The main benefit of DNG is that it’s an open format in the sense that the specification is publicly available. So even if Adobe were to fail, it’d still be possible for other software developers to read the format. With so many RAW file formats out there (every camera has a slightly different file format), the possibility that the RAW files won’t be accessible sometime in the future is very possible. Still, such a problem is a ways off. So what are the immediate benefits?

The big immediate benefit is that the thumbnail and metadata is built into the format. No more sidecar files that are easy to lose or not copy over when moving your photos around. This benefit alone was enough to convert me to DNG. While I don’t care about the thumbnail files, I’ve definitely had to redo my RAW settings due to not copying over an .xmp file. Stupid mistake, sure, but something that should be avoidable in the first place by a well thought out file format.

The DNG files are also smaller by about 25-33%. So that makes them easier to backup and transport around. The reason for this, as explained by Tom, is that when you’re shooting the camera is just concerned about getting the images on your card. So the compression is fast, but not as robust as it could be. When you’re creating the DNG file on your regular computer, time isn’t such an issue so a better but slightly slower compression algorithm can be used. All the data is the same.

So I’m a fan and I recommend you take a look at it. It really does seem to solve some very real problems.

Related posts:

 Party on @ Adobe Creative CS4 launchYesterday I went with Jim Tierney, our company president, to the Adobe CS4 Launch event. It was at Adobe’s headquarters in San Francisco, which is...  Shooting video with the 5D Mark IIMy biggest frustration with the 5D is the lack of AutoFocus. You get very use to AF on traditional camcorders and not having really affects...

Earlier this week Peter offered up his work for us to use in our 3D Invigorator gallery section. He is the Company Director for After Hours Creative, a small design studio in England that specializes in high impact graphics.

(Above) “Created for an individual looking for a totally unique card design. We decided to create a romantic feel to the word “Love” with just colours, textures and a small selection of well placed images. The combination of 3D text created in 3D Invigorator, textures in Texture Anarchy and images of small roses achieved the look and feel perfectly.” -Saunders

(Above) “Our slogan for this design was “Don’t leave your graphics out in the cold this winter.” The weather was freezing, the economy wasn’t great but we wanted to let businesses know this didn’t mean they had to abandon their budgets for design work. When it came to creating imagery for this slogan we decided to warm up 3D Invigorator. We manipulated each letter of the word “Graphics” then added it to a wintery scene. Texture Anarchy enabled us to create the two textures needed for the letters, we then added snow and a few lonely branches creating a design that both inspired and kept us busy and warm!!” -Saunders

To see more 3D Invigorator gallery images visit here.

Related posts:

 Featured Artist: Jook LeungMany of you may be familiar with Photoshop’s Photomerge, but this artist is in a panorama class of his own. Jook Leung has been recognized...  9 1/2 Most Frequently Asked 3D Invigorator Questions3D tends to be a new thing for most people, so we get a lot of questions about it. Here are the most frequently asked...

Now, I realize that going into a camera store and stealing a $1000 lens is difficult and stealing a $500 software program is relatively easy. But just because it’s easy to steal software doesn’t make it any less wrong. If you can afford to buy a $1000 lens, you can afford to help support the people that make the software you use to organize, enhance, manipulate, and print your photos. We’re all real folks trying to make a living and, even though piracy is given with software, sometimes it hurts when it’s thrown in your face as my friend did (unintentionally, sure, but here’s someone that’s relatively well paid just casually throwing out she wants to steal Photoshop.).

I usually don’t lose much sleep over piracy. Much of it is done by people that would never buy the program. They  download the software, use it once or twice, and then don’t use it again. But for artists that use something like Photoshop every day, it does dismay me a little about how common piracy is. Some photographers and artists that would be up in arms if their work was copied and used for an ad without being paid, think nothing of copying software from a friend. Yet, it’s the same principle.

I don’t care if you download a pirated copy of our plugins to try out. But if you find it useful, please… support those of us that work our asses off to bring you cool, useful software.

Yes, there are real people behind all this software… Jim, Garrick, Debbie, and Maggie (see above). And we all greatly appreciate all of you who do find our software useful and help us continue to do something we love… allowing us to create cool software that hopefully makes your jobs easier!

Related posts:

 Fake or Not Fake?A picture can not lie. We all know the untruth of that these days. But what do you do when a picture isn’t lying, yet...  Macro vs Micro at Microsoft Pro Photo Summit.Digital Anarchy — that’s me and Jim Tierney — attended the Microsoft Pro Photo Summit this week. It’s a pro-level gathering that we have attended...

