One of the things that I use automatically are the modifier keys when it is appropriate. I forget to explicitly mention them in concert with the adjustment tools until someone reminds me. Like a in a One On One Aperture help session I was having the other day. Since it is fresh in my mind I thought I would introduce you or at least remind you about the adjustment controls and some tricks they have when used with the command, option, and shift.

First off a lot of the adjustment controls do not dead end where the slider stops. They go beyond the slider range either by typing in a number or holding down the left mouse button and dragging over the number. Try them yourself if you need more range out of an adjustment in a special circumstance. Here is a partial list.

• Exposure
• Brightness
• The color controls – specifically hue, luminance, and range
• Vignette – amount
• White balance
• Contrast
• Saturation
• Noise reduction – yep even this one.

With most of the sliders and when dragging over the number value for that adjustment the shift and option modifier keys speed up or slow down how fast the adjustment changes. These are really useful for both cranking things through the roof with shift or very fine tuning with option.

The command key will show you “blown” channels via a color coded display if you hold it down while dragging certain controls – it can really help. It is probably most useful with exposure and recovery. Try it – see if for yourself. If you forgot about these make it a point to use some of the adjustment “extras” that are useful to you for everything to special effects with the vignette and noise reduction to extremely fine control with the color sliders and option drag.

RB

Questions like:

• When?
• What happens with Aperture 3?
• What’s next?
• Can I just get them all with one click?
• If I buy them all can I get a special deal?

I am going to let you know where my head is at and if anyone else has some input or suggestions please do not hesitate to chime in. I really want to make them accessible and as good as they can be.

Let me start by saying that I choose the first two subject based on the lack of available information out there on the topics that I covered. The next one will be the same. It will cover some ground on the Aperture Book tool. It will be out in about a week and it will be in the same context of the eBooks so far. It will assume that you have seen the book tool and will not spend a whole lot of time talking about the obvious.

This one was a tough one to keep succinct, cover a lot of ground, and provide some illustrations & examples that should point you in the right direction for getting anything done. The issue that I had with it is that if you try to follow just the words and a few screenshots but are new to Aperture you could get lost. Hence I will be providing some bonus content. First of all, you probably guessed this one – a few screen casts that walk through the examples in the text visually. The other thing is a download or two of technical stuff that I describe but some people may not feel comfortable monkeying with themselves – like automator PDF scripts. So there you have what is coming this week.

As for the other ones. Here is where I am at – I offer these things at a ridiculously low price compared to what is out there (check yourself and let me know if there is a better value – yea right). I do not want to get tangled up with “upgrades” and Aperture 3. I feel that the eBooks so far are stand alone and will be extremely helpful no matter what happens with Aperture 3 and changes – some stuff you just gotta know. Of course I will update them for Aperture 3. I may even put something out on Aperture 3 ONLY assuming you have read the other eBooks.

Here is the rub – I have a good feeling that some of the stuff that I have not published yet will probably see the most substantial changes. Adjustments, metadata, and things of that ilk so I am holding off on publishing those for a wee bit. They are pretty much done for Aperture as it sits now but I would feel terrible if Aperture 3 hit next week or next month and I just sold 200 copies of adjustment and metadata eBooks that may be somewhat obsolete – the book stuff, the organization, the file management – we will probably see more but the current paradigm will not be obsolete – it will have additional options and features.

As for multi-eBook purchases. I will probably implement a shopping cart for people that two or three when they are all out but I will probably just keep the prices for all of them extremely low and not do any gimmicky discount crap. It’s too confusing and too gimmicky for my tastes. The buying pattern so far has been less then 20% of people buy one and immediately buy the other it has been more like 60%+ buy one and then a few days later buy the other one.

Let me know what would be convienient or better for you.

Just wanted to keep everyone up to date – if my thought process is off on this please chime in.

RB

As long time users know one of the secrets to using Aperture effectively is taking full advantage of the way Aperture stacks, albums, and album picks work. As usual I promote the extremely liberal use of albums and new versions for just about everything imaginable. I was coaching a fellow Aperture user on a particular nuance that was frustrating him and thought his issue might be frustrating more than a few people.

