The 3800 doesn’t have the nice suction feature of my old 4000, which served to keep the paper flat throughout the full path.


The 3800 doesn’t have the nice suction feature of my old 4000, which served to keep the paper flat throughout the full path.


Hi all
I have a 8 gig UDMA CF card in my Nikon, and all I shoot is raw format files, each about 15 megs. The card will hold about 300 such photos.
As any photographer knows, getting those files off the card can be a “go-get-a-cup-of-coffee” kind of thing, especially with USB.
I just ran some side-by-side card-reading tests using USB 2.0, firewire (4), and eSata, and here are the times:
eSata: 2:54 minutes
FW: 5:12
USB:16:15
with a reasonable 46 images, that’s
eSata: 27 seconds
FW: 49 seconds
USB:150 seconds
(My UDMA card is rated at 60; others are rated at 40 and 20, I believe, so you can multiply by those ratios to see how fast your card would be.)
As you might imagine, I’m sticking with my eSata CF reader setup
Where on earth did I get my eSata CF card reader? Actually, I simply bought two parts, and plugged them together. Total cost: $46 (+ tax and shipping).
Should you try this, be gentle/careful as you slide the CF adapter into the base. There’s a “lifter” in the base meant to eject drives, but it will fit just fine.
The two parts can be had here:
http://www.e-itx.com/sata-cf-mini-adapter.html
http://www.amazon.com/Vantec-NexStar-NST-D100SU-2-5-Inch-3-5-Inch/dp/B00180MMZC
Hope this helps someone.
Tracy
Framing a Fine Art Photographic Print
Framing a photograph can be done several ways. The most common is without a matte, and is usually a photo of friends or loved one. Fine photographs, on the other hand, are virtually always matted. Beside the fact that this separates the surface of the photo from the rear surface of the glass (thus protecting it from sticking and other damage) the matte sets off the photo, and provides isolation from the surroundings; a “viewing area” if you will.
Framing is itself an artistic endeavor and thus subject to individual tastes. Therefore, I’m describing my own sensibilities here, and not hard and fast rules.
Paintings are often enhanced by the choice of a fancy frame. We have all seen those cases where one wonders whether or not the frame itself was not the object, rather than the painting it housed.
Photographs, on the other hand are diminished by ornate frames. A photograph is a captured instant, a single moment extracted from the flowing river of time. The viewer moves into a photograph as though he were there at that moment, with one big difference. Since that moment is frozen, he do something he cannot in real life – observe and blend every instance and detail into the whole it truly is.
Further, a photograph is composed by the artist. It is a chosen point of view, a perspective. And just as one uses “point of view” and “perspective” in an intellectual or argumentative sense, it is used in the physical and spatial sense with a photograph. That is: the artist is positioning you in space and time, and presenting you with an intellectual statement.
With all of this going on – with the striking depth of involvement which one can experience with a fine art photograph, the context in which it is placed becomes paramount.
That context is the presentation: the frame.
I always choose a simple thin black frame. This serves the purpose to draw a pronounced but unobtrusive rectangle around the image, separating that area from its surrounding. This deliberate choice says “look here.” In keeping it plain, thin, black and simple, it serves this purpose only, and does not call attention to itself – only to the object it contains. In short, there is no need to look at the frame, as there is nothing of interest to see on it.
As for the matte – considerations include color and width, as well as matting style.
There are single and double layer matte and I prefer the former, for the same reasons I prefer a simple frame: to my senses, a double matte merely makes the viewer think “look at the fancy matting.”
The color of the matte should enhance the photograph, or at the very least not detract from, nor alter it. The tone and color of a fine art photograph has been painstakingly worked by the artist, and the color of the matte, if it is anything besides a neutral tone, will alter that for the viewer. This applies whether the photograph is color or black and white.
In some cases, a bright white matte is appropriate, while in others, an off-white or even creme-tone is a better choice. In short, you must match the matte to the print itself.
