Category Archives: How To

Where I show you how to (or how not to) do stuff.

How To

How to rename a WSS 3.0 server

Say you’ve got a Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 server, and you’ve got to rename it — as in change the actual computer name. I found myself twice in that situation recently. How do you go about renaming it? It’s a three-step process, as outlined below. Plan for a half-hour outage, just to be on the safe side.

Step one:

Change the machine name. I hope no directions are needed for this. If you need them, you should abort the operation, and get someone more qualified to help.

Step two:

This only applies if your server is self-contained (it has IIS, SQL Server and SharePoint installed on the same machine). Change the name of the SQL Server install by following the excellent directions written by Tibor Karaszi. Like him, I prefer to go directly into the sysjobs table and edit the server names. When you’re done, don’t forget to either restart the machine or the SQL Server services.

Step three:

Per MS Tech Support, open the command prompt and type the following:

  • cd c:\program files\common files\microsoft shared\web server extensions\12\bin
  • stsadm -o renameserver -oldservername [type in the name] -newservername [type in the name] (remove the brackets, just type the names by themselves)

Now open the SP Admin interface, go to Operations >> Alternate access mappings and modify the server names to reflect the new name. Modify all appropriate entries there. When you’re done, don’t forget to either restart the machine, or the SharePoint services.

Test the SP sites and make sure things are working as they should be. Remember, if you posted any images on your sites, and you used the machine name instead of the site URL for the image paths, the paths will now be broken, and you’ll need to go through each link and re-map it. MS Support didn’t know of any automated way of doing this. Of course, if you feel adventurous, you can back up the SP DB, then go through the SQL file with a text editor looking for instances of the name and replacing it with the new one. Then you can restore the DB from the modified backup file and see how things turn out. I don’t advise this though. You may mess up the text encoding, and may end up with weird characters in your content, not to mention you could also corrupt the DB.

That’s it, you’re done now. If you’d like to read up on the stsadm command-line tool, you can check out this article at the TechNet site.

Standard
How To

Making it to the first page of Google search results

As I checked my traffic stats over the past few days, I noticed a steady stream of traffic to my reviews of the WD My Book World and Pro Edition II hard drives. I was pleasantly surprised, but couldn’t figure out why. Other than publishing the reviews on my blog, I hadn’t done any sort of promotion. No one had linked to them so far (from what I could tell), yet the traffic was there. It wasn’t an outrageous amount of traffic, but nice, steady and regular. That sort of traffic usually only comes from one source: search engines.

I checked, and sure enough, my two reviews had made it to the first page of Google search results — the dream of any content creator. Here’s a search for WD My Book Pro Edition II, and for WD My Book World Edition II. Not sure how long they’ll stay there, but it’s really nice to see blog content make it to the front page of Google search, and even better, it’s a treat to see my own content make it there. 🙂

I thought I’d check on some other popular content and see how it ranks in Google’s search results. I logged into my FeedBurner account and looked at the most popular pages for the past 30 days. Here are the top ten pages at ComeAcross, in descending order:

In truth, I’m not sure just what it takes to get to the front page at Google. Let’s just say that it involves a fair amount of chance along with the the hard work. I steer clear of dirty SEO tricks like keyword seeding and other such nasty stuff. Also, I haven’t really spent a lot of time optimizing ComeAcross with honest SEO techniques. Other than using WordPress, which has certain built-in SEO advantages, and trying to write good content, I don’t do much to ensure that my posts get good ranks in the search engines. That’s why I find it refreshing to see that content is still king, and as long as one’s design isn’t egregiously awful, you’ll still get indexed just fine and bubble toward the top as more people find your information interesting.

Don’t assume though that I do nothing to promote my work. Remember, I just finished writing about how I promote it using Twitter and Jaiku or other microblogging services yesterday. Here’s part one and part two of that discussion. I also have other tools that I use, though I don’t use them often. I depend on my readers to do that — or rather, I prefer to let my content grow in popularity organically, without “cheating the system”. It’s probably a good idea that I discuss this in more detail in a future post — perhaps next week.

I should also say that I’m not dismissing SEO. It has its value, and if done right, can help push content right to the top. Some people swear by it, and have seen their traffic double. I should probably look into it in more detail at some point in the future. And good web design is crucial. Design may not necessarily matter to search engines (to some extent) but it sure matters to people. If your site’s design is ugly or hard to use, don’t expect many people to read through your content or return to it. By the same token, good web design alone won’t draw the traffic. Good content will do it. Keep that in mind, and thrive.

Standard
How To

Should I get Canon or Nikon?

I’ve gotten asked this question a few times lately, and it’s probably a good idea to share my thoughts publicly. Here’s an email conversation I had earlier today:

B.T.: “Simply put, is the Canon 30D or the Nikon D80 the best way to go? […] Was about to get the Nikon D40, but then got a piece of advice that said that Canon might be better in the way of sports photography. I’m not sure if this was a “standard” or a perceived notion. Anyhow, now I’m trying to decide between the D80 and 30D. I know once I buy into either the Nikon or Canon “family” I’m pretty much there because of accessories and lenses.