One that I found interesting is #9.“DO make sure to separate the arms from the waist. Arms flat against the side of your subject create the illusion of a very wide waist.” Or you can always adjust for that in Photoshop ;)

There was some uproar last September about Self Magazine’s cover model, Kelly Clarkson who appeared to be much slimmer then she is in reality. What do you think of the controversy? Read about it here.

And one more tip; Jim Tierney wrote a great article about skin retouching in Photoshop, which is also important for creating great portraits after the photoshoot.

Related posts:

 Skin smoothing for kittens?Yesterday Digital Anarchy did a photoshoot for our Beauty Box product for video skin retouching. Well actually for our Beauty Box PRODUCTS, since we have...  Beauty Box is the ‘plastic surgeon’.Around the holidays, we received a great compliment about Beauty Box from customer Ross Webb. Beauty Box is our new skin retouching software for video...

While a shaky camera can be used, on rare occasion, to good effect… it’s usually something to be avoided. More often than not, it just means your watching a B horror flick and the owner of said shaky camera is about to be bitten in half. Hopefully we can get you shooting stable video so as to insure you are not similarly attacked by creatures that are aggravated by shaky video.

So… how do you avoid such a fate?

How you solve the problem of the shakes is, in part, determined by how much money you want to throw at the problem. I highly recommend you check out The DV Rebel’s Guide by Stu Maschwitz. Stu is a veteran visual effects supervisor who’s worked on Star Wars, Sin City, and many others. The DV Rebel’s Guide is a great resource for shooting professional looking video on the cheap. For example, using a skateboard and sandbags as a dolly. Brilliant! Lots of great info, cool tips, and if you’re just experimenting and playing around the book is very handy.

If you’re considering shooting professionally however, you probably owe it to yourself to get some real equipment. For example, the Steadicam Merlin (pictured above) is a great way to keep a DSLR stablized. It takes awhile to master it, but once you do you can get some beautifully stable shots. Do a search on YouTube for ‘steadicam merlin’ and check out some of the videos. It uses weights to counter balance the camera and keep everything steady. At $799, it’s a little pricey though.

Now, you can create something similar to the merlin with a pipe and weights and it’ll cost you $14. The problem with this (and with the Merlin itself) is that between the weights and the camera, it’s freakin’ heavy! You can only use the thing for 10-15 minutes or so at a go because your arm just gets worn out. One advantage the Merlin has is that you can buy a vest for it (also pictured above), which distributes the weight more evenly over your body and you can work much longer. It’s a great system, but it’ll set you back a cool $2400. But if you’re shooting professionally, it’ll be worth it. It should be pointed out that there are other professional tools, like the Glidecam, that compete with the Merlin. But I’ve used the Merlin, it works, so I can speak from experience with it… but there are plenty of folks that love the Glidecam. There’s also other inexpensive things like the Fig Rig, which allows you to move the camera around more fluidly, but is less helpful for dealing with bumps when walking.

Let’s talk about a few other things…

The tripod head you use for still images won’t cut it for video. You want to be able to smoothly pan the camera from left to right and most photo tripod heads aren’t set up for that. So you need a fluid based video tripod head, such as the one pictured in the top image. These also have a handle that makes smooth panning easier. You’re current tripod will probably work, so you don’t need to replace that, but the tripod head needs to be for video. The prices range anywhere from about $150 – $600. If it’s more than $600 you’re probably buying a head meant for a large film/video camera and it’s probably unnecessary for a 5-10 lb DSLR. Of course, if you’re mounting a 15lb, $7000 400mm prime on the camera, then maybe you should spend the extra $200 and get a tripod head that won’t collapse under the weight. I’m just sayin’…

That covers the basics for stabalizing the thing. From $14 stick and a dumbell and a skateboard with sandbags to a $2400 steadicam rig. Again, the DV Rebel’s Guide has a much more complete discussion of all the options, including stuff I’m not getting into here. This is just a blog and I ain’t spending the next 3 months writing a book.

What if it’s already shaky?

Well, first off, I would look out the window for zombies. They’re usually around when the video gets shaky.

If not, then bolt the door, get the shotgun ready, and we’ll try and stabalize the footage.