Now, I’m making an assumption here, as expressed in the title of this piece: that you’re truly working with a fine art print: one which has meaning for you. If you are instead working with a designer and color-coordinating a room, and the matte “simply has to be lime green” then I’d suggest you choose a photo based on its colors, not it’s “message.” The choice may still be a fine art print if you’re very fortunate, but will likely be a more conventional “pretty” photograph.
The width of the matte’s borders needs to match the size of the image within, and the size of the frame; it’s a bit of a balancing act. A larger frame (say 18 x 24 and above) with a matte width of 1″ on a side will look out of proportion to the print, and fails to provide enough isolation to separate the image from its surroundings.
Equally, a 4″ x 4″ photo in a 20″ x 20″ frame has 8″ margins around the image, reducing the photo to 1/25th of the area, and results in a pretentious and unbalanced presentation.
It is that sense of a comfortable separation, a “viewing table” if you will, which determines the appropriate matte border width.
Finally, there is another consideration: is it the image or the print that you are displaying? For example, the images of Ansel Adams made him famous, but owning one of his original prints is a prize as well. The print is valuable because of the image it holds, but an authentic Adams print also has an intrinsic value.
Because the fine art print is carefully cropped by the artist, any matte which covers it, even slightly, defeats the artist. A photograph is largely composition and balance, and the photographer has very carefully chosen what is included and excluded; chosen the ratio of length to side; and skillfully ranged the tones from center to edge.
Your choice is to have your matte come directly up to, and slightly over the edges of the image, or you can back off a bit, and show some of the paper on which the image rests.

I find matting which covers the image even a tiny bit to be a choice which fails the intent of the artist. In short, I favor the style of matting which allows the full image to be displayed, with a bit of the paper showing, for the reasons stated above.
Yet as with all artistic “rules” this too can be broken. For example, some photographs are taken with the full intent to be matted, and allowances therefore made by the photographer. Portraits spring to mind as an example of this category.
So there we are: several things to consider when framing and matting a fine art print: frame, matte, color, size, and edges, with most of it dictated by the print itself. If this all seems a bit intimidating, you can simply take the print to a framing shop, and work with the framer there, who will no doubt be well aware of all this, and can guide you through the process.
Should you choose a framed print from my collection, you’ll likely find it conforms to my preferences as stated above.
Tracy Valleau
Monterey, California 2008
Here’s something most folks don’t know about digital cameras: in terms of a quality, well-resolved photograph, you should stay away from the smaller apertures. F22 is too small.
If you’re fortunate enough to have a full-frame sensor camera (such as the Nikon D3/D700 or Canon EOS 5D, for example) you can go to about F11. With better DX (half frame sensor size) cameras, such as the Nikon D300) you can go to between 5.6 and 8; and with little consumer cameras, you should stay at f4 or 5.6.
What’s up with that recommendation? Well, it get a bit technical (see “Airy disc” online for details) but it basically comes down to the smaller the aperture, the bigger the point of light on the surface of the sensor. And if the point of light covers several “pixels” (individual sensors) you’ve lost resolving power.
Even before that happens though, you’ll start overlapping the sensors, and will end up losing contrast, which appears to the eye as a loss of resolution.
Ever wonder why your digital photos look “flat?” That’s why.
Yes – it’s a trade off between resolution and depth of field, and it’s an agonizing one. If you -need- the depth of field, and have to go above f11, you’ll lose some resolution.
A solution might be to go with a lens with a wider angle. Equally, setting your zoom to the wider end of the scale will open up the aperture on many lenses.
If you’re a photographer, you owe it to yourself to run a few tests to confirm how this affects your particular setup.
Meanwhile, (and this is a generalization, varying by sensor size/density, but the gist is correct:) just remember that you’ll get sharper photos at around f5.6 than you will at f22 with your digital camera; that your sweet-spots are between f4 and f8.
This is for the more serious photographers and videographers on the list, and there’s no doubt that some of you (certainly the pros) already know this… but some may not.
White Balance.
The human eye is very adaptive: take a sheet of typing paper outdoors, and it looks white. Take it indoors and it looks white. But that’s just our brains at work. Photograph it out doors and it looks slightly blue; shoot it indoors and it looks significantly orange. That’s because it’s not the paper – it’s the light.
