eric friedemann
-
Posts
6,221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by eric friedemann
-
-
<p>Line, I have removed all prior versions of Photoshop, and both Photoshop CC 2014 and Bridge CC are up to date.</p>
-
Eric, I open Photoshop first because I'm often working with or printing existing files that I can locate by name without
using Bridge.
The Adobe "expert" from a far-off land called me today and asked if it would be a good time to deal with the problem
again. I asked if he'd figured the problem out and if he knew how to fix it. He said, "we're working on it." I told him to call
me back when he had a solution.
-
<p>Andrew, I can open "Adobe Bridge CC (64bit)" by going to the programs menu. I just can't open it from Photoshop. I'd prefer to avoid opening Bridge as a separate operation every day for hundreds of days to come until Photoshop CC 2015 comes along, as it would be petty annoyance. However, this would be preferable to reloading Photoshop CC 2014, which probably won't solve the problem and which would cause me to redo presets and have to reinstall plug-ins. It's maddening that the "expert"-level staff at Photoshop Customer Service can't or won't tell me- as you allude to- whether this is a problem others are having- i.e. whether the problem is on Adobe's end.</p>
-
<p>I've restarted the computer several times since the problem appeared yesterday with no change.</p>
-
<p>Andrew, I've already followed that prompt, installed that version and I still get the same CC message.</p>
-
<p>I'm running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit, and my Photoshop CC 2014 and Bridge are up to date. When I open Pshop and click on "Browse in Bridge," a Creative Cloud message pops up asking, apropos of nothing, "Are you sure you want to install this version of Bridge? ..." There are then two areas to click on to install the version of Bridge I already have installed or not.</p><div>
</div>
-
<p>I have been on the phone now on a handful of occasions to Photoshop's customer service number, 800.833.6687. This number connects me to a call center in, I'm guessing, India. </p>
<p>At this point, I've spent something over five hours on the phone with, I think, six different people with various problems. In addition, I've spent over an hour on my own reinstalling plugins.</p>
<p>I've now run into a problem where, after opening Photoshop CC 2014 and trying to open bridge, I get a control panel. The last two-plus hours have been spent on the phone with two "experts" who clearly didn't understand the problem, and uninstalled, reinstalled and updated Bridge and the Creative Cloud software itself several times without effect. </p>
<p>These folks refused to connect me to anyone higher up. Does anyone know of an Adobe number in the U.S. I can call to talk to an actual Photoshop CC 2014 installation expert? <br>
</p>
-
-
There are those photographers for whom "more megapixels aren't everything." I'm not one of those photographers- I like
to make big prints with bottomless resolution. Make me a high-resolution camera- I don't need to shoot at ISO 4,000,002.
I understand Nikon chasing the still large- though shrinking- press photographer market. That said, how has Nikon not
introduced a flagship with an updated version of the D800-variant sensor? Nikon couldn't help but sell more high-
resolution professional cameras than, say, the Df, which answered a question no one was asking and is a waste of
Nikon's limited production capacity.
-
<p>The lenses I'm currently using with my D800Es are the 16-35mm f/4G, the 24-70mm f/2.8G, the 24mm f/1.4G, the 35mm f/1.4g and the 85mm f/1.4G Nikkor lenses. All of these lenses are sharp enough from edge-to-edge to use with the D800-variant cameras.</p>
<p>The only lens I wish was sharper is the 16-35mm at wider focal lengths. Ideally, I'd like to add a 14-24mm f/2.8G lens; but that lens isn't without its challenges- e.g. not accepting standard front-mounted filters and requiring a special filter holder. </p>
-
<p>Steve, yes, I checked all settings. This is definitely a "pizza wheel" issue- fine score marks running the length of the print- involving the fine rollers prints normally pass through. Front-loading the paper immediately solved the problem, though I bought the printer to be able to make 16-inch wide prints on 17-inch-wide paper. Being limited to 16-inch wide paper is infuriating.</p>
-
<p>Howard, thank you for the tip. I'm using the front-loading technique, as one of the "pizza wheel" posts suggests, and it is getting rid of the scoring, as the paper doesn't pass through the same wheels. </p>
<p>The downside to front-loading the 3880 is that you can't use media larger than 16x20 inches. That isn't a problem for the 14x14 inch images I'm doing currently, but will be a problem for other images I need to print larger.</p>
