pphaneuf

The narrow top menu does look pretty weird, at any rate. I do have a simple solution, again.

 

Just add an empty column to the right of the menu to take up the remaining slack as the "rubber length" (like Bob showed in his mock (?)), while making the menu headers be fixed width (so that the drop-down menues stay aligned with them).

 

Hmm, the visited links are green on my home box, or has it changed back?

Eh, you just changed the vlink color! It's less insulting, but too subtly different from the non-visited links. Just leave the colors to their default settings (as I said, I can do without the underlining, even though I prefer it)...

Oh, by the way, I should mention that I *do* like the other changes, like the addition of a link back to the thread after posting, and stuff like that.

 

Except for the visited links color, which I really don't like, and with my small modifications, I have to say that the new look is very nice!

 

I'd like to have underlining back (if you don't like it, uncheck the "Underline links" checkbox in your browser, I say!), but I can live without it, if the links are the proper colors. Don't make anything that's not a link be that color too (but I don't think you do)!

Brian: on "q-and-a-fetch-msg", at line 21 in the output, replace the 768 with 100% and you're done. I tried it here, looks great. There's another table width set at 768 at the very bottom, replace that one too, so that it's properly centered.

 

I didn't try other pages, but I suppose the same technique would work very well. In the front page, at lines 32, 60 and 315, replace those 768 with 100%, and it also looks great.

 

It's a very simple concept of graphic layout: along a given length, you have to have at least one "rubber" length. You can have a lot, they can be all rubber lengths, but you definitely can't have none. Go ahead and use fixed lengths for a bunch of stuff, but make sure there's at least ONE rubber length and everything will be just fine.

 

So don't tell me I make no sense, I've just told you precisely what lines to change and how, and they're even simple changes too (no crazy JavaScript hacks).

Uh, what are the chances of people doing photography on the Internet still having their resolution at 800x600? I have this box set at 1280x960, and my home box is at 1600x1200, photo.net looks plain pathetic (or actually, just very small).

 

I *could* get used to losing the underline (though I vastly prefer having them), but messing with the links COLOR should be absolutely forbidden. What's this? Just highlighting something or is it a link? This reminds me of those old adventure games where you basically had to scan the screen to see where mouse hover would happen. This made for bad games, and for a web site supposed to be useful, this is simply unacceptable.

 

I have a few color-blind friends, I wonder how well they'll do without underlines (one of them's a photographer that visits this site, by the way).

 

When I talked to people doing web design and they were misguided, I'd point them at photo.net and say "here, this looks good and is perfectly functional nonetheless". It was one of my golden standards web site. Not anymore. Assuming the screen resolution, blah!

 

After seeing a banner inviting me to become a photo.net patron (I'm already one, and a few inches to the left, there are a few links customized for me), I think I might just do the opposite.

Note that the Xeon also have more cache. Also, the hyperthreading permits better saturation of the existing resources on a CPU, but doesn't create more resources, so if you have code that properly interleaves access to the floating point units (so that they run in parallel), it will actually perform better than hyperthreading (which will have to share the same number of floating point units between two threads, and also adding the thread scheduling overhead).

 

Most notably, the cache between the two threads is shared, so if the two running threads have very different memory access patterns, it is actually going to be SLOWER than non-hyperthread.

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1044037&size=md">

 

<p>My japanese camera is superior. It's a Canon, so compliments are welcome. I'm also right. <tt>;-)</tt>

I find the *naming* of the forums as indicating of a trend... You have "Canon EOS", "Canon FD", "Nikon", "Pentax 67 SLR", you also have "Large Format Photography", then you have "Leica Photography". Sounds like some weird, totally different kind of photography.

 

To me, "Rangefinder Photography" and "Leica" would have made sense, but the current naming, I find rather elitist. A Leica is a 35mm rangefinder, good quality and well designed, but still nothing crazily different. "Minox Photography" is worth it, pinhole would be if it had a forum at all.

 

To answer the survey at all, if I'd be a Leica user, I wouldn't want to hear why or how others love Leica, or anything digital (that isn't Digilux, of course!).

 

Which *Leica* lens gives best bokeh would be fair game, but not "my Leica lens has way better bokeh than that other brand lens".

 

Where can I get a cheap Leica body? What's a good 50mm lens to get started with (not too expensive used, doesn't need to be the best)? What's the best handholding technique you have, that yields the sharpest photos?

 

I have a Canon EOS. With the 100mm/f2.0 lens, on my nice Manfrotto (Bogen) tripod and using mirror-lock up, I'd be happy to spank Leica ass. Long telephoto lenses are pretty rare for Leica too. But for handheld candid portraiture, I'd have a freakin' hard time outdoing an excellent rangefinder like a Leica, for sure! To each its qualities...