This is where things get dicey. If you thought Post Production for photos was bad (for example, if Photoshop makes you sweat worse than a bunch of zombies), you’ll LOVE Post Production for video! Actually, no you probably won’t love it…

So yes, post production. There are many options for video… from iMovie on the low end, to Adobe After Effects and Apple’s Final Cut Pro on the high end. iMovie has stabilization built in. It works ‘ok’. It’s not really a professional tool and it shows. But if you’re just experimenting it’s definitely adequate. Adobe’s After Effects has excellent stabilization, but it takes awhile to learn it. It’s sort of like Photoshop for video, so it’s a very deep program. There’s also a program called Mocha from Imagineer Systems that works as a plugin for After Effects and Final Cut Pro and provides excellent stabilization for both programs.

Professional video stabilization is somewhat difficult. Once you understand how it works, it’s not too tough, but getting there can be a long process for someone without a video background. However, if you’re serious about video, then learning After Effects,  Adobe’s Premiere Pro or Apple’s Final Cut Pro is probably essential. You’ll need at least one of them.

Of course, you can always hire someone to stabilize the footage for you. Assuming the footage isn’t _too_ shaky, it shouldn’t cost too much. If you don’t expect to have lots and lots of shaky video, then hiring someone to deal with the occasional shot is probably the way to go. However, if you choose to do it yourself, there are many training videos out there that deal with stabilization and can help you get up to speed.

I hope this has provided some useful info to all you crazy folks doing crazy things with DSLRs.

Oh and btw… CHECK THIS OUT: The DSLR shootout, where the folks at Zacuto do a spectacular job comparing a number of DSLRs with a $100K Feature Film camera. The results are pretty amazing!

Related posts:

 Are You A Photographer Shooting Video? Go to NAB.NAB is a huge three letters in the film and television world. However, most photographers will never have heard of it. It stands for National...  Shooting video with the 5D Mark IIMy biggest frustration with the 5D is the lack of AutoFocus. You get very use to AF on traditional camcorders and not having really affects...

1: My Illustrator files won’t import, why?

Save Illustrator Files as Invigorator 10 files. Invigorator can’t read vector files saved out in newer Illustrator formats. So save your files as Illustrator 10 files to ensure they’ll come into 3D Invigorator. See the tutorial on Illustrator files:

http://digitalanarchy.com/3Dinvig/tutes.html#t6

2: My complex Illustrator file isn’t coming in correctly. Why?

Divide and Conquer: For complex objects, save out paths separately and import them separately. With lots of paths, Invigorator may not always figure out what you want to do. So breaking your logo (or art) into it’s component pieces and importing each of them will ensure you get exactly what you want.

3: How do I create a hole in my object?

Use Illustrator Groups to create holes. Group one path within another and 3D Invigorator will interpret the inner path as a hole. See the video tutorial on Illustrator files for more info:

http://digitalanarchy.com/3Dinvig/tutes.html#t6

4: I’ve created an object with several materials on it. Can I save all the materials together?

Save Object Styles so you can use them on other objects. Go to the Object Styles Swatches and select Save Object Style from the dropdown menu. It’s pretty easy. Take a look at our tutorial on materials for a bit longer explanation:

http://digitalanarchy.com/3Dinvig/tutes.html#t7

5: My text/logo looks ‘blocky’, and curves aren’t smooth. What’s wrong?

Use object Smoothness to get better looking Objects. Most computers/graphics cards can handle having Object Smoothness cranked all the way up to 100. If you have a lot of objects, Invigorator may slow down a bit, but usually you won’t see a performance hit. Check out this video tutorial for a bit more info on Smoothness and 3D objects:

http://digitalanarchy.com/3Dinvig/tutes.html#t3

6: I’ve created a complex logo in 3D Invigorator, how can I reuse it? / Can 3D Invigorator be used as a Smart Filter?

You can save anything you create in 3D Invigorator by going to File>Save Scene As… However, we recommend using Invigorator as a Smart Filter. It’ll allow you to make changes at any time, even a year later. This is a big deal because if you spend the time creating a logo in 3D Invigorator, if you just apply it as a regular filter… all that setup is lost. Invigorator renders out the logo to Photoshop layer, but the 3D geometry is not saved. So it’s important to either save the scene or use 3D Invigorator as a Smart Filter so you don’t have to re-setup the logo or artwork next time you want to use it. Here’s a tutorial on using Smart Filters:

http://digitalanarchy.com/primatte/tutes.html#t5

7: How do I use multiple materials on one object?