In the film days, this was compensated for by using indoor or outdoor film, but in the digital age, it’s done in your camera. Every digital camera offers “automatic white balance” and often a range of cute little icons for outdoors (sunny) outdoors (cloudy) indoors (incandescent bulbs) indoors (florescents) and so on.
And better cameras will also have “custom white balance” as well.
Now: if you go to the trouble to set your white balance for a given lighting situation, there _will_ be a visible improvement in the color accuracy of your print.
The process involves choosing “custom white balance” in your camera’s menu, and then shooting something “white” filling the frame. That setting is then saved, and used as long as you don’t change the lighting in the current environment. (If you do change it; go outdoors; whatever, you have to go thru the process again.)
Except that my description above is incorrect. The bit about “shooting something white” is where it fails… because (unless you’ve paid for it specifically) “white” isn’t white. White typing paper, for example, has optical brighteners in it which reflect more blue, making it appear whiter to the human eye.
“White” as far as the digital camera (or digital video camera) is concerned is (here’s the key) -equal- amounts of 100% red, 100% green and 100% blue. On a scale of 0-255, for example, that would be R255, G255, B255. White light is an equal mixture of all the primary colors.
Your white typing paper is probably something more like R240, G248, B255. And those are not fixed numbers for typing paper… what I’m saying is that your white typing paper is really R?, G?, B?.
What you’re tying to achieve in white balancing your camera is, not surprisingly, “balance.” You want to photograph something under the “custom white balance” setting in your camera that is EQUAL amounts of R, G, and B.
And fortunately, that’s easy and inexpensive: take a trip to your local photo store, and buy an “18% gray card”… because gray IS, by definition, equal amounts of red, green and blue.
Take your white balance setting off of gray card, and you’ll see your color accuracy jump _way_ up.
“Balance” achieved.
Finally, as many of you know, if you also include the gray card in one of the photos in a given lighting situation, you can use that later on in Photoshop to help adjust the photo colors was well.
hth
Tracy
Here’s an introduction to how to do color matching; what it is; how to set it up; and why it works. If you’re new to digital photo printing, or just confused as to why your prints don’t look like what you saw on screen, this simple “no geek speak” intro is for you. I wrote it years ago, but it’s just as valid today as it was 4 years go.
It’s so long however, that I’ve put it on a separate web page, which you can find here. (www.tracyvalleau.com/colorprofiles.html, just in case the link gets broken…)
hth
Epson 2200 banners longer than 44 inches can be made by using GIMP print.
(Originally posted 2/5/05.)
In fact, longer than the roll paper you can buy (which is 32 feet.)
Here’s a couple of things to be aware of:
1) there are no profiles for GIMP. (I’ve made my own using PrintFIX, but the license won’t let me share them. Sorry.)
2) The default GIMP settings over-saturate the image.
3) The rotation direction is 180 degrees opposite from that used by the Epson drivers: instead of left-edge first, it’s the right edge.
And one last tip: if you run out of ink (OK: before you run out of ink, and when you see the blinking lites indicating low, and you decide you don’t want to risk it) do NOT use the software to pause the printer for reloading!! (You’ll have to start over again.)
Simply hit the ink button on the front of the printer, and replace the cartridge. It will continue printing seamlessly.
How to avoid tearing your hair out when trying to print roll-paper banners on the Epson 2200 using the Epson drivers. (originally posted 10/28/04)
I lost a huge chunk of hair, and about 24 hours trying to figure these hints out:
If you’re not using the GIMP print driver, (see other blog entry) then here’s how to print out a banner on the Epson 2200 using the Epso-supplied printer drivers.
Seems that all this has to happen:
1) paper cannot be 13×44″, I set a custom paper size to 12.5×43.75 (web reports seem to be true: if 44 or larger, the driver doesn’t orientate the photo properly)
2) turned off centering (after centering the image)
3) had to set it for 2880, as 1440 caused the job to refuse to print (stopped it without running it).