Typically if you make a new version in the context of an album it automatically becomes the album pick. This is fantastic as I have described numerous times in many of the workflow related tips on this site and in the Aperture organization eBook. Here is the rub – a lot of external editors and plug-in’s do not behave the same way. In many cases when you create a new version via “edit with…” the new version using the external program is NOT made the album pick. Adding to the frustration is that you cannot select a bunch of versions and make them all the album pick at the same time – this doesn’t work. There is no way to promote a selection of images to album picks or stack picks. Only the primary selection is affected. Now what – tedious one by one promotion to album pick for your plug-in adjusted images? No way, that is way way to slow – we may as well use Lightroom’s feeble organizational tools and mouse heavy UI.

Here is the answer. After creating new plug-in edited versions with reckless abandon in say Nik SilverEFX select all of the adjusted new versions. Make this easy on yourself and just use the search box to search for file types of TIF or something like that (version names if you need to). Then use Command-A to select them all. How every you do it when all the appropriate versions are selected – hit Command – L or use the context menu to create a new album from selection. Done! That’s it – all of the versions selected will be the album picks in the new album.

Hope this helps shave a little time off your work-flow. (Us Aperture users are a demanding lot aren’t we)

RB

One thing that comes up over and over is renaming files AFTER importing them. I cover all this stuff in excruciating detail in the Aperture File Management eBook but here is the secret – no matter weather you use referenced masters, managed masters or a combination of both. If for some reason you need to rename your masters such that they have a name of your specification and your Aperture versions need to match that – or at least the base part of it, this is at least a two step process if you forget to do it when you import your files.

Most of the confusion comes in when people try to use the Metadata->Batch Change… menu to deal with the issue and find that the master file names stay exactly what they were. Like a lot of functionality in Aperture – just about anything is possible – you need to be a little bit creative in applying Aperture’s capabilities. You do need to use Metadata->Batch Change… but you do that last. What you do first is use File->Relocate Master… to change the actual master file names. Yep – use relocate – even if your masters are managed – you can always just use consolidate to put them all back in the library if you want. If they are already referenced this is really a piece of cake.

Let’s say you have a file name that is something goofy like CameraUsedDate6digitCounter and that naming preset happens to be at 005900. So your file names usually look like “NikonD3x-12262009-0058999.NEF”. For some reason you imported 100 images into a new project and did not use your name preset so all of the masters are still named DSC7654.NEF and so are all the versions that you see in Aperture. To put them all back into your nice fascist naming scheme here is what you do.

One – use File->Relocate master with all of those 100 files selected.  Make sure that the Name Format option is the exact one that you use during your usual import so that the “counter field” is the right “counter field”.

Two – When that is done select all the images that you just “relocated” even if they did not go anywhere and choose the “Metadata->Batch Change…” function.

Here is the real tricky part. Pick the Name Format that you just used again but this time use the drop down “edit…” to edit that preset so that you can reset the counter to what it stated at when you renamed the master files. The whole goal here is to make the master and version names the same – right? Or at least sort of the same.

Okay so I know what you might be thinking – well that will screw up everything because I have like 900 versions that I created of various black and white, crops, etc. Well here is where we get creative. If you create albums for everything new version you make and those albums have stack picks that are the new versions. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out that you just need to use the batch change thing over and over and keep setting the counter appropriately along with a custom piece of stuff at the end that is to your liking. If your versions and version names are all over the place It will be much more work so try to deal with this at import or as early as possible.

One last thing to think about – if you are a little bit creative the you can use similar approaches to make various version sets in albums anything you want if you don’t like the default “XXXXXX – Version 3″ type think Aperture does. You can do it without individually typing the version name for each and every image you make a new version of. Here is the secret – use batch change creatively.

Hope this clears up some confusion for those out there that this linkage is really really import for their work-flow. I still don’t really get why this is so critical for photographers but that is another conversation.

RB

To be completely truthful – I have tried it. I really really have. I could even live with all my 35mm stuff in Aperture but since a giant portion of my scans are large format and medium format I don’t bother doing anything different for my 35mm. The reason is simple – Aperture chokes on giant files. I am not going to name the exact size because there is no exact limit. Let it suffice to say that Aperture becomes extremely unstable trying to use it with a project consisting of a bunch of files in the several hundred megabyte range. Confused is a nice way of saying unstable. So I don’t bother.

