Adding Special Effects to Your Photos - a Commentary

From my last post, here was the final, fully adjusted and developed photo. But given all the tools in Adobe Photoshop, why would you stop here. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can really mess things up. Oh, I mean enhance the photo even more with cool designer effects. Really, I so seldom use the so-called special effects that they may as well not exist, but hey, who knows, maybe you like some of the changes and will become a fan forever of Photoshop.

Here is the first iteration. It is pretty simple, all you do is take out all the color information and the photo becomes a black and white image.

The black and white (or grayscale) image is really quite attractive in its own right. You can certainly see why some photographers use grayscale images for an effect. I don't use it too often because I am really a color sort of photographer. But with this photo, the gray scale has just as much impact as the color image and perhaps more.

Here is a filter called pointillize. It breaks the image down into a series of dots. I thought we were all buying higher and higher resolution cameras to avoid this, but here it is folks:

You either like it or you don't. Special effects are for those who do a lot of illustrating and other design work. There is a place for all of the special effects, but I hardly use them at all. Fortunately, with Photoshop, you can step backward and remove any of the effects you have imposed.

In each of these example, I am reverting back to the original before adding any more changes to avoid muddying up the image. OK, let's try a couple of more of the so-called special effects. I have to warn you however, as you can see from my attitude, I do not normally use any of these tools.

The next special effect is really dramatically different than the original. This is an embossed effect and has its place in some types of design. This is quite a way from my style of photography.

Photoshop has hundreds (thousands?) of tools that can manipulate a photo so there is no real stopping place for illustrating effect. But here is another very dramatic effect.

I don't intend to discourage anyone from experimenting with special effects, but you shouldn't get too carried away, in my opinion. This is called solarize and it is basically a color effect. What do you think? It is attractive in a way, but it isn't me. If I were a painter, I would be a realist or a super-realist, not an impressionist. But if these, or any other effects, are attractive to you, then go ahead and take the plunge and start working in Photoshop. I must say, I used special effect a lot more when I was beginning to use Photoshop, than I do now.

Camera Raw to Developed Photo -- a process

This photo was taken with a digital camera, in this case a Canon 5D Mark II, and downloaded as a Camera Raw image. Technically, it was embedded in an Adobe Digital Negative format, but the basic camera raw image is preserved. All of this photo manipulation was done in Adobe Camera Raw, a program that comes with Adobe Photoshop.

The above image is OK, but there are a lot of things to need to be done to make it into a final image. Bear in mind that everything done to the image is embedded in the Digital Negative file. As I made the changes, I saved off each change as a separate JPEG file for uploading. Because I saved the original Digital Negative, all of the changes are reversible and I could start all over again with the original if I choose to do so. Here is the next step, cropping the image.

The image crop focuses the subject matter more on the cattle load by eliminating some of the unnecessary background. Sometimes, it is important to preserve the background so that you can add context to the picture. In this case the extra background was merely a distraction. Here is the next step, adding contrast to the original.

Higher contrast is a matter of style and personal preference. You may have liked the photo before the contrast was added. I like to show the grain of the wood and bright out the details so I use some additional contrast.

Next, I added some clarity. This is actully more contrast, but it resolves some of the details at the expense of others. This change is also a matter of taste and preference.

The color was a little washed out, so I added some vibrance, making the colors brighter and somewhat darker.

For the final photo, I added some saturation. Increasing the amount of color in the photo. What do you think? Did I go too far? Or not far enough? In my next series I will do some additional manipulation with special effects.

What do we mean when we say "sources?"

In a recent edition of the Utah Genealogical Association Journal Crossroads, Catherine Becker Wiest Desmarais CG wrote an article entitled "Restoring the Identity of Elisabeth Bair of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: Was She a Northamer or a Wesler, and Who Were her Parents?"

See Utah Genealogical Association. Crossroads. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Genealogical Association, 2012.

In her article Desmarais includes 70 references citing to sources. Although numbers are not indicative of either accuracy or impressive for proving a point, in this case, every genealogist, especially budding genealogists should take at least two lessons from her article. The lessons are simple: in order to solve a genealogical conundrum it is absolutely essential to look at sources and it is further absolutely essential to document those sources in a way that others can check our research.

These lessons are sometimes never learned and the genealogical community is burdened with trashy genealogies. The outstanding example of the Deamarais article is certainly not unique and neither is it uncommon. There are many capable genealogists out there compiling, writing and publishing solutions to difficult genealogical problems. I choose the UGA article because it is particularly well thought out and extremely well documented. It is a really good example of what may be necessary to solve this type of relationship question.