Using the Profile Viewer you can drag and drop materials on different parts of the object. The Profile Viewer shows the front, back, and sides of the object.  You can drag materials on to the front and back. The sides can be divided up into many different parts and each part can have a different material. Here’s a tutorial on the Profile Viewer:

http://digitalanarchy.com/3Dinvig/tutes.html#t5

8: How do I create textures like brick or concrete?

Use jpegs to create custom texture materials. Take a picture of Concrete and use it as the Color map and the Bump map. Click on the picture icons next to the Color parameter and the Bump parameter in the Material Editor. This will allow you to select and load the jpeg image into your material. Check out this tutorial on texture maps:

http://digitalanarchy.com/3Dinvig/tutes.html#t8

9: How do I make lighting adjustments?

Use the Light Editor to move lights or add them. You can also click on the Light icon at the top of the 3D Invigorator UI.

9 1/2: What’s the difference between Photoshop 3D capabilities and 3D Invigorator?

This is 9 1/2 because the question is really about Photoshop. There are lots of differences, but the main one is that 3D Invigorator is designed specifically for create 3D text and logos. So it’s much faster and easier to create high quality 3D logos with 3D Invigorator. We have a video tutorial that shows you a complete comparison between Photoshop’s 3D and 3D Invigorator. It’s here:

http://digitalanarchy.com/3Dinvig/tutes.html#t1

Related posts:

 Creative Uses Of 3D TextWhen we first start selling 3D Invigorator there were some questions about when you would ever need such a tool. But for designers it can...  Invigorate yourself.The 3D Invigorator is our newest Adobe Photoshop plugin for creating 3D logos and other fun 3D graphics. We’ve recently posted some great video tutorials...

HDR Gone Bad

It’s a novelty look and I’m over it. It was cool for a very short time, then everyone decided they wanted to have surreal images. It’s not that hard of a look to achieve, so it’s not that impressive. Get over it.  :-) I much prefer to use HDR for what it was meant for… which is giving a slightly wider dynamic range to create a shot that has similar contrast and color range to what your eye actually sees. No one has seen colors like the photo above has. Alright, well, yeah I’ve taken mushrooms too, so maybe then… but not normally.

The better use for HDR…

Given the normal photo below:

We can use multiple exposures to create the wider dynamic range we’d like to see in a single photo, but can rarely achieve due to the limitations of sensors, file formats, etc. Even when used properly, HDR isn’t without its problems. However, you can frequently get beautifully life like photos that would be difficult to achieve normal. The example below gets the point across (although I’m not holding it up as a shining example of photography, it is good enough to get my point across though):

What you get is more detail in the shadows and highlights than what you’d normally see. You can tease some of this detail out when working with RAW files, but not to the extent you can when you have multiple photos. Of course, multiple photos means you can have ghosting and other artifacts to deal with, so that’s always a consideration.

HDR is a cool technique and can produce some amazing photography work. The surreal look does, I’m sure, have a time and place, but realize that’s not what HDR was designed for.

Related posts:

 Fake or Not Fake?A picture can not lie. We all know the untruth of that these days. But what do you do when a picture isn’t lying, yet...  Adding MetadataIf you’re a photographer (or other content creator), one of your big concerns should be attaching your information to your photos. It’s pretty easy these...

Very cool to see what the actual shots were and what the printed ad ended up being with all the compositing, color correction, and other assorted image processing. Oh, yeah, and the lions. Ya gotta have lions.

Of course, my all time favorite ‘breakdown’ is the Dove ‘Real Beauty’ ad,  Evolution Of Beauty on YouTube.

And, of course, the quite awesome parody of said Dove ad, which is also on YouTube as the  Dove Evolution Parody.

regards, Jim

Related posts:

 Fake or Not Fake?A picture can not lie. We all know the untruth of that these days. But what do you do when a picture isn’t lying, yet...

Related posts:

 Primatte Is Flexible & StylishMy favorite job at Digital Anarchy is finding interesting customers to showcase their use of our products. It’s part detective work, part intuition, part fantastic...

Luckily there’s a nifty tool in Photoshop to help you out with this. It’s called File Info. (under the File menu) The cool thing about this is that you can save your info as a template, which makes it easy to reapply the data to a large number of photos.

The way I use it is to enter in all my basic info and save that as a template. This can be applied to all my photos. If I want to add more detailed info, like a description and keywords, I can do so. However, usually I’m only going to do that if I’m selling the image as stock or making the photos easily searchable for a client. If I’m just posting them to Flickr, then it’s probably unnecessary to do that for every image.