So… what was it that made you choose Canon? I knew you were considering the D200 for a bit. […] But what are you thoughts on overall image quality between the two given the different types of image sensors (CCD vs. CMOS)? And I’ve actually thought of going ahead w/ the D40 as a stepping stone to the D200. To be honest, I’ve been back and forth a few times… but wondered about your opinion. […]”

My reply, with some additional edits:

I’m always hesitant to give brand-specific advice, because what works for me might not work for you. I have not used Nikon DSLRs yet. People that use them love them. By the same token, people that use Canon DSLRs love them as well. And people that use Olympus DSLRs love them too. And Sigma, and Fuji, etc.

What I can tell you is to try out the camera. Inquire locally, perhaps at your local camera shop, and see where you can rent the camera you’re interested in buying, even if it’s only for a day or two. Then rent the camera from the other brand, and compare. Even if it costs you up to $200 for the total cost of renting them, it’s well worth it considering you’ll be spending thousands on the equipment and will own it for several years or more, particularly the lenses.

When it comes to the 30D and D80, I tried out the 30D for a whole month. Then I went to the store and examined the D80 closely. I liked the grip and feel of the 30D better than that of the D80, but that’s just me, and my hands are different from others’.

What I can also tell you is that it seems the Nikon cameras have a little more noise and they lose some of the detail in low light when compared to Canon. But if you plan to use a tripod for longer exposures or a flash — and both of these devices will allow you to use a lower ISO — the difference in photo quality is going to be difficult to see, so don’t hang your entire purchase decision on this issue alone, unless shooting mostly hand held in low light is going to be one of the main reasons you want the camera.

Once you get above a certain level (you graduate from a point-and-shoot to a DSLR), the brand or the camera itself doesn’t matter that much. It won’t be the camera that takes the great photos, it’ll be you. To a certain extent, the lenses that you use will matter more than the camera body. You can get great photos with any brand of camera, provided you know its strengths and weaknesses and know just how to use it.

One last thought: the CCD vs. CMOS sensor arguments are pretty useless all around. Don’t forget, Nikon itself — while praised for its CCD sensors — uses a CMOS sensor for its flagship model, the D2X. It doesn’t matter what sensor is inside the camera, as long as the camera manufacturer uses it well. It seems Canon makes pretty darn good use of its CMOS sensors, while Nikon makes great use of their CCD and CMOS sensors as well. And after trying out an Olympus DSLR, I was pretty happy with their CCD sensor as well (except in low light). The Fuji Pro line has some pretty interesting sensors as well. And Sigma is doing groundbreaking work with the Foveon sensors in their SD line. The SD14 is a pretty amazing camera, and I would have bought it instead of my 5D if its effective resolution wasn’t 5 megapixels. (Note: the SD14’s advertised resolution is 14 megapixels, because it has three stacked sensors at 4.7 megapixels each, but the effective resolution is still about 5 megapixels.)

The point is to find out what works for you, and know how to use it well. You can only do that when you’ve held the equipment in your hand and researched the field thoroughly. It really helps when you sit down in front of a spreadsheet and add up all of the stuff you want to buy: camera body, lenses, filters, tripods, batteries, bags, sensor and lens cleaning equipment, editing software, etc. You’ll quickly find out what your ceiling price is, and you’ll know what camera body and brand you can afford. And if you compare your choices that way, you’ll have the information you need to make an educated, logical choice. The decision will be all yours, and believe me, you’ll enjoy your equipment a lot more that way.

Standard
How To

Discerning among LCD monitors

I’ve been looking at various LCD monitors lately, because I’d like to get one for my laptop. Truth be told, I’m more confused than when I started. There’s a dizzying array of prices among various brands, in the same size display, and not a whole lot of explanation as to why that is. Sure, every company touts their higher contrast ratio, higher brightness, more resolution, more inputs, etc., but that still doesn’t explain why the prices differ so much.

I’m looking at 20-22″ LCD monitors, and in that range, I’ve managed to find monitors in three price groups:

  • Around $250, I can buy this Sceptre or or X2gen (brands I haven’t heard of). I can also find similar prices from brands like ViewSonic, Samsung, Dell and HP.
  • From $600-900, I can get the 20″ or 23″ Apple Cinema Displays. The thing is, other than the distinctive design, the specs are actually less impressive than those of the much less expensive monitors in the first group.
  • Then, of course, there are brands like LaCie, with their professional LCD displays that start [*cough*] around $1,800 for the sizes I’m interested in.

So I did a lot of searching, and found out that manufacturers can fake the contrast and brightness measurements, so even though everyone touts their higher specs, you can’t trust them. Many of the monitors also don’t list a measurement that’s harder to fake, the gray-to-gray response time. I wanted to compare apples to Apples, if you will.