Also note that the image will load with the wrong paper size in print setup dialog. Before moving to print w/ preview, go to page setup and set proper paper size, and then save the file. (Yes, the save seems to be necessary)
In print/preview, verify that the proper page size (see above) is, in fact the one showing.
use a 2880 profile (Mine was SP2200 prem.luster 2880.icc)
In print dialog, select “roll” printer (not borderless; not ‘borderless banner’)
Select paper as paper-saving cut; cut sheet (but I did it without the cutter installed…)
We’ve all seen the dreaded off-center print from our Epson printers, and scratched our collective heads as to why it appears. After all, the print preview shows a perfectly centered print.
What’s going on?
Actually the cause, and the solution are both extremely simple.
The cause: hidden borders in the default papers: 3 sides at .25 inches, and one at .51 inches. (Guess which one is the problem…)
Here’s the most simple solution: and it’s a one-time-only fix.
Create your own default paper sizes, which allows you to set the margins to 0,0,0,0.
Go to the page setup dialog. You can do this in -any- application, not just Photoshop.
Select your printer next to “Format for:”
Now visit the “Paper size:” popup menu, and repeat this for each size of paper you use. (On a PC, depending on your OS, you may need to select “Properties” in the Page Setup dialog to get to the custom paper sizes…)
Select a paper.
Note the size of your chosen paper. (For example, SuperB is listed as 12.95 x 19.01).
Visit the bottom of that menu, and select “custom paper”
Click on the “+” button to add a new paper.
Immediately double click on the new “untitled” paper in the list, and change its name (in this case to something like “mySuperB”.)
Set the paper size with the same dimensions as you noted down earlier (ie SuperB’s 12.95 x 19.01)
Select Custom margins.
Set them all to zero.
Repeat for other paper sizes, and when done, close the window.
That’s it; you’re done.
From now on, when printing, select your new “My…” paper from the bottom of the pop up paper size list, and you ‘ll find that all your prints are perfectly centered.
Here’s a couple of other tips.
Remember to size your print in photoshop to the exact size you’ll want it on the paper you’ve chosen. Do not rely on any kind of “automatic” resizing, since that will likely create full-bleed photos, and you’ll need special drivers for that (not to mention the patience of Job to deal with the smeary edges…)
and
Now, with your nice new “custom” papers available, take an extra moment when selecting paper sizes in page setup, to also specifically select your printer as well. Many drivers are likely to go weird on you if you leave this set to “Any printer.”
There you have it. Hope this saves you a bit of hair…
Here’s a simple (OK, as simple as possible) explanation of how light entering your digital camera lens turns into a photo in Photoshop, which you can manipulate. If computers and/or digital photography are a mystery to you, then give this explanation a try. I’ve done my best to keep all the “geek-speak” out of it.
A Bit of a Nibble of a Byte: the Word on RAM.
(or how electronic memory works: a guide to digital photography)
Ever wonder how the light that enters your camera lens is translated into an image? Well, here we go.. and along the way you’ll learn a lot about how computers work.
Don’t worry: there will be as little Geek-Speak as possible.
A computer is just a box of stuff that does amazing things; how do it do it?
Well, you’ll soon see that it’s very simple; what’s amazing is how fast it does very simple things.
A computer is basically a box full of switches. Simple On/Off switches, just like the light switch on your wall. Either the switch is on, or the switch is off. There’s no inbetween.
What’s different is -how- the switch is flipped. Your light switch takes a human being to actually flip it up or down.
An electronic switch does away with the need for a mechanical flipping of the switch: it uses a second bit of electricity. Think of it like this: suppose there was a motor connected to your light switch: turn the motor on, and it holds the switch in one position; turn the motor off, and the switch falls back to it’s previous position.
Well, that’s what a transistor is, but without the physical motor. If you apply a bit of electricity to the third “leg” of a transistor, and it allows current to flow along the other two legs. Take away that electricity on the third leg, and the circuit on the other two legs is opened, and it electricity stops flowing.
