<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ROGERS &#187; lightroom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/tag/lightroom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog</link>
	<description>Ravings of a raconteur and randonneur</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:10:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Blowing dust</title>
		<link>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/05/11/blowing-dust/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/05/11/blowing-dust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 04:17:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mr Rogers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[scribble]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital intermediate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lightroom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/05/11/blowing-dust/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A smattering dust can really ruin a good scan. Watching the local film processing guy drop your neg on his putrid floor (imbecile!) can raise your blood pressure faster than you can say C41!

So I've been having problems with little smatterings of dust on most of my scans. And the scanner I use doesn't have Digital ICE (it's an old Minolta - keepin' it real). After using a few of the available software-based anti-dust systems out there, I remained unconvinced. On the discussion boards, people were saying to do it by hand. For bigger bits, sure, but a billion tiny grains...?

I decided it was simple to do better. I wrote (in the loosest sense) a Photoshop action which reduces dust, but doesn't remove all the grain from the photo.

It is does all this with a difference matte made from the original (dusty) image, and a version that has been run through the Photoshop Dust &#38; Scratches filter. Old school like.

It aint fancy. (download after the <a href="http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/05/11/blowing-dust/">jump</a>)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/05/11/blowing-dust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aperture switcher reviews</title>
		<link>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/18/aperture-switcher-reviews/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/18/aperture-switcher-reviews/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mr Rogers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[critical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[optical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aperture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lightroom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photos]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/18/aperture-switcher-reviews/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Greyscale Gorilla&#8217;s review of Aperture 2.0. When Aperture 2.0 came out. I was pleasantly surprised to see that apple had dropped the price to $199. Early reviews of the software claimed that the speed issues were also solved, and the the new version was super fast. So far, so good. When I go take a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/18/aperture-switcher-reviews/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aperture and Lightroom</title>
		<link>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/07/aperture-and-lightroom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/07/aperture-and-lightroom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mr Rogers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[optical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aperture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lightroom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/07/aperture-and-lightroom/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[POSTSCRIPT (to the last post): I have since tried to re-create this &#8220;look&#8221; in Apple Aperture (v2.0) but found I couldn&#8217;t &#8220;overwork&#8221; the dials as much as you can in Lightroom. Aperture seems to have very safe limits, even when you ignore the sliders and type numbers up to their highest value. I do think [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rogers.id.au/blog/2008/03/07/aperture-and-lightroom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 306/318 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.rogers.id.au @ 2012-02-06 22:54:48 -->