<p><em>> At one time Ilford was claiming XP-2 could be shot up to EI 1600 with no problems.</em>

 

<p>Yeah, that's true. If you push it two stops, that is! <tt>;-)</tt>

 

<p>Here is a portrait taken outside, on an overcast afternoon, using XP-2 rated at EI 1600 and pushed three stops: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1044037&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/1044037&size=lg</a>

Fuji NPZ exposed at 640 (or maybe even 400-500, if the lighting is really off balance). It will take a 1 stop push quite nicely (just had one of these developed, one stop push and exposed at 1250, came out very nice), and a 2 stop push is probably not out of the question either.

To be exact, Tmax is better if you develop yourself, Portra BW if you get it printed on color paper, T400CN is also doing good on color paper, and XP-2 if you print it on black and white paper. If your lab uses a digital machine like the Frontier or the newer Noritsus, putting them in greyscale mode will make them all very similar as far as printing on color paper goes (that's what I do).

 

I prefer XP-2, for the slightly increased density range and its better ability to have it printed on classic B&W paper (though I normally have it done on color paper on a digital machine).

Oh my god! My kingdom for ultra fine grained 100 speed higher contrast C-41 B&W film! Higher contrast 400 speed chromogenic would be rather pleasant too, but we need to keep the lower contrast stuff around, the night photography with this is just too awesome!

 

And while I'm not that much into it, I'd love to use *E6-compatible* positive B&W (I have never tried Scala, I'm afraid that I might run out of money if I try it and like it). :-)

> It is generally agreed that a sensor in the realm of 20 megapixels is needed to equal 35mm

 

Hehehe... A 3.1 megapixels D30 gives 645 format a run for its money. It's not the raw resolution as much as the total lack of grain (ok, don't pump up the ISOs, otherwise noise comes into the game and while grain can look nice if used correctly, noise NEVER looks nice). If you're not sure about the D30, then the D60 is sure to beat 645 to a pulp.

 

The newer Canon and Kodak digital cameras are making a joke of medium format. No to say that film doesn't have its uses, I agree with Scott that there are aesthetical (and personal taste) reasons to pick one over the other, but saying that digital is technically inferior is just out of touch with reality (I know, I used to be, until I saw RESULTS, which are all that count).

We have Lambda printing on Kodak Duraflex here, and there's no Ciba/Ilfochrome envy.

Mel: I had XP-2 pushed to increase contrast, you just have to find a lab that does C-41 pushing/pulling. Of course, doing it yourself with B&W film is that much more control, but I find working with chromogenic to be not bad either.

I own both a Rebel 2000 and an Elan 7e, and I must say that I'm real happy about my Elan. The faster flash sync, higher max shutter speed and mirror lock all have the possibility to allow me to make photos better than what the Rebel could, but the nicest thing is all the control.

 

How do I get center-weighted metering on the Rebel? In manual mode, when NOT using Exposure Lock. On the Elan? When I set the metering to "center-weighted". There's more buttons and knobs on the Elan, but it's actually easier to use, because the Rebel has all of the same options, but they're set through all sorts of side effects (Exposure Lock switches to partial metering in addition to locking the exposure), while they're just there, up front, on the Elan (Exposure Lock just locks exposure and does nothing else!).

 

If you pick the Rebel anyway (which is still a decent choice, its the lenses and film that are the most important in my opinion), I'd recommend the new Rebel Ti over the Rebel 2000. I think the little extra money is worth it for a number of reasons, like the more durable stainless steel lens mount and the ability to choose between one-shot and tracking autofocus (this has pissed me off a number of time with my Rebel 2000, with the camera picking the wrong AF mode).

 

Also, having dioptic correction is nice, the higher built-in flash is a nice touch if you use it, and the LCD panel on the back looks interesting (illuminated! if I had that when I did night photography...).

I have used a Rebel 2000 for night photography, and with a good tripod, I'd actually use finer grained film like Fuji Superia-Reala.

 

The trick is using partial metering in manual mode to "verify" that various areas of the photo are within the film's range. What I usually do is this: I pick an aperture, generally something like f8 (because it is within the "sweet spot" of the 50mm/f1.8 lens I normally use for that kind of stuff). Then, I use the Exposure Lock button with the camera pointed at what something that I would like to be a midtone (from a 1 to 10 scale of brightness, point it to something that would be 5). I then set the shutter speed so that the meter "needle" is in the middle (at the zero position). I then verify that various areas in the pictures are within the film's recording limit (for example, from a 1 to 10 scale of brightness, film can only record 5 steps, anything higher or lower than that will become solid white or solid black). I might change the shutter speed a bit to make it record details in some area I'm interested in (I only play with shutter speed).

 

Sometimes, if it is too dark, the in-camera meter won't be useful (if the shutter speed would be longer than 30 seconds). What I do is that I change the aperture to something like f2.0, do the metering, then compensate appropriately (from f2.0 to f8.0, there is 4 stops, so I should double the exposure time 4 times, for example, from 15 seconds to 240 seconds).

 

For night photography, you also have to check the data sheet of the film that you are using for "reciprocity failure compensation". For example, Fuji tells me that I shouldn't be using Superia-Reala for exposures longer than 64 seconds and that at 240 seconds, Provia 100F would need 1/3 of a stop more exposure (as well as some color correction factor).