I cannot but contrast the article with what I see almost daily. A trivial example. I have been working on adding sources to my ancestors on FamilySearch.org's Family Tree. I often use my Great-grandfather, Henry Martin Tanner, as an example because of the amount of inaccurate junk that seems to accumulate about him and his family online. One of my distant family members apparently decided to do some editing and changed his name to "HenrY Martin Tanner." You may think this to be a trivial problem. But why would anyone do this? Of course, there was no reason or source citation or justification included with the change. Whey would they go in and make a change at all? Especially if they were going to do something inappropriate?

We have enough trouble getting it right, without people adding superfluous errors that have to be corrected! By the way, I have already added eight original sources for Henry Martin Tanner. All the person had to do was click on any one of them to see the original documents.

The contrast between change made to the Family Tree program and the article from the UGA illustrates the polar opposites of genealogy. When we talk about sources, we mean not making stuff up. We mean looking at the documents and records to draw conclusions and telling other researchers where you got your ideas and conclusions. The capitalization change may have been trivial, but what if it had been a date or a place? How would succeeding researchers know if the change were made from actual knowledge or was merely a typographical error and why change something that is obviously correctly recorded without telling anyone why the change was made? The change made to Henry Martin Tanner verges on graffiti.

If you do not add a source citation, your work has little genealogical value to subsequent researchers. Right now, I am looking at my family line as recorded in Family Tree. Henry Martin Tanner's Father (my Great-great-grandfather Sidney Tanner) has eleven sets of of parents listed. Many of these are duplicate entries, but some list his grandfather, Joshua Tanner, as his father. How many people have this mistake in their own personal genealogies? Apparently a host of poor researchers and equally poor copyists.

Let's take an example from Ms. Desmarais and cite our sources. This is the only way that we are going to work our way out of the tangled mess in the genealogical world today. 



 

Waiting to Merge -- an assessment of the status of Family Tree

If you look carefully at the manual for FamilySearch.org's Family Tree (FT), you will find a chart near the end of the online PDF file, that shows a comparison between the features planned for Family Tree and similar features in the older New.FamilySearch.org (NFS) program it is replacing. Absent any other news from FamilySearch other than presentations by FamilySearch representatives, the manual is the "definitive" source for the status of the program. The latest version, as of the date of this post, is 6 August 2012.

I want to focus on the features that are now implemented and those that are yet to come. Without reproducing the entire chart, which is found in the PDF document listed on the first page of the Help Center menu (reached by clicking on the Help link at the top of the FamilySearch.org startup page), here is a sample of the first part of the chart only.

Before, getting further into the list, a note of explanation. The feature list for NFS is used as a comparison, but there are certainly features in FT that are not available in NFS. So the possibilities are as follows:

1. The feature is available in both NFS and FT.
2. The feature is available in NFS but not yet in FT
3. The feature is or will be in FT but was never available in NFS
4. The feature is in NFS but is not being reproduced in FT because it is not needed

 The chart classifies the features as either present (with a Yes) or coming soon sometimes with an explanation.

So what is presently missing from FT? Here is a summary:

• Printing of charts
• Family Group Records
• Notes from NFS and add notes
• Upload a GEDCOM file and see a list of people in a contributed GEDCOM file
• Search for ancestors by Ancestral File Number
• Add new people and families not connected to your family line
• Templates for information for Asia, Latin America and other parts of the world
• Specific help screens
• Sign in to help someone else
• Have FT find possible matches
• Search for matches yourself
• Combine duplicate records
• See the combined records
• Separate records
• Merge duplicate records
• Unmerge and re-create incorrectly merged records

The only real deal killer for me is the lack of a merge function and the associated functions. I assume that if FT has a true merge function coming, that there will be no need to "combine" records as it is now done in NFS. I would assume that the mentioned merge features should have been put in the category of not needed in FT?

Why is the lack of a merge feature a deal killer right now? Because there is no way to further edit your online files once you reach a place in the file where there are duplicates. For example, I now find in the file that my Great-great-grandfather Sidney Tanner has quite a number of variations of parents brought over from NFS. He is also duplicated in the lists of children. Without the ability to sort out this roadblock, I am essentially stopped from further progress in sorting out the bad data from NFS.

If you study this list carefully, what you really see is a program that is almost fully functional. All of the the other necessary features, that I did not list, are there and working just fine. Meanwhile, I will just keep waiting and watching.

