I'm afraid its the inevitably of producing the same sort of thing, but in a different context. I'm perfectly aware that I seem to gravitate towards images of a form of transcendence, or more readily of the failure to transcend. Its unfortunate, but that seems to be the lot that I've granted myself. So:



It might be just what I read into this though... You know: glowing gates hidden behind other gates...?

On a more prosaic note, as I'm scanning these images straight from reality in 16 bits, or rather a 12-bit image wrapped unneatly in a 16-bit file format, photoshop seems to get confused. Don't get me wrong, photoshop does a good job of handling most things that you throw at it, and handles this well enough too. As the images aren't colour space nor bit depth processed - and are in that sense raw - but aren't RAW data, just raw data, which everyone knows isn't so fashionable. It also means that because the data is 16-bit, and your screen is 8-bit, its having to make some fairly blunt decisions about which data to represent. Normally this isn't a problem, photoshop handles 16-bit RAW with a degree of aplomb, if not a degree in aplomb (i.e. it stinks in most areas, but mostly in the areas that you have quite happily lived without for quite a while and will hand over cash for later on), but when dealing with some of the curve processing (see gamma) that is necessary with the dicomed's 12-bit in 16-bit data photoshop doesn't render on the fly so well. If you apply those curves to the base data through flattening the layers of an image, then no problem, no posterising, no weird generalised guesses. However, you lose the flexiblility of a curves adjustment layer. A nice an' quick go around to this (which is useful for other reasons too) is the athletic keyboard shortcut of command/control + shift + option/alt + 'e' when you have an empty layer targeted, which merges visible layers and pastes the result into the empty layer leaving the original data free but the rendering engine seems to prefer it. And you'll prefer to, if for no other reason than it gives more concentration on the 'um, why did i take this shot' aspects of an image, and less on the 'what is the computer doing again?' aspects. Its a small battle won against the leering hordes of disorder but worthwhile I assure you...