I do suspect that Aperture 3 or Aperture X or whatever it is called will be 64bit and probably fix this issue. It won’t target film users/scanned files as the target market – it will do this because a lot of high end digital backs are approaching the size of my scanned negatives. That and if you chuck a couple of bitmapped layers into the mix in PS the size of even moderately giant MPIX cameras turns into really truely gargantuan. I also suspect the popularity of stitched files and HDR will drive this need as well. Hey maybe Aperture 3 will have that crap built in, who knows.

Now to the nitty gritty. I do use Aperture to catalog my film negatives – I do it with low res JPGs and lots of metadata but the big scans are not actually in the library and I do not use Aperture to tweak them. While we are on the subject, I do find it extremely useful to have a reasonable sample of my film library organized with appropriate metadata in Aperture but I do not have even close to all of my negatives scanned and indexed. I don’t even have close to my favorites scanned.

I have not published my process for doing this mostly because it would seem completely convoluted to most people. And it is but I do find value there for the short time it takes me to put the JPGs in there. If anybody is interested at all I will post a short description of what I do and more importantly why I do it.

RB

It doesn’t really matter if you shoot sports, portraits, fashion or landscapes. Unless you are very very different from the rest of us human beings your shots of the same subject with the same lighting, framing, and perspective will usually fall within a short time period with a gap before you change your framing, lighting, subject, etc. Autostack stacks and unstacks images based on the time between images and… You can see it visually. This is fantastic and far easier than doing it manually. The big win here is when you use stack mode to review your images and get to the best ones very quickly.

Understanding why autostack is so great requires you to understand why albums are great to bubble various edits/versions/post production treatments up to the top as well. The other thing that might help are a couple of tips from me because I am an autostack/stack mode junkie. The trick is to go a little overboard with the autostack. In most cases that I have experienced you end up with everything falling neatly into really close times if they are different shots/framing/etc. with one or two that are very different that get picked up and jammed into a stack that you really don’t want in a stack. Like when you do a really really quick change in framing or composition and go back to the same one you were using before – etc. If you are too OCD with using autostack not wanting anything to be stacked “wrong” you end up with not nearly enough photos that belong in the same stack actually autostacked. It is far better to go a little more aggressive an end up with an image here or there in the wrong stack. or more likely a couple stacks that are really big with two different subjects/compositions in them.

The reason for this is that it is much quicker to get things out of a stack than it is to put them together using just the keyboard. Most of the time what will happen when you use autostack to it’s full advantage is you end up with two subjects in one stack – this is even easier to deal with while using just the keyboard. The magic keyboard short cuts correspond to “Extract Item” and “Split stack” under the stack menu. Look them up in the menu.

Learning to use autostack, a couple of keyboard shortcuts, and stack mode took my process to get to my selects down from hours to minutes for my commercial work. I found once it was so painless I actually had time and desire to do it a couple times and guess what – I made better decisions.

RB

While I have tried to remain succinct, I have also attempted to be definitive in connecting all the dots with Aperture’s file management tools. This is the first edition but as far as humanly possible I have verified everything that is in it to be accurate. Now that took some time. The PDF eBook is 25 pages and covers not only managed and referenced files but previews, some common scenarios as examples, backup, how to take your library on the road with you, a couple of tips for dealing with the inevitable broken or corrupted library, even a brief discussion on RAID. You can get it here.

Here is some other news. You may have noticed that the PayPal donate button is gone. Here is the story – after two months I cannot even pay my hosting bill with the proceeds. Please know that I appreciate the many many folks that donated – I really do. Remember when I said I would give you a free eBook – well I lied. Well I didn’t lie I just changed my mind. I didn’t think that was fair since some people donated a whole lot and some people did not. Here is what I did instead – I accepted NONE of the donations, NOT ONE. Nobody that was kind enough to donate to my endeavors on the site has been billed not one dime yet and every single one that I received will have expired within 30 days from yesterday.

What I did instead was take the very smallest donation that I received, subtracted one penny, and made that the price of the eBook. If you want it and think it would help you great, if not that is fine to. If you made a donation that I did not collect and want to hold me to my word of a free eBook just give me an email – I do not want to be considered someone that goes back on my word.

If anyone has any issues buying or downloading the book please email me at rwboyer@mac.com and let me know ASAP. If you are one of the first ones to get your hands on the first edition and find something horribly askew or have any suggestions to improve the next version drop me a line – if it is something other than a spelling error I may even give you a free copy of the other eBooks that are in progress.