Clogged Channels

We recently got rid of two TVs and cancelled our cable TV subscription. We find that we are almost entirely Internet oriented and there is nothing on cable TV we are really interested in watching. This happens despite the fact that there are an almost unlimited number of channels. What has happened in communication overload and clogged channels. Commercial TV is so full of advertisements, both overt and covert, that sometimes there is seven minutes of ads for every three minutes of programming.

Unfortunately, I feel like the genealogical community is getting clogged channels also. There is a literal flood of information, much of which is basically commercial advertising, associated with genealogy. Now, don't get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with advertising per se. But what I see happening is that as the online community grows, the amount of information becomes more redundant and it becomes more and more difficult to filter through to the information you are interested in obtaining. I sometimes wonder what would happen if I simply disconnected myself from the electronic world? Maybe I should take up gardening again?

I presently follow 224 blogs and websites. There is no physical way I can process all that information every day, every hour, every minute as it comes flowing into my computer. So I have to pick and choose what I look at and what draws my attention. It helps to use aggregators like Feedly.com to sort out the flow of information, but there is so much out there that I am not subscribed to, I have to establish some iron-clad priorities to avoid gridlock. You can't watch Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+ and hundreds of blogs all at the same time.

I have recently decided to emphasize personal help and contact over electronic contact. Some of the online things I have been doing may suffer as a result of this decision, but in the long run, I will be able to help people on a one-on-one basis. Part of this decision involves traveling and presenting at a variety of off-site locations around the state and country. I guess it is my time to present. I will keep up my writing also. But some of my online involvement may get cut back.

I think in the long run, we have to consider what is realistic in genealogy and everything else. What can we really do over the long term and how do we achieve our basic genealogy goals if we fritter away our time on less productive activities? I am still seeking a balance and will let you know if I finally complete any of the long term projects I have to focus on and complete.

Upcoming Presentations

During the next few months I will be presenting at the following Expos and Conferences:

Midwest Family History Expo 2012
Holiday Inn Convention Center
110 South Second Avenue
Kearney, Nebraska 68848
September 07 - 08, 2012
8 classes

First Annual Mesa FamilySearch Library Conference
Connecting to your Family Roots
October 20, 2012
4 classes

Georgia Family History Expo 2012
Gwinnett Center
6400 Sugarloaf Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
November 09 - 10, 2012 

I will also be at the Arizona Family History Expo in Mesa, Arizona on January 18-19, 2013 and the St. George Family History Expo on February 22-23, 2013.

I am also planning on RootsTech 2013 on March 21-23, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

If you attend any of these events, please take time to come up and talk to me.

Name Change for Family History Centers

For many, many years, I have been volunteering at the Mesa Regional Family History Center. During all that time, the Center has almost always been called the Mesa Family History Center. Technically, the "real" name of the Center was the Mesa, Arizona Large Multistake Center. I have always wondered why when FamilySearch had such a nice logo and name, they didn't change the names of the local centers so there was a consistent branding.

Some time ago, FamilySearch opened the Riverton FamilySearch Library and I guessed that at some point, they would see the obvious advantage of having a uniform brand name and change the names of the centers. Well, they finally did. Now the Mesa Center, as one of the 15 regional centers, is called the Mesa FamilySearch Library. Local smaller centers around the world will be called FamilySearch Centers.

There is a subtle, but important distinction in using the term "FamilySearch" rather than "Family History." You go to the centers to search for your history, not pick it up like you would in a store. You cannot believe how many people come into the Mesa FamilySearch Library and ask to "see their genealogy." There was an earlier shift in terms when FamilySearch tried to change the connotation of the term "genealogy" by associating it with the idea of "family history." As an -ology term, genealogy is more formal and speaks to the academic community. While, "family history" is something more personal and accessible.

The real question is whether or not the name changes will make any real difference in the greater genealogical community? I think the change to uniform branding of the FamilySearch centers is very positive. It gives a more direct connection with the online FamilySearch.org website and adds more exposure to the name. It also coveys the meaning change I mentioned above.

Organizationally, there is some question as to the supervision of the centers, since they are usually administered by a local Church committee, rather than being directly supervised by FamilySearch. I doubt that the name change will affect the organizational structure or their administration at all.

Meanwhile, I have to retrain myself to say "Mesa FamilySearch Library" when referring to the center. That will take some time and effort, you know old dog, new tricks and all that.