bill_wetzel1

<p>You're quite welcome and thank you for letting me know of your success. I'm grateful to hear back from readers who found this post helpful.</p>

<p>Joe - I would not accuse Nikon of designing something with intention of failure. More likely it was just a cost cutting decision to avoid the need for two screws, metal inserts to receive them, and the labor of screwing them in. <br>

In electrical engineering circles there is a slight pejorative known as "RCA Engineering"- design a product like a TV, remove components one-by-one until the product fails, then add in the last one removed. In designing consumer goods as RCA once did a savings of just a few cents on production runs in the millions of units can add up. Lenses are not quite in that category but the same ideas apply.</p>

<p>Manh Tong, <br>

Sorry for the late response. Your query arrived while I was traveling and I'm afraid that it got pushed back in my inbox. To your question... I have no idea where the melted stud went. It may have fallen out when I accessed the area or it may have gone further into the lens. If it did I have not heard it rattle around nor does it affect the motion so I suspect that it is not causing a problem. (Your English is fine, by the way.)</p>

<p>I'm sorry but it was so long ago that I did the repair that I can only guess at this point. Based on the color and what I have around the house I suspect that it was "JB Weld". You should be able to find it at auto-parts stores and maybe hardware stores. However, don't fret over the brand. If I didn't have that I would have used any other epoxy glue that I could conveniently find. I would not use an epoxy putty - too thick - and definitely not use a water-thin epoxy of a type used for hardening rotten wood. That is too thin and would run. But any epoxy glue will be fine.</p>

Many thanks for the comments and encouragement to go with what I like. I'll have another go at the photos.

 

Bill

I am conflicted between the teachings of Ansel Adams - roughly: "every photo should have a little black, a little

white, and the remainder of the scene spread out between those extremes" - and my own judgment as to what "looks

good" when adjusting photos taken in the fog.

<p>

Adams argues that adjusting a photo to include both black and white will make the best use of the very limited

dynamic range (typically 50:1) of paper.

<p>

The histogram produced by my D200 on a foggy day occupies roughly half of the space between black and white and

is located about in the center of the range.

<p>

Without a dark foreground subject when I pull the low end of the histogram to black the image becomes unnatural

and the contrast is too high. Likewise, when I pull the high end to white the contrast goes up further and the

image look too bright. Yet I'm afraid that by not doing it the image will be too flat and muddy.

<p>

Here is a link to three photos I took recently. The two dock photos use the full range from black to white. The

boat photo is starts a little above full black.

<p>

<a

href=http://flickr.com/photos/wrwetzel/sets/72157607545227979/detail/>http://flickr.com/photos/wrwetzel/sets/72157607545227979/detail</a>

<p>

I would like to know how others adjust the histogram of fog photos.

<p>

Thanks,<br>

Bill

You're welcome. It's been three years now since I made the repair and it is still working fine.

Cleaning out my darkroom in my childhood home I came across several bottles of

the above-mentioned developers. These were given to me in the early 1960's by

the parent of a friend who was then cleaning out his own darkroom. I know that

they are at least 48 years old and suspect that they could easily have been 10

or 20 years old when I got them. I did use the Gold XX in the 1960's and

remember it being a very active developer producing high contrast and excellent

shadow detail. The chemicals are distinctive in that they are far more viscous

than any other liquid developers I have used and have solids that have settled

to the bottom of the jars.

 

I searched photo.net and the web but found no information about the products. Is

anyone here familiar with them, used them, have any information about them? I'd

like to hear the impressions of others who have used them.

 

The developers are still clear so I might mix up a batch and give it another

try. It will be quite amazing if it still works after 60 to 70 years but I

wouldn't be surprised as it worked fine for me when it was 10 to 20 years old.

 

Thanks,

Bill

After a conversation with X-Rite Customer Service and several tests of new and old profiles it looks like the problem lies with my Eye One Display 2 calibrator. All profiles made after a particular point in time have a long red tail that lies beyond the visible gamut. I don't know what happened to the calibrator but all profiles following that point have the long red tail and produce the bogus red colors on the screen. Guess I'm going to have to replace it.

Les: My monitor profile is the one generated by Eye-One Display 2.

<p>

Eugene: I had already tried most of what you suggested. I redid it in every detail and the results are still the same.

<p>

I did some more testing and determined:

<p>

1) Photoshop and LightRoom will display the correct colors if I <b>remove the monitor profile from Windows <i>Color Management Settings</i></b>. This is not an acceptable solution because it eliminates all of the benefits of monitor calibration for other apps.

<p>

2) The problem has nothing to do with the Canon A60. It also appears in photos that I took with a D200. I had missed this because I had no pix from the D200 with reds like the lighthouse.

<p>

It appears to me that there is double-monitor profiling going on. The Eye-One software is modifying the display card look-up-table at boot time and ICM-aware apps including PS and LR are then applying the same profile a second time when displaying images.

<p>

I found a lengthy <a href-http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FYil>discussion</a> about this here, the poster was essentially asking the same question I'm now asking, but no one had a satisfactory answer.

<p>

After reading a good bit of <i>Real World Color Management</i> I thought that I was starting to understand color. Now I'm not so sure. Any more thoughts?

<p>

Thanks again,<b>

Bill

I just shot a set of photos with a Canon Powershot A60 that included a bright-

red lighthouse (the <i>Little Red Lighthouse</i> under the George Washington

Bridge). Color is fine when viewed on my monitor with non-color-managed apps

such as IrfanView and FastStone Viewer but are way off when view with LightRoom

and Photoshop. I ordinarily use a D70 or D200, and have not had such problems

with them, but chose the A60 instead for size since I was traveling by bike.

<p>

The .jpg images from the A60 do not appear to include a color profile, at least

as revealed by the ImageMagik tool <i>identify</i>.