Enjoy

RB

The consensus question was if it was worth the cash. I really hate to make those kind of value judgements for other people, the variables are so different for everyone. I will weigh in on the “worth it” just a little bit for Silver Efex Pro only because it is a non-trivial investment and it has some pretty narrow functionality compared to say a Photoshop CS4 or Lightroom or Aperture 2. My opinion is that it is worth it if you use it. Use meaning a lot of things. I will rephrase a couple of things from my original review to be clear. If you like black and white photography but the software you are using it not cutting it then Silver Efex is probably worth the money. If you do a heck of a lot of black and white and Silver Efex could save you a lot of time then it is worth the money. I did say that it was the best black and white conversion software that I have ever used. I bought it and I was quite satisfied with using all of the bag of tricks in Photoshop that I have developed over the years. Then again I am a nut.

I guess you should try it – Nik does have a free trial version. See what you think. If you like black and white but rather shoot digital and not mess around with film and a darkroom you should definitely do the free trial. Like all of the Nik software this has some depth and deserves some dedicated time behind the wheel rather than a couple of clicks here and there so start the eval when you will have time to do it justice.

The bigger flaw that a few people pointed out was that they had a hard time visualizing what Istarted with for the image that I included with the review. I apologize for that, looking back on it I was stupid not to include the starting color digital image so here it is. Not only that but you can have the whole RAW NEF file as well so you can examine the color, black and white versions that Aperture does as well as what Nik can do in all of the glorious 100% detail if you want. You can even take a look at the strange 12-24 lens distortion if you want and see how the brand spanking new Nikon Capture NX2 automatically knows how to correct it based on a database of Nikon lenses included with it. You gotta love NX2 sometimes. Obviously I didn’t use NX2 for this conversion.

I even went way out of my way, walked out my front door, across a dirt road, and through some grass to make this image for all of you today. I guess that was about 150 feet. Have fun.

RB

Ps. What would really be fun is to see some reader black and white interpretations of the same image. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that they will be different than mine.

I will get to the bottom line really quick and follow-up with a couple of more detailed thoughts. I can do anything that Silver Efex Pro 3.0 can do in plain old Photoshop. The only exception may be the Nik grain engine. That being said if you have been doing digital black and white conversions for a long time and understand what you are going for and how to  get there in Photoshop there is nothing that is going to knock your socks off about Silver Efex Pro that would cause you to want it. The only exception as I mentioned is if you have the black and white conversion thing exactly where you want it in Photoshop but have been searching for a decent way to simulate film grain.

On the other hand if you love black and white but have no idea how to get the results that you want in Photoshop or rather not use Photoshop in your work-flow Silver Efex Pro may be just the ticket. You can get fantastic results extremely fast with no fuss. If you are familiar with the Nik control point way of making local adjustments and masks, local adjustments are a breeze. They work just like they work in other Nik products like Viveza or Capture NX2. You can set up presets that combine everything that Silver Efex can do to speed up your workflow even more.

Going through some of the features in a little bit more detail along with some random thoughts and opinions let’s start over on the right hand side, this is where all of the image controls live. First off you have brightness, contrast, and structure sliders. The first two are pretty much self explanatory. The structure control deserves a little more explanation. This control is a very fine tuned local contrast control that is perfectly suited to dealing with black and white tonal ranges. While you can accomplish the same results in Photoshop if you have no idea how you might go nuts with a million different curves, masks and other local adjustments to get the same effects of what the structure control does just by sliding it back and forth. This is one of the high points of Silver Efex, especially if you are struggling with Photoshop adjustments to get some of the same effects. Fantastic.

Next come the control points for localized adjustments and the highlights/shadows protection controls that are typical of all Nik software – if you don’t know what they do visit Nik’s site, it’s pretty much all they talk about. Extremely quick, easy, and effective. I wish Aperture would adopt something like this build in to Aperture.

After that are the color filters, these are typical of virtually every black and white conversion tool out there. Nik’s twist on them is each filter has a color and strength fine tuning slider. The controls are a little different but accomplish the same thing as everything else out there – channel mixers, etc. No need to dwell on them.