In addition to putting your info in the Description area, it’s important to enter it into the IPTC area as well. IPTC is a consortium of major publishers that are trying to come up with standards for tracking copyrighted content (among other things).

Ultimately, it’s always possible for someone to intentionally remove metadata. There will always be thieves and unscrupulous individuals. These protections are aimed at preventing accidental removal of identifying info, which is the more usual scenario and extremely important.

cheers,

Jim

Related posts:

 Finally! A great use for CS4′s Content Aware ScalingYes, it’s true, the latest smartcars are all because of Photoshop! http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/how-to-save-detroit/ cheers, Jim...

Essentially the Obama Hope poster that was widely used, was created based on a photograph by Mannie Garcia that Sheppard Fairey found on the internet, used without permission, didn’t give credit to the photographer, and even refused to acknowledge the photograph when asked about it.

Here’s what we’re talking about:

Let’s take it another step forward. Let’s apply the Photoshop filter Posterize to the photo and see what happens:

At this point all it appears Sheppard Fairey did was posterize the photo and then trace over it in Illustrator with a few paths. Now I realize not EVERY area in the photo lines up exactly with the posterized photos… but it’s pretty amazing to see how much work didn’t go into this. This is what passes for original artwork these days?

I wouldn’t even be taking Fairey to task if he’d been up front and credited Mannie Garcia for the photo. But it seems pretty low to not even acknowledge the photo when asked about it.

So, this is why copyright matters, why metadata in your photos posted online matters, and why it pays to try and keep track of what’s happening to your photos. I recommend reading the Wall Street Journal article. It makes some excellent points more eloquently than I could hope for.

Related posts:

 Macro vs Micro at Microsoft Pro Photo Summit.Digital Anarchy — that’s me and Jim Tierney — attended the Microsoft Pro Photo Summit this week. It’s a pro-level gathering that we have attended...  Greenscreen ObamaGreenscreens are cropping up all over the place. I was in DC for the inauguration and in my hotel you could get a picture with...

The below photo illustrates this to some degree:

photography sometimes captures real life in an unrealistic way

This is a photo of a friend’s whale watching boat (Ultimate Whale Watch in Maui). Obviously, I shot this from a different boat while a whale swam up to and under the boat. I’m using a 70-200mm f2.8 lens, so I’ve got really narrow depth of field. As a consequence, the boat is razor sharp and everything else is pretty blurred.

If you saw the above image in a marketing brochure would you believe it?

I don’t know that I would. The high-res version of the image looks almost laughably fake. (the web photo looks a bit more believable) We’re not used to seeing shots like this with such narrow DOF. So the boat looks like it’s copy/pasted into another photo. If you’ve never been whale watching, you might have a hard time believing whales get that close or are that big (hello… it’s a whale) or whatever. It’s not so unbelievable that I would doubt a friend if he said he shot it, but as part of a marketing piece… you never know with those marketing people.

One of the first pieces of software I had a part in developing was Bryce, which allowed you to create very realistic landscapes (and weird, unnatural, surreal landscapes as well). Something I realized very quickly was that we all have certain things we look for when determining whether something is fake or not. Very often the things we’re looking for are idealized. Sort of ‘dumbed down’ in a way that allows our brain to process them.

Nature is quite a bit more complex than our brains can sometimes handle. That combined with our skepticism of photos sometimes leads to our disbelief of photos that capture real phenomenon. One common example is water. We very rarely look closely at it. We see it, but not all the details. If you look at a high-rez, razor sharp close-up of a water surface it looks unreal. All the ripples and texture of the surface is not something we usually see.

It became a fun thing to pair up one real image and one Bryce image and see if someone could figure out which was the real image. There are lots of natural phenomenon that if you created on the computer people would look at it and tell you all the things that are wrong with it. It’s interesting to have someone tell you all the ‘flaws’ in your very real photograph and why it obviously isn’t real.

It’s really interesting to notice what sets off our ‘No way is that real!’ alarm. It keeps you from creating images where a client will go ‘wow, that’s cool… but I really wanted something that isn’t manipulated in a computer’. Or, of course, on the other hand, where the image is digitally manipulated and it looks completely real. :-)

So… what kind of assumptions do you make as you perceive your reality?

