ant_nio_gomes

Are you serious about these 2 aspects being granted by mirrorless cameras only?

You can find the same note at page 326 of the D500 user manual and as I was told this has to do with the lens VR not with the cameras. You can find an explanation if you follow the link bellow and go down to the part titled as "VR Image Flare": All About Nikon VR | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

If you go to Nikon USA you can find that exact set: ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set from Nikon Just click on the link above that is in small letters at the white area bellow the image where it says "What's in the box"

Andrew, Thanks VM for coming back and the adicional information.

Thanks VM for your info Andrew I'm aware the so called medium and small RAW comes as 12 bit (11 for data as you say) lossless compressed files but what I meant as WB flexibility was already the same as allowed by a "real" RAW file and according to your words it seems we can assume there is a limitation there, closer to a Jpeg's adjustment possibilities. Let's wait and see when examples and some other people's experiences broaden the possibility to evaluate the merits of these file variations and if they can be viable alternatives for regular usage.

Thanks VM Barry, good to know it as previous implementation of smaller RAW was said to have some limitations or not allowing to fix different WB values during conversion.

Hi, congrats for getting it so soon As you are already converting RAW files, did you try with medium and small settings and if so how do they treat WB in terms of adjustment flexibility and your opinion on results, please? Thanks VM

<p>Are you using Picture Control?<br> If you go to NX2's Camera Settings, click on to activate Picture Control section what's there as "recorded value"?<br> Goings further down to Advanced, which value you get as default?<br> And the same as default for sharpening when you activate "noise reduction"?<br> Besides you shoot only RAW, NX2 gets the settings in your menus and the converter itself will make the referred adjustment if positive values are registered as default.</p>

<p>I guess previous comments already referred the important aspects and reasons why you have no advantage using the red filter on the lens and I would only add that the most noticeable effect will be to cause a cal our cast affecting your image, therefore I guess with an impact on the three channels.<br> Converting to B&W and using the channel mixer will allow you the recreate the effect you'd expect from a red filter with B&W film.<br> Probably less effective you can shoot B&W sRGB direct from the camera and if your model allows it setting the red filter in you menu options (I guess it is a software feature after desaturating all channels to convert to and saving the B&W image).<br> If your camera didn't have the RGB color array as the Leica Monochrom you could use the red filter and get the same effect as with a film camera.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Frank,<br /> Christoph put it clearly, however you should feel grateful because Adobe is being quite generous offering you this "free upgrade"...meaning you will not be penalized because you're using PS5 and you will only pay exactly the same as someone that comes to CC with no previous use of any PS version. :-) :-)</p>

<p>As Jeff said, just have a look at the link:<br> "http://newcameranews.com/2015/04/01/shocking-nikon-canon-to-end-camera-development/"</p>

<p>Performance was not the main issue behind the OP's questions as he was asking if the lens could be used with a particular teleconverter he owns (and we know nothing else about but the brand name) and the reason why Nikon says this zoom is not compatible with teleconverters (their owns, obviously).<br /> Nikon reasons come from both lens and teleconverter designs, as the front element of the TC is at the surface and the zoom rear can damage it. However there are brands, as Tamron and Vivitar that have this element at a recessed positions, thus eventually allowing the match.<br /> You can see images of both Tamron and Nikon TCs at this page (look at Customers also viewed section): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/53249-REG/Tamron_AF20N700_2x_AF_Teleconverter_for.html<br /> Vivitar has(had) at least one TC that could be used with Nikon AF-S G lenses, it seems: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/637864-REG/Vivitar_VIV_2X4_N_VIV_2x4_N_Series_1_4.html<br /> Is the OP's TC like this one? This point is important to have an opinion besides compatibility is not granted and need to be tested at the user own risk.<br /> Note that both manufacturer, like Nikon, don't recommend the use of TCs with this zoom as they indicate them only for lenses above 90mm and opening to F:2.8 or more.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>I set out what I did so that others might try it too. My method was well received on a forum of GIMP users. Here, people said what they did in other packages</em><em>. It is like speaking mutually incomprehensible languages</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry for the insistence (that starts to seem too much even to me) but I have to make a last remark about this part of your post as it just increases my discomfort and sensation of wrong doing since I uploaded my first one.<br /> <br /> A Fórum being a "public place of open discussion" (as defined here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forum) IMHO I hardly see that "<em>people saying what they did in other packages</em>" can be "<em>like speaking mutually incomprehensible languages</em>", unless one of the parties adopts a Magister Dixit's posture and refuses to accept any other opinion...even from people that don't refuse what he his presenting, as I think it was my case.<br /> <br /> Therefore, I have to stress again how sorry I'm for introducing an undesirable opinion in what (I realize now) was supposed to be just the offering of your method to photo.net membership.</p>

<p>Mukul, Sorry but it was not my intention to distort your own words and after a second reading of all topic posts I've to say that it is right that you didn't invite others to explain their methods as I wrongly thought.</p> <p>It's a pity I didn't get it at first because it would have saved me from disturbing you with unwanted stuff and to drive you to contradict me with the expression "this is not true" that may denote I could have irritated you. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Mukul, I do understand the rol of your 3 conversions but I think what you shall from them is am image that gets the shadows of the "Dark", the middle tones of the "Normal" and the highlights of the "Bright" and if you start from files with the desired values you should get what you're looking for.</p> <p>I'm not familiar with the present versions of The GIMP (used it under Linux before they changed the graphic engine, some years ago) but in Photoshop it can be done either with the program tool or "manually" using layers and masks, and I believe that unless you edit the final result (global or locally) what you get is what you had in the selected areas of the used individual files.</p> <p>When using the program tools, it may happen that you can find the result as not corresponding to your expectations and go back to editing but I consider this as new attempt and not as part of the process, but this is just a personal opinion and you are entitled to have your own and consider it as such.</p> <p>Regarding my first result, it involved no small areas editing and took only a couple of minutes to open the file, go to the shadow/highlights move the 3 cursors; open a first curves adjustment layer to a small contrast adjustment (a fast 2 point shape); open the second curves layer and make a small upwards movement of the cursor on the dark area and apply smart sharpen with the default values I usually utilize.</p> <p>I made these comments only because you invited other participants to explain other methods but, as you said before, if you're satisfied with your workflow and continue to consider it the best for you why not to go on with it?</p>