After the color filter controls comes the film types block. This is an attempt to simulate various brands  and speeds of actual black and white films that have been on the market over the years. Simulation of actual black and white films are nothing new or exclusive to Nik Silver Efex and I have to say the attributes that Nik attempts to simulate are pretty comprehensive but I find them more an amusement than an indispensable finely tuned tool. You may feel differently. The Silver Efex Pro film types attempt to simulate characteristic curves, grain, and spectral response of each film type. This deserves a little bit of an explanation for those not super familiar with actual black and white film.

Each black and white film has a unique spectral response in terms of the way it sees colors. some films see blue a little more than they see green, etc. These spectral response differences with real black and white films are subtle but noticeable in various situations. In the real world you have to be pretty familiar with various films with similar subjects to notice any spectral response differences between them. Add a colored filter and the spectral response differences between films is overwhelmed by the colored filter. The same thing holds true for tonal response curves or how a particular film responds to various exposure values. TXP (TRI-X PRO 320) is vastly different than regular TX (TRI-X 400). While they are important in getting to know a particular film if you are shooting real film the differences are overwhelmed when you start manipulating the contrast curves in other ways.  The grain simulator is preset set for each film type in sort of a caricature sort of way that may serve as a starting point for some of the various film type simulations but is in no way the end all be all of what that particular film looks like in reality.

I guess my issue with the film type simulations all boils down to the way the characteristic curves are handled within the film type simulation. The characteristic curves do not appear to be characteristic curves of the various films developed to the same CI (overall contrast index), they seem to be combined with completely different CI’s from film type to film type. In effect you get a film types characteristic curve AND a ONE particular way of developing that film combined into one, each simulation again being a caricature the “guy on the street’s” impression of a particular film. 

The film grain simulation is by far the best I have ever seen. At first glance it really does give the impression of the way real film grain looks. It does have some short comings. The first one is the biggest deal with simulating real film grain. With real film grain seems random in areas with no detail and then some how seems to magically line itself up and form specific patterns to reproduce details that seem smaller than the film grains in highly detailed areas of the image. If you have ever looked at film under high magnification this is clear and is the biggest reason most grain simulators look like absolute crap compared to real film grain. When I first looked at the Nik simulated film grain I thought that this was nailed. Upon closer inspection it is not. Maybe Nik does do something different in areas with a lot of detail but it does not nail the way real film grain works. Maybe in the next version.

The second and more minor issue that I have with the grain simulator is the way that you control it. A slider for “grains per pixel” and a slider to control hardness/softness of the grain. Depending on how you plan to use your final images this seems like the wrong way to control a grain simulation to me for an image that starts out with no grain and you can put out at arbitrary sizes. For example If I shoot with TRI-X and push it to 1600 shot on 5×4 film and then print an 8×10 print you would never even see the grain. How come when I choose the TRI-X film simulation I get what a super grainy pushed TRI-X 35mm blown up to 11×14 would look like no matter what the resolution of the camera I am using even at tiny web display sizes. Conversely if you send a 6 Megapixel image in it looks completely different than if you send a 25 Megapixel image in. What this all adds up to is the grain engine is difficult to nail down with any degree of repeatability depending on your output sizes and intent. It needs a better UI to specify what it should be doing. Especially if you are going to use it as a preset across multiple output intents and cameras.

After the film types are the stylizing controls. You can simulate various traditional print toning methods, add vignettes, and add edge burning effects. Again nothing new under the sun here but quick easy and effective. Not much to talk about here, maybe a mention that each of these controls has enormous flexibility and range.

The last thing I will mention is something that seems like a small thing but it is actually m favorite feature of Silver Efex. The little Zone viewer all of the way at the bottom of the left hand side. This little thing is a god send if you do any printing. Even with a ton of practice it is still really easy to get an image that looks great on screen but looks like crap on paper. The huge 1000:1 contrast range of your typical high quality LCD monitor tricks your eyes very easily. Tones that are easy to differentiate with full detail at the high and low end of the tonal range will not do the same thing with ink on paper at more like 100:1 contrast ratio. The little zone system tool works a couple of ways. If you hover your mouse over a particular zone it shows you all of the tones in the image that are in that range. If you click on one of the little zone patches the overlay stays on the image. This makes it easy to make adjustments while keeping things in ranges that will look great on paper. Very cool.

Nik’s packaging and pricing structure for various products continue to be a mystery to me. No advice here but if you do choose to by one of the various versions for Photoshop, the whole shebang pack (except no SFX for NX2) or just the lowly Aperture version do me a favor and use the Amazon link on the site.