Related posts:

 Making 3D look realSo I just got a calendar from Maxon (makers of Cinema 4D). Some really nice examples of 3D art using their software. As I looked...  My favorite photography ‘gear’ siteThere are a lot of review sites out there. http://www.dpreview.com is a good one… however, my favorite is http://www.slrgear.com. In truth, they really only do...

There are also a bunch of free image editing apps. For our customer model, they simply fall short of what Photoshop can do and none are widespread enough for us to support. Which makes sense since these free apps are not trying to be Photoshop, just act as an alternative for folks who aren’t doing graphics for a living and don’t want to invest money into graphic manipulation.

Having said that, I occasionally run into a summary list of free Photoshop alternatives. Thought it would be interesting to post a list that I found on Downloadsquad.com through a friend’s blog, pirandello.wordpress.com. The Downloadsquad article lists these free apps:

- Gimp
- Paint.net
- Artweaver
- Photofiltre
- VicMan’s Photo Editor

The one that looks the most interesting to me is Paint.net. The palettes and menu arrangement seem well designed (even, dare I say, Photoshop-esque), I love working with tabbed documents, and it’s great to support Open Source apps. One downside is that Paint.net is Windows only.

Of course, if you’re already familiar with the subject of free Photoshop alternatives, then Gimp is the topic that inspires philosophic debate. This is usually from folks who come from a programmer geek side of things. If you’re not familiar, than you’re probably a visual arteest who is happy with your app of choice, and I don’t suggest getting involved in this Pepsi-Coke debate.

If DO you want to know more about ‘Gimp vs Photoshop’, I find this article on Askreamoor.com website to be an interesting start.

Frankly though, my opinion is that the best alternative to Photoshop is Photoshop Elements. It is worth every cent of its maybe $100 price tag. If you look at dollars vs billable time — and I always do — it’s much cheaper to put out the bucks upfront and have an easy method of editing, rather than spending alotta down time trying to get something simple to work. For instance, many of the apps listed above don’t support layers, which can be a bit clunky if you are trying to do anything other than simple rotation and resizing.

Coincidentally, all of our Photoshop plugins support this little Elements gem. ;)

best regards -Debbie

Related posts:

 Photoshop & fingerprints & forensics, oh my.I was clicking around online yesterday, procrastin…er, doing some market research, when I came upon this interesting website, forensicphotoshop.blogspot.com. I’ve read frequently on Adobe’s website...  Software As A ServiceThere was some talk at NAB of software as a service… moving all the apps online. While this is an interesting notion for word processors...

I’ve read frequently on Adobe’s website that the medical slash science industry is a huge demographic of their Photoshop and Acrobat sales. (From the Adobe site, here’s an interesting white paper on the subject of Adobe and Foresnics.) At trade shows and socially, I have run into people who use Photoshop for cool stuff like the Genome project. But I’d never noticed a website devoted to a segment of the graphics industry that isn’t considered a creative market.

Until now. The author, Jim Hoerricks, rounds up a lot of Photoshop topics that are interesting in their own right, and moreso because they are referencing, to me, an emerging boutique part of the industry.

From ‘Forensic Nursing and Photoshop‘: “It seems that the mix between proper care / documentation of cases and the need to protect against liability has lead many nurses to pack a small point and shoot camera as part of their kit. They are using these cameras to document wounds, bruises, bite marks, odd rashes, and so forth as part of the patient’s file. Patients, especially children, are often in so much pain that keeping them still becomes a problem and the nurses just have to point and shoot and hope for the best. More and more of them are turning to Photoshop to help fix the photos.”

From ‘Let me count the ways …‘, about the Measurement tool: “Many in the forensic realm have heard of Photogrammetry, but have shied away from trying it for fear of that dreaded word … math. Never heard of Photogrammetry? In a general sense, its a method used to determine the geometric properties (ie. height, width, distance, etc) of an object in an image. It is far more complicated than the simplistic definition that I’ve offered, but I think that you get the point. I bring this up as a way to introduce the new Measurement feature in Photoshop CS3 Extended.”

Through his post ‘Prosecuting Graffiti Taggers using Color Deconvolution‘, Jim Hoerricks links to an interesting site called 4N6site.com that has free plugins for use in Photoshop Forensics. Cool stuff, and that’s from a plugin developer!

This fingerprint rose was sooo much fun to make!

regards -Debbie

Related posts:

 Images of Life searchable through GoogleI noticed last week that most of the images from the Life magazine library are searchable through Google Image Search. Pretty cool sifting through so...