 

Bulb mode simply means that the shutter will remain open for whatever time you keep the shutter release depressed (or until the camera runs out of battery!). Basically, if you have to use an exposure longer than 30 seconds, you have to use bulb.

 

For night photography, the use of the RS60-E3 remote shutter release is highly recommended, and failing to that, use the self-timer, so that you don't physically touch the camera during the exposure (to avoid vibration). For bulb exposures, you NEED the remote shutter release, as the self-timer won't work.

Doesn't Maco makes a 120 format IR film?

Oh my, if this (http://www.photo.net/photo/1044037) is any indication, Ilford XP2 Super pushed two stops (to EI 1600) and used at EI 800 should be really nice.

 

If you're *really* careful that you're not underexposing anything, a one stop push and EI 800 exposure could be nice, but I had much better results with the one stop overexposure.

<p>Bordering on off-topic, XP2 not being conventional B&W film...

 

<p>Increasing the contrast of low contrast film is one use. I have too many problems with conventional B&W (I don't develop myself), so I decided to use a chromogenic film instead, and they're all damned low contrast. Very nice for high contrast night scene, but daytime photography with overcast weather is so flat and boring...

 

<p>Here is an example: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1044037&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/1044037</a>

Back when I started photography, a bit more than a year ago, I started with just an Olympus Stylus Epic, a very small, not too expensive P&S with a nice 35mm/f2.8 fixed lens. I also had a tripod, because I wanted my photos to be as sharp as possible and also to do some night photography (yeah, with a P&S, I was just starting, okay?).

 

So I went to the Place Ville-Marie, one of the tallest building in Montreal, and started photographing with my P&S on the tripod, going for interesting picture looking up at the buildings with that mild wide angle perspective.

 

I had a security person come to me and tell me to stop, because the tripod made me a "pro" by their rules. I could take all the pictures I wanted with an Hasselblad or a Nikon F5, as long as they were handheld, but my tiny P&S on a tripod was clearly an offense.

By the way Art, I just reviewed my first posting on this thread, I didn't mention film at all!

 

I was comparing those very nice pro DSLRs with the crummier amateur stuff.

 

I'd put my barrier for entry for a digital camera at the Canon D30 level (or whatever equivalent other companies have, I've got a Canon system, so that what I look out for). Anything less, I'd rather have a film camera.

 

It gets a bit torny at the Canon G2 or Olympus E-20 levels, you might be less picky than I am, but I wouldn't get one of these. Maybe I'd replace my trusty little Olympus Stylus Epic point & shoot with a Canon S-serie maybe...

Ok. I'd say that you should overexpose rather than underexpose. If the camera has a 48 bit per pixel mode (usually called RAW or TIFF, if there's any), then overexposing a bit (to limit the noise in the darker areas) and playing a bit with the levels (allowed by the higher bits per pixel) should be the best solution.

 

Using the lowest possible ISO should be pretty obvious, of course (to limit the amount of gain).

 

One of my friend told be he used some slight despeckle filter for the worst offenders, but I'd say you're pretty much screwed at that level.

 

Basically, yes, they have very little latitude, and you can only try to hide it, and I'd say that a cleanly blown out area is better than having a noisy dark area, if I had to pick. Pay attention to contrast. Meter carefully (like you would for slide film). Etc...

Slides through the digital route (Fuji Frontier, LightJet or Lambda printing, for example), are excellent, but not really intrinsically better than prints from negs (they have different contrast/saturation characteristics, but you cannot say "better", just "different").

 

Slides look really good on a light table, but unfortunately, a computer monitor is the closest it gets to that.

 

Conventional optical printing of slides is below excellent, and sometimes downright pathetic compared to optical printing of negs, so if your goal is to have something to hang on the wall rather than something to look at on a light table, you have to think accordingly.

 

If you go digital, use slide or neg according to the situation (high contrast scene? neg. flat overcast weather? slide. bright colors? Reala. muted colors? Velvia), and enjoy the freedom.

 

If you get prints done conventionally, then stay with negs, if you want something on your wall, that is.

I agree with Scott on that.

 

I think latitude and noise can be easily put under control using larger sensor photo-sites. Witness the Canon EOS-1D, with its lower pixel count and massively larger sensor (well, there there are full-size sensors, but bear with me), giving you some of the largest photo-sites out there.

 

The idea is that if you have a very small photo-site, it could receive something like zero, one or maybe two photons at the darker end of things. Two photons is the *double* of one. A photo-site that would be 10 times larger would receive 4, 5 or maybe 6 photons for the same exposure. More detail, as 6 is only 20% more than 5. Less contrast, more latitude, less noise (as noise is the results of magnification of signal difference through gain/amplification).

 

Now, they made cameras with larger sensors and accordingly increased pixel count. I wish Canon would make a "D90" that would have that full-frame CMOS sensor, but only have 6 megapixels. That would be one ass kicking camera!