<p>

I suspect that my problem is related to color management and the conversion

from an assumed profile to the LR and PS working color space but I don't know

what to do about it. LR provides no controls and those in PS do not appear to

solve the problem, no matter what conversion setting I use. I'm working on a

monitor calibrated with an EyeOne Display 2 calibrator.

<p>

Following are screen shots of the photo displayed in IrfanView and LR. The

IrfanView shot is much closer to reality than the desaturated, orange-red one

in LR.

<p>

<img src=http://www.faradic.net/~billw/Photo.net/capture_25092007_113916.jpg>

<p>

<img src=http://www.faradic.net/~billw/Photo.net/capture_25092007_113921.jpg>

<p>

The corollary of this problem is that I corrected the set using LR and not

realizing the issue and the exported .jpg results are obviously terrible, far

too red.

<p>

Any thoughts?

<p>

Thanks much,<br>

Bill

Robert - I am using LightRoom almost exclusive. However, to try to isolate the problem I did try CS2 with the same results. I have tested the solution on LR only.

 

Frans - What are you missing? Either my misfortune or a critical eye :-).

 

All - I'm also using Epson inks, Epson paper, and applying the profiles in LightRoom, NOT in the driver.

I have struggled for some time with prints with shadows too dark on my Epson

2200, and often with a slight pink bias to skin tones. I read parts of

"Real-World Color Management", bought an Eye-One Display 2 and calibrated my

monitor, tried various setting adjustments, but the problem still persisted. A

search here revealed others with the same problem and eventually, a couple of

suggestions for fixes buried deep in a number of discussions. Here is is a

summary in one place of what worked for me. Obviously, this assumes that you

have all of your other settings correct: calibrated monitor, no double

profiling, correct profile selected, etc., etc.

 

1) In the "EPSON Stylus Photo 2200 Properties" Main tab select the "Ink Config"

button and then set the "Color Density" to -12% to -14%. I have it at -14% now

but may want to reduce it just a bit, depending on the results of further testing.

 

2) Install the latest Epson profiles from:

 

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/EditorialAnnouncement.jsp?oid=42114986

 

These now include separate profiles for resolutions of 1440 and 2880. Select the

appropriate profile for your paper, black ink type, and resolution.

 

The color density adjustment solved the problem with the dark shadows and the

new profiles fixed up the color bias. Finally, my prints match my monitor.

 

Bill

<h2>Problem Solved</h2>

The problem with the slipping ring appeared to be very close to the surface of the lens, not burried deep down inside of it. I could hear the clicking as the ring slipped quite plainly. So... I decided to have a closer look. No screws appeared to give access so I tried moving the focus-ring rubber grip to see if it would reveal anything. I had the vague recollection from other lenses that access to screws or other mechanisms may hide beneath grips. Success!

<h3>The problem</h3>

I carefully slid the grip down, over top of the Auto/Manual selector ring, and over top of the zoom-ring grip. This revealed a thin plastic strap wrapped completely around the focus ring and secured with adhesive tape. I removed one side of the adhesive tape and the plastic strap to reveal two Tee-shaped spring tabs that engage a cogged wheel that is part of the focus mechanism.

The spring tabs are retained on the focus ring by two plastic studs passing through two holes in the tabs and melted over at the time of manufacture.

One of the melted plastic studs had broken off allowing the spring tab to lift high enough that it no longer engaged the cogs on the internal mechanism and allowing the focus ring to slip.

 

<h3>Solution</h3>

I applied a little dab of epoxy to the tab to accomplish two things. First, the epoxy will hopefully adhere to the sides of the wall of the slot in which the spring tab is located as well as the remains of the stud. Second, if that fails, then the epoxy will fill the space between the bottom of the slot and the plastic band so that the plastic band, retained by the adhesive tape and rubber grip, will keep sufficient pressure on the spring tab.

 

<h3>Further Examination</h3>

There is another tab facing the opposite direction that locks the manual-focus ring when the auto/manual ring is in the auto position. I took a close look at the tab and discovered that it too was also loose but not enough yet to prevent locking in auto. The melted stud had also broken but had not yet seperated from the base. I put a dab of epoxy on this tab also since I already had the area exposed.

 

<h3>Engineering Analysis</h3>

 

This is a clear design flaw that Nikon should be ashmed of. The 80-200 f/2.8D AF lens is an expensive, professional-caliber product that should not have parts secured by melted plastic studs. That's the design of toys. Since a good bit of the lens is metal I was a bit surprised to find a plastic ring beneath the grip. I'll accept plastic there - it was no doubt used for weight reasons and does not affect the mechanical integrity of focus/zoom or the positioning of the glass. But the spring tabs should have been secured by screws or some other removable fastner and not by melted plastic.

<p>

I'm suspicious that Nikon is quite aware of this problem. There is a third Tee-slot in the focus ring in the same orientation as the one used for the manual-focus spring tab. This slot has two clean, un-melted studs. It appears that Nikon intentionally designed in this spare slot so that it would be easy to repair the lens when the studs broke by moving the spring tab to the spare one. I can think of no other reason for the spare slot.<div></div>

I just bought a used Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8 D, two ring version with

tripod mount. It appears to work fine in AF mode. But when I rotate

the A-M ring to M the manual focus ring does not positively engage the

focus mechanism. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it slips. Sometimes I

need to rotate it to its limits to get it to engage. Once engaged it

may subsequently slip. The slipping is accompanined by a clicking

sound suggesting a pawl that is not fully engaged. The problem is

independent of the manual focus setting on the camera and on the focus

limit control on the lens.

 

Has anyone here had a similar experience? If so, how did you solve it?

In particular was it an adjustment that you could make yourself?

 

Thanks much,

Bill Wetzel