After a little more spec comparison, I found that the top of the line LaCie monitors list a spec that no one else seems to list, and that is the “gamma correction”. For example, their 321 LCD has 12-bit gamma correction. Less expensive models have 10-bit gamma correction. And that got me thinking: if, at least for LaCie, the price is proportional to the gamma correction bit depth, a higher spec there might be a good thing. But the less expensive monitors didn’t list it, and Apple didn’t list it either. What was I to do?

I gave Apple a call. After about 15 minutes of alternate talking and holding on the line for a sales rep while he consulted with the engineers, I got nothing but smoke and mirrors. Not that I think it was intended. I just think the rep didn’t have the info. He didn’t know what gamma correction was, and the bit depth of the gamma correction on Apple’s displays isn’t listed anywhere in the specs. The person he spoke with in engineering either didn’t know this or didn’t feel like sharing that bit of data. So the rep kept coming back to me with 16.7 million colors, which works out to 24-bit color.

I kept thinking, that can’t be right! Here LaCie is charging over $1,800 dollars for 12-bit gamma correction and Apple claims 24-bit on that spec at less than half that price? They would be an absolute bargain if that were true! But it’s not, at least not for that spec. I don’t doubt the Apple displays can show 24-bit color overall. But I still don’t know whether their gamma correction engine outputs 8-bit (the normal spec), 10-bit (the higher end), or 12-bit (the really high end), and this determines how well that 24-bit color gets displayed. This is important because the higher the bit depth, the smoother the color is. I’m a photographer, and I shoot in RAW. The files I get are either 12-bit or 16-bit color, and I can see some dithering in color tones when I look at the photos on my laptop’s screen. That means that even though my video card can display 32-bit color, my laptop’s effective display is less than 16-bit.

I have a feeling that given their price range, the Apple Cinema Displays are either 8-bit or 10-bit when it comes to gamma correction. If they’re 8-bit, then they’re overpriced given their specs, and they’re charging hundreds more based purely on design. If they’re 10-bit, that’s interesting, and it warrants a closer look.

So, as you can see, I’ve gotten nowhere. I’d love to have a reason to buy an Apple Cinema Display, but it’s got to be a good reason, based on facts, not sales fluff. I like Apple but I’m not a fanboy. At this point in time, I can’t see why I should spend more than $1,000 on an external monitor, so that rules out the LaCie LCDs and the other high end displays. That means if Apple can’t offer me a compelling reason for their higher price, I’ll go with one of the less expensive monitors and see how things work out. If and when I do, I’ll blog about it, so stay tuned. And by all means, if you’ve got some ideas about this, do let me know.

Standard
How To

A bit about Wide Color Range and Lightroom

Those of you who follow my blog know I love color. I always look for ways to increase the intensity and range of the colors in my photos. I like to call it WCR (Wide Color Range). Who knows what it’s really called… Since I’m self-taught, that’s what I call it. I wrote recently about one of the ways I post-process my photos, and have gotten a lot of great feedback on that method. But it’s not suited to every situation. While it works very well for architecture, some nature, and even some portrait photography, the colors get to be too harsh in other situations.

So I started to experiment, and found that Lightroom is quite capable when it comes to achieving most of my post-processing goals. I really like the ability to make tonal and individual color adjustments without opening Photoshop. For example, I find Lightroom’s heal tool much easier to use than the heal tool in Photoshop. There’s a very practical reason for preferring to work in Lightroom as well, and it’s this: every time I transfer a RAW image to Photoshop, it turns into a 45MB file. Add an extra layer, and it doubles in size. That means every finished PSD or TIF file gets to be anywhere from 90-135MB or more. Compare that with 7-8MB for the original DNG file, and you can see how quickly hard drive space becomes an issue, particularly when a typical photo session of mine yields about 300-400 photos or more.

The key to using Lightroom (at least for me) is to be bold, to not be afraid of potentially ruining a photo. There’s always the reset button in case my results are off the mark. That means I can experiment all I want, non-destructively, which is hugely beneficial.

Here are a few of my recent results with Lightroom. In this photo, the sky was a fairly colorless light blue, though there were some tonal differences that allowed me to change hues and their intensity and really bring out the greens.

Green power

Here the sky was a light blue, but I wanted a different look, since I have tons of tree photos in my library.

Sensory perception

This was fairly simple, just slight vignetting with blue and green color enhancements, but I really like the result.

Windswept but steady

This one was a bit more complicated, with lots of tonal, hue, saturation and lightness adjustments. I really like how all of the trees are straight, spaced closed together, and yet still allow a nice view of the horizon. That’s why I photographed them.

Get up, stand up

There was no blood on the tracks in this photo, nor was there any red paint. There were some dark orange rust spots though. I changed their hue from orange to dark red in Lightroom, then increased that particular color’s saturation. Finally, I decreased that color’s lightness in order to darken it. In real life, those railroad tracks look perfectly normal, though rusty from a winter’s disuse.

Blood on the tracks

Standard