Yep: this means there are two different sources of electricity: the one that is attached to the third leg, and the other that is being controlled.
The cool thing about this is that the third leg needs only the very tiniest amount of electricity to close the circuit (flip the switch) between the other two legs, and the electricity there can be (and usually is) -much- larger.
OK: so there we have the basic: a transistor is just a switch that is turned on or off by a tiny amount of electricity. If the current is there, the switch is turned on (closed); if the current is removed, the switch is open: turned off.
Hardly rocket science, eh?
Let’s go back to the light switches, for a little more analogy.
Suppose you’re a spy, and you want to communicate a message to someone.
You’re on the 4th floor of a hotel, and there are 8 rooms along the corridor. It’s night. Your conspirator is in another hotel a few blocks away, but he can see the side of your hotel, and all 8 windows of the 4th floor.
You agree between you that turning on a light in one of the rooms means something.
You agree that you’re going to number the rooms LEFT to right, as
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.
If the light in room 1 is on, it means (you decide) “yes” and if the light in room #1 is off, it means “no.” And if you want to communicate a number, then if the light is on, it means “1″ and if it’s off, it means “0.”
So far so good, but that’s hardly much information. What if you wanted to communicate the alphabet? A bunch of numbers? You’ve only got 8 windows: how would you represent the letter “Q” then?
Hmmm…
You’re at a loss, but fortunately your friend has a thought. Since the lights can only be either on or off, that’s a grand total of two possible states. (“Bi” is the prefix meaning two, so since you can only have 1 or 0, on or off, you have a “binary” system here.)
All right then, what if window number 2 then means “2″ or “not 2″ then? Well, if the lights were off in room 2 and room 1 (which I’ll represent this way: 00) then there is no number two, and no number 1. The value 00 represents is Zero.
What about the lights on in both rooms? That would be 11. Yes: there’s a Two; yes – there’s a One. And 2 + 1 = 3. So the light both on would mean “3″ then.
And if only the one in room two were on? (10) – simple: 2-yes; 1-no. 2 + 0 = 2.
So, with only two rooms, we can represent four numbers: 0,1,2, and 3.
With 3 rooms then, we can end up lights on and off like this:
111 (all the light on)
011 (rooms two and one on; room three off)
001
000
101
110
100
001
So what does room Three represent? It’s the number 4.
Is there a 4? Yes/no.
Is there a 2? Yes/no
Is there a 1? Yes/no
if the answer is yes, yes, yes, that’s 111, which is 4 + 2 + 1 = 7.
011 is still 3
010 is still 2 (and so on)
101 is 4+0+1 = 5
Got it?
So we just carry on with this, making use of all 8 rooms.
Here’s what each room represents:
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
And if the lights are on or off like this:
00000011
that’s still “3″
and
10000001
is 128+0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 129
Whee! Take a breather! Because that’s ALL THERE IS TO KNOW.
Really! That’s how computers represent numbers. They take 8 transistors; line them up in a row, and by applying electricity to some of them, and not to others, they can represent a number.
Yeah: it’s true that the largest number you can get into 8 switches is between zero and 255, but there’s nothing to stop you (OK: the computer) from ganging on another 8 more transistors, and reading all 16 at once.
32768 16384 8192 4096 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1
and that way it can represent a number between 0 and 65535.
This gets to go on forever leading to larger and larger numbers.
“Yeah” you say, “but what about letters of the alphabet?”
OK, let’s pretend that the on/off switches are letters instead.
00000000 = space
00000001 = a
00000010 = b
00000011 = c
and so on.
The switches do not change: we just agree that they have a different meaning. Cute eh?
0000001 either mean the number ONE or the letter A.
The switches have not changed at all… just how we agree to interpret them. So, a spreadsheet looks at 00001010 and interprets it as TEN, while in a word processor 00001010 is interpreted as the 10th letter of the alphabet – J. *
Let’s do a quick review: computers work by turning on and off little electrical switches, and then checking the state of a group of switches to see which ones are on and off. By looking at only a fixed amount of them, it can pretend those switches are a number, or a letter, or whatever it wants.