RB

Let’s assume that you have not been that diligent with the keywords. There is plenty you can do and learn from the EXIF assuming you are shooting a digital camera. I love not having to take notes anymore. Not only that but all of that is in a database. Here are a couple of ideas that I use every once in a while to explore my photographs, my habits, and preferences over the long term using EXIF focal length and lens model data.

I love to search my entire library using the EXIF focal length field. Actually I use the 35mm equivalent field since I shoot with two different sized sensors. Typically I will use the range option in the search HUD so that I pickup all of the shots that are close to what I am looking for. As a for instance using a “in the range” search between 17 and 21 on the “Focal length (35mm) EXIF field will give me all of the ultra-wide shots used on both my DX and FX bodies as well as all of the lenses that I happen to have used no matter whether they were fixed or zoom.

I find it incredibly instructional to understand my shooting habits and preferences for a lot of different reasons, especially now that I use a lot of zooms in day to day work. I can easily tell you what lenses I use constantly, but I would have a hard time telling you what focal length regions they happen to be set at. You can use this in a lot of different ways in combination with the other EXIF like shutter speeds, apertures, as well as subjective evaluations of the images shot. For instance, I wrote about rethinking Nikon’s new 50mm AFS f1.4 lens a while back. One of the things that spurred me to do this was searching my library for “Focal length (35) in the range 40 to 60 and the range 70 to 85. What I found was astonishing.

If you would have asked me if I use a “normal” focal length I would have said that I do but I found that on both my DX and FX bodies I use it way more than I thought I did and an unusually large percentage of my higher rated shots happen at that focal lenth. Almost an equal number of images shows up between 70 and 85 on both DX and FX formats. What’s more is a quick look at Aperture’s shows me at F2.8 a lot on lenses that happen to have and F2.8 maximum aperture. As I evaluated the images shot at F2.8 it became appearent to me that the choise of that aperture was not only due to shooting conditions but an equal number of times for aesthetic reasons.

Wow, I have an old AF 50 F1.4 but I wasn’t using it on either FX or DX – after careful thought and consideration the obvious answer was because it was more flexible to not have to change out lenses. Looking at all of the situations I could definitely see that that was true in some of them but more often than I would have guessed that focal length at normal on FX or short tele on DX would have been great for the entire shooting session. The real reason I never put the old 50 on any of my current bodies was that it was not AFS making shifting between auto and manual focus a pain, making auto focus slow, and having a horrible touchy iffy feel to manual focus. I ordered an AFS 50 F1.4 that week. I imagine when I do a search down the road that lens will see an amazing amount of use on both FX and DX bodies.

If you happen to go the other way – say slightly wide to normal the new AFS 35 may be a better decision. In any case learning preferences, actual habits, aesthetics, etc by using searches on your image library is a great way to do learn things about your photography and guide both purchasing decisions and behavior. The reason I will probably not go with the AFS 35 myself is because I shoot FX and DX, the 35 is DX only. After thinking about that for a bit and the number of “normal” focal length images shot on DX that were for low light situations I decided that I will probably be shooting those on FX going forward and the 50 was the better decision for me. If I shot a D200 or D300 or any DX body exclusively I would by the 35 AFS in a heartbeat.

From a behavior stand point I can also show you what lenses and focal lengths you do not use much. This could be due to subject matter, due to taste, or due to habit and a weakness of vision at a particular focal length. For those focal lengths I like to assign myself mini-projects to shoot at that focal length (or range) for an extended period of time without resorting to ways that I happen to “see” a subject. I find that doing this is a great learning and growth experience. I rarely find that it is the subject matter that is the issue. More often than not is sort of “writer’s block” and lack of ability to visualize a subject through at a particular perspective.

I call this using your metadata proactively, prior to Aperture, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, iView, etc. I used metadata, or notes, whatever you want to call it much more reactively when questioned about details of a particular image – I would look it up. Using your metadata proactively as a learning or a creativity tool or just to weigh future purchases focuses more on overall shooting habits and behavior than it does details about a single image. In other words looking at all of the data first and images that have that data in common vs. looking at the image and then looking at the data behind it.

If anyone found this remotely useful I would be happy to let you know some of the wacky things I do to generate ideas with keywords. Just post a comment and let me know.

RB