was used in the first piece of track
Remember last summer when the first piece of track was spotted in the graveyard? Someone (I assume Jeff) took a picture from the Mean Streak and then blew up the portion of the picture containing the track and put it into a circle on the picture enlarged. What software was used to do this? I have Photoshop but I assume this was some sort of professional package.
Well it's not like there's a "blow it up in a circle" button on Photoshop. I think that's the problem your having. To do something like that is a few seperate steps.
Stick with it. Photoshop is one of those programs that's a bit overwhelming at first, but once you start to catch on it just gets better and better. I still use 5.02 myself and it does everything I could ask for...and more. *** This post was edited by lordgonchar on 5/17/2000. ***
Stick with it. Photoshop is one of those programs that's a bit overwhelming at first, but once you start to catch on it just gets better and better. I still use 5.02 myself and it does everything I could ask for...and more. *** This post was edited by lordgonchar on 5/17/2000. ***
Regarding photo editing suites, I was actually getting along quite fine with even (gasp) the consumer version of Adobe Photo which is "Deluxe." I recommmend it for anyone that doesn't have a ton of cash but would like to be quite creative or amibitiosus in photo touch up. When you use the advanced menu functions, it's a pretty utilitarian piece. Combine this with some good scans, and Voila!--you can bring out some nicely detailed zooms. Keep in mind, even photos that are already developed contain quite an amount of detail. You'd be amazed what you can do with any consumer level scanner these days and a nice high resolution scan. To boot, all the photo programs these days run some software algorhythms that enhance pictures as you zoom them to maintain decent clarity, although at high levels, this does not prevent pixelization.
As for what I've upgraded to: Now, I also have the entire Corel Suite which is also highly recommendable for more professional photo editing(Hey, I got it at a great price.), but I'm working on getting the REAL Adobe,though. It's a bit more intuitive and flexible.
**OH, in addition: I also feel that Adobe's Postscript output is a tad better than Corel's, but then again it's most likely because I don;t own a pantone calibrated printer.
-------------
-Dave Kochman
Pittsburgh
*** This post was edited by DaveTKoch on 5/17/2000. ***
As for what I've upgraded to: Now, I also have the entire Corel Suite which is also highly recommendable for more professional photo editing(Hey, I got it at a great price.), but I'm working on getting the REAL Adobe,though. It's a bit more intuitive and flexible.
**OH, in addition: I also feel that Adobe's Postscript output is a tad better than Corel's, but then again it's most likely because I don;t own a pantone calibrated printer.
-------------
-Dave Kochman
Pittsburgh
*** This post was edited by DaveTKoch on 5/17/2000. ***
The interoperability between Adobe apps is what makes them kick so much butt. If you have any worries about learning any of them, get the Adobe Press "Classroom in a Book" for the right program. I've learned Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and Premier that way.
Regarding scanners, I have HP's PhotoScanner, but the software pretty much sucks. It's also developing a band in the scan and it's noisy in the shadows. The low-end Nikon scanner (~$800) is much better, and on my wish list.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Guide to The Point
Millennium Force laps: 23
Regarding scanners, I have HP's PhotoScanner, but the software pretty much sucks. It's also developing a band in the scan and it's noisy in the shadows. The low-end Nikon scanner (~$800) is much better, and on my wish list.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Guide to The Point
Millennium Force laps: 23
Yes, tutorials can be VERY helpful--except for the people who refuse to read directions in the first place (Cheers Dad!).
Hmmm...an 800 dollar scanner would be great, but I have to upgrade to my Pz-1P first, let-alone a new PC rig. Any donation of funds from our generous community of CP Placers would be greatly accepted, though. (Please: No cheese-on-a-stick or TCFKAB pins, though, as it is difficult bartering them for cameras) ;)
RE: the HP scanner... If you're talking lower-end, U-Max makes a mean piece. That's both my opinion and opinions of the tons of people that I speak with everyday while working at everyone's favorite retailer, Best Buy. I haven't experienced any nasty artifacts, or banding except of course in screened matter. This is irrelevant , though, as long as you have hard-drive space to spare for high res. scans. And of course, if you're a big-time media type like Jeff, reproducing printed media is a no-no anyhoo. :)
Hopefully, though, with my new pentax w/ major, zoom lense in hand this year, I'll be able to get some nice shots for contribution to the web community.
-------------
-Dave Kochman
Pittsburgh
Hmmm...an 800 dollar scanner would be great, but I have to upgrade to my Pz-1P first, let-alone a new PC rig. Any donation of funds from our generous community of CP Placers would be greatly accepted, though. (Please: No cheese-on-a-stick or TCFKAB pins, though, as it is difficult bartering them for cameras) ;)
RE: the HP scanner... If you're talking lower-end, U-Max makes a mean piece. That's both my opinion and opinions of the tons of people that I speak with everyday while working at everyone's favorite retailer, Best Buy. I haven't experienced any nasty artifacts, or banding except of course in screened matter. This is irrelevant , though, as long as you have hard-drive space to spare for high res. scans. And of course, if you're a big-time media type like Jeff, reproducing printed media is a no-no anyhoo. :)
Hopefully, though, with my new pentax w/ major, zoom lense in hand this year, I'll be able to get some nice shots for contribution to the web community.
-------------
-Dave Kochman
Pittsburgh
You must be logged in to post