Now, let me let you in on the title of this piece. Computer programmers call one of those little switches a “bit”; they call 4 of them a “nibble”; 8 of them are called a “byte” and 2 or more bytes is a “word” (the number dependant on the particular computer in use.)
A “byte” (8-bits; 8 little on/off switches) is the most common one used, and when you hear people talking about memory size, or disk capacity, they are talking about “bytes.”
—-
OK: thinking about how those transistors work: they need electricity flowing to the third leg to keep the switches set. That’s why you lose all your work if the power goes off unexpectedly. Or even expectedly: turn off the electricity, and all the switches fall back to “off.”
This is not a “good thing” so we need a way to keep a recording of how those switches are set, so that we can reset them to the exact same state when we power up the computer again.
Fortunately, back in WWII, someone invented the tape recorder… and a hard disk is nothing but a tape recorder in a circle instead of a long stream of tape. Switches are just on/off, so recording little “bumps” in the coating of tape.. er, disk.. is pretty simple.
Record the switches states; turn off the machine. Turn on the machine; read back in the states and set the switches. Problem solved.
Well, almost: recording the whole entire state of the computer is pretty silly. If all I’ve done is write a letter to a friend (which is, as we now know, a huge long string of bytes) then all I really need to save is the range of computer memory that is holding those particular bytes, and not everything else.
No problem, we’ll just have the computer select only those bytes that are the letter, and save just those out.
And that, my friends, is what a “file” is on your hard drive. It’s a snapshot of the computer memory that applies to just one thing: your letter; some music; a video; a spreadsheet; a photograph… whatever.
They are all just long sequences of 00101110010100010101000101 which are recognized by some program as a letter, a spreadsheet and so on.
———
“OK” you say. “But when I sing a song, I’m not spitting out on/off commands; it’s a beautiful, perfectly pitched, graduating and sliding and connected set of tones and music. Heck: I’m the new Pavoratti! So how does the computer get all that into the on/off switches it can use?
Well, we’re talking about converting something into numbers… into digits. And the process is (cleverly enough) called “digitizing.”
Let’s consider the brighness of light, for example. Suppose we were going to digitize it into one bit. One bit can only be on or off, and so could represent only NO LIGHT or FULL BRIGHT.
Not very handy. Suppose we want to represent night (black), sunrise(grey) and noon(white). We might be able to do night and noon with one bit, but what about sunrise? How do we represent “not black and not fully white, but right inbetween?” Obviously we need another number.
So we use two bits. Two bits can represent 0, 1, 2, and 3.
We’re getting there: 0 represent black; 3 represents white. We have 1 and 2 left to represent dark grey, and light grey. Aha! Black; dark grey; light grey; white.
Not a very good representation of the nice smooth transition from black to white; night to day; but certainly better than just either night or day by itself.
Since there are no rocket scientists here, I’ll bet you’ve already figured out that if we break the black to white into 8 sections instead of four, we’re better off because we can represent even finer, smaller steps of gray.
And so it goes.
In fact then, suppose we use 256 steps. Why it might start becoming hard to tell the difference between one step and the one next to it.
So, with 256 steps, 0 would still be pure black, and 255 would be pure white, and middle grey would be 128. And there would be 127 steps on either side of middle grey which would make for pretty darned fine distinctions.
And that’s what “digitizing” does. Exactly and only. It starts out with some range of numbers, say 0-255, or 0-65535, or whatever, and then looks at whatever it’s digitizing (sound, light, pressure and so on) and assigns the highest number to “most”; the lowest number (zero) to “none” and all the rest a nice even breakdown of what’s in between.
If you have enough range, from zero to whatever, the human being listening to the result cfannot tell the difference between a nice smooth “real” transition, and one that is broken into thousands of little steps.
That, my friends, is digitizing.
“All good and well,” you say, “but I can tell the difference between more than 256 colors in a photograph.”
Aha…. so you can… but our eyes work not only with brightness, but with color as well… but probably not how you think.
