Jump to content

jonathan_mcgraw

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3 Neutral
  1. Thank you n-j I'm familiar w/ oxymoron. Although it fits as an answer to my question, it would not have stuck in my head as a question. I really liked the term & would like to have it back in my eroding brain, Jonathan
  2. Hi All Some years ago I read a term used in a photo forum site. I think it was Photo.net. I liked the term very much, but I can't remember it. It was from the field of aviation & it meant for two functions to be mutually exclusive. It was, IIRC, more succinct than the words “mutually exclusive”. If someone knows the word I'm looking for, I would be very appreciative, Jonathan
  3. John I'm curious, are entire rolls underexposed or is it individual frames or part of individual frames? Also what is the reason(s) for using a yellow filter? It's one more variable going into the total exposure. You do realize that if you shoot an object (person, statue) in an empty field & expose correctly for the object, that most of the rest of the negative is going to clear or almost clear. Regards, Jonathan
  4. Test original post jonathan_mcgraw How could I have missed that? I guess that I've started looking after I've opened the page. Thank you so much, Jonathan
  5. Hi John When you say “ black and white filter” exactly what do you mean? Is it a green filter which can cause people to have a tanner appearance. Filter factor determination is far from an exact science. I have 2 or 3 flash meters & I've found that they can vary from one to another. Are entire frames underexposed or are just parts? Are entire rolls underexposed, or just some frames? I have a small diffuser that doesn't always stay properly aligned. Also it's easy to bump the “F” stop ring. If this post & the above haven't answered your question, then please post all of your variables. My guess for the most likely cause is lack of recycle time as tom_halfhill said. Now I have a question that I haven't been able to find the answer: How do I make an original post on Photo.net? I have been able to in the past, but I've forgotten or something. I would really appreciate an answer, Jonathan
  6. I was not sure, but thinking the same thing.
  7. I do not have a GPS device for my DSLRs, & if I did, I would not want it continuously attached. However I would like to have that info. in my metadata. If I had one attached @ the beginning of a session, disconnected it during the shoot, & reconnected it @ the end, is there a way to transfer the GPS data to the interm exposures? Or a slight change to this situation,. Say it was attached during the entire shoot from entering a GPS signal 'proof' structure to exit, would this data be transferable to the interm shots?
  8. That's not Herbert Keppler (RIP), the Pop or Modern Photo columnist in '83, is it? If it is how we age!
  9. I have all 77mm B+W filters w/ step-up rings from 40.5mm to 77 (of course) & 77 to 52mm step-downs. I use the step-downs over the filter to allow the use of a lens shade. For wide angle lenses I use a larger diameter step-down than the taking lens minimum step-down to avoid vignetting. A step-down by it's self will help if I don't have a shade of the needed diameter. The step-up/downs are all Aluminum. I rub a little facial oil on the threads prior to installing. It truly makes the threading smoother. It's an old film printers trick to minimize scratches on negatives. I also carry filter wrenches. Somehow the “ larger diameter step-down than the taking lens minimum strep-down to avoid vignetting” sentence doesn't make sense, but it's too late for me to decipher. I think you'll figure out what I'm trying to say. The concept is valid, the words just aren't.
  10. Is EXIF data available on PN's photos? If so, could a member direct me to the answer? I' not asking for the answer to be written by a responder, just where to find it. [/url] Thanks Jonathan
  11. Thank you Nick I didn't realize that this thread was still going on. I haven't checked it for a couple of weeks. A question, is it enough to shoot a Passport sized gray or white card to do accurate calibration? Are the Passport sized color squares too small to read on a computer screen. And if they are too small, I see a real problem w/ carrying an 8 X 10 target. Thanks again
  12. My sentiments too. I just ordered “The Missing Manual Lightroom” Jonathan
  13. What happened to Ed's post? I need to find how to correctly reply to a post in this forum. Another thing to study/ learn :-\ So "Melissa," has a larger color gamut than aRGB or sRGB. No? Yes, that is correct. “The key to this is that the camera setting you use--sRGB or Adobe RGB--simply has no effect on the raw file at all. The setting is there only for shooting JPEG. Think of it as a number line. Say, just for illustration, that the raw file read into Lightroom contains colors 1-100 in the big color space Melissa. If you convert that to Adobe RGB, you might loose 30 of those 100 colors. if you convert to sRGB, you might lose another 20. (These are just for illustration--I haven't looked up the actual size of these three color spaces.” -I understand that the numbers you listed are an example only. So is it fair to say that Nikons' listing of 2 RAW types is marketing dept hype?-Jon “if you edit in Lightroom and print directly from Lightroom, you never have to convert to JPEG at all, which means that you don't need to convert to the smaller color space. You will lose some colors that the printer can't manage--which will show up as "out of gamut" when you soft proof in Lightroom.” -I've suspected for quite some time, that JPEG is similar to reversal film & RAW is comparable to negative printing only much more versatile than the wet darkroom-Jon “On the other hand, if you want to post online, then you do need to convert to JPEG, and you need to pick one of the smaller color spaces. Since the large majority of computer monitors are at best sRGB-compliant, most of us produce sRGB JPEGs to post online.' -OK, I've wondered about this. I understand now-Jon
×
×
  • Create New...