-
<p>I've had an Epson 3880 Graphic Arts Edition printer for a few years. It has been a good printer for me.</p>
<p>Recently, though, I've been making prints of fall leaves on a black background. The printer rollers are leaving fine, but quite pronounced, score marks on the surface of the prints, which are quite noticeable on the black areas of the print surface. While I don't think its a problem with the rollers being dirty, the rollers are well inside the printer and cannot be accessed.</p>
<p>I called Epson, and Epson is aware of the problem, which, I was told, is a long-standing one across whole its printer line. The problem dates back at least 15 years. </p>
<p>After talking to several people who were completely noncommittal about Epson providing any help, I finally wound up talking to a senior technical expert who said I could try slowing the paper's advance through the printer to give the ink more time to dry. I did that and it didn't help.</p>
<p>The senior tech guy also annoyed me by intimating that the problem was caused by my using Harman and Hahnemühle fine art matte papers. So I asked if I went out and bought Epson's high-end archival matte paper if he would warrant that I wouldn't have the problem. He said he wouldn't guarantee that I wouldn't have the problem.</p>
<p>Has anyone else experienced this problem? Other than getting Epson 17-inch paper- which I may bite the bullet and do- are there any other fixes? I'm out of ideas and I'm fuming at Epson for selling me a $1K+ printer while knowing it has this design flaw.</p>
-
Pennet, I sold my 28mm f/1.4 AF-D for way, way more than I paid for it in the process of buying the newish 24mm and
35mm f/1.4G lenses. I do not recall there being any deformation in the aperture blade pattern on my 28mm f/1.4.
At f/1.4, you would not see any deformation as the blades should be fully retracted. The bokeh, with a point light source
should be a circle, with the center of the circle being a little darker, due to the f/1.4 AF-D lens being aspheric.
If you're in the U.S., I would consult with Nikon's service department in Melville, NY, to see if your lens' aperture is within
factory specifications. Note that if your lens was originally purchased gray market in the U.S., Nikon U.S. may refuse to
work on the lens.
One other bit of advice if you keep the lens, the AF/MF ring is thin and flimsy. Mine broke twice, and I'm very gentle with
my equipment. As the lens is discontinued and Nikon isn't making more parts for the lens, contact Nikon's parts
department in El Segundo, CA, and see if they can order you an AF/MF ring or two from Japan.
-
<p>Charles, I haven't, and I wouldn't buy another processing program just to get RAW lens correction support for one lens on a camera I use mostly for grab shots.</p>
-
<p>I have the Fuji X100 and love it. I bought the WCL-X100 Wide-Angle Conversion Lens for X100 Camera that turns the 35mm f/2.0 FF-equivalent lens on the camera into a 28mm f/2.0 FF-equivalent lens.</p>
<p>The design is amazing- the 28mm-equiv. lens takes the same filter and hood as the camera with standard lens, and the fit and finish are perfect. With the wide conversion lens, as best I can tell, results are as contrasty and tack-sharp as without.</p>
<p>That said, with upgraded firmware, the camera corrects the wide conversion lens' correctable- but noticeable- barrel distortion in-camera, but, of course, doesn't do the same for RAW images ... and I almost always work from RAW images.</p>
<p>There is no Adobe Camera Raw automatic correction for the X100 with the wide converter- at least not yet. Has anyone worked out a correction for the X100 wide conversion lens in Photoshop's Lens Correction? If so, what correction are you using? Thanks!</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p> </p>
-
<p>The D700 allows the following with the SB-25: "Non-TTL Auto, M, RPT, Rear Curtain Sync(.)"</p>
<p>The D800 is not listed as allowing any of these functions.</p>
<p>God bless Nikon and its charts (scroll down):</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>What I love about the X100, which is carried over to the X-E1, is the electronic viewfinder that is in exactly the place I'm used to it being on Leica and Contax rangefinders I've used in bygone days, as well as the Mamiya 7II bodies I still use from time to time. That the EFV is 100% accurate is fantastic- the EFV is considerably more accurate than the finders on my D800E's.</p>
-
<p>Monte, another camera that looks interesting is the new Sony RX1. It has an "X" in the name, which is now apparently a requirement for a sub-SLR camera to be taken seriously.</p>
<p>The RX1 is FF and has a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens. By the