Your eyes can distinguish 4 things: brightness; red, green, and blue. That’s it. It’s our brains that combine the red and the green and the blue to make all the other colors. Yep: pick a color, and I’ll tell you how much red there is in it; how much green; and how much blue.
Needless to say, this make life pretty simple (at least in principle) for computers and digital cameras.
Digital cameras.
There’s a thing called a “photovoltaic cell” which is just a fancy term for a bit of chemistry that is spread on a plate with a couple of wires coming off it. When light hits it, it generates a tiny amount of electricity in the wires. Not much mind you (which is why you need so many of those solar cells to recharge a battery, or power a house) but a measurable amount.
The more light, the more electricity. Less light; less electricity. No light; no electricity.
Now, suppose you put literally millions of those cells on a little tiny, one inch plate, and set it up so that you can read the electricity coming of each and every individual one of them. (Yeah: I know, not exactly easy, but that’s what really happens…!)
Throw a lens in front of it; focus the light on the little place, and lo and behold, you’ll get millions different voltages, each representing the brightness of the light that happened to hit each and every little cell.
Run those voltages through a digitizer, and get back out millions of numbers between 0 and 255.
And that, amigos, would be enough to represent a nice black and white photograph. Each cell would have its own level of brightness, from black to white, and 254 shades in between. (In the wonderful world of digital imaging, each of those “cells” is called a “picture element.” Thankfully, “picture element” has been shortened to “pixel.”)
“Um, OK. But where’s the color?”
Well, right you are: a pixel (cell) can only respond to brightness: the intensity of the light falling on it. So where does the color come from?
In another miracle of miniturization, those cell are each covered by a million little color filters, grouped together in threes. Yep: one red, one green and one blue. (OK, sticklers, there are two greens in each set, but let’s not confuse things here.)
By placing a colored filter over a cell, you filter out all but that color. What you end up with then is the intensity of the red; the intensity of the green, and the intensity of the blue; each one a number between 0 and 255.
And since the colors we see are combinations of red (R) green (G) and blue (B) [that's where "RGB" comes from] you have 256 x 256 x 256, for a total of over 16 Million (!) colors.
And I assure you that you cannot distinguish between 16 million different colors.
And -that- is why digital color photographs look just fine to human beings.
That is also how your digital camera works.
(There’s more to it, of course, including that since the pixels are side-by-side, how does one compensate for the other two ‘missing’ colors on each pixel? [Answer: it's done with fancy math.] But let’s keep it down to fundamental ideas here, and not get lost in the details…)
Once you take a photograph, all those millions of numbers are saved in a file (just like we noted above) in the memory of the digital camera. Plug it into your computer, and the file is transferred to your hard drive.
From there, Photoshop will load it in to your computer’s memory.
What?
OK, think of it this way: imagine your local post office, and the row upon row of post office boxes in the wall.
Each box is numbered. Let’s say the one on the upper left is number One and there are 100 of them, numbered one after the other: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6… on to 98, 99, 100.
Someone comes along and places a slip of paper inside each box. On each slip of paper is a random number.
You can say “Show me the number in box 77.” Let’s say it’s 216. “Show me the number in box 78.” 154.
“Add one to the number in box 77.” 217. “Subtract 10 from the number in box 78.” 144. “Replace the number in box 77 with 43.” Now box 77 contains 43 instead of 217.
That is the basic analogy of how computer memory works. The number of a given box is its “address.”
When you load a file into computer memory, the first number in the file goes in the first (available) address; the second number in the file goes in the next address; the third number goes in the following address and so on, one after the other, in consecutive memory addresses.
If those numbers are from a photographic image and zero is darkest, and it gets brighter as you go higher up in numbers, then you can say “Add 10 to all the numbers in all the boxes” and this will have the effect of making the whole picture brighter.
—–
OK: I’m going to stop now. That’s enough of an introduction. I’ve skipped over a lot of the nitty gritty, and not so nitty-gritty, details in the hopes of providing a basic overview of how things work.
I hope that it’s helped some of you (including some writers, who should, but don’t) understand how computers and digitizing and memory works.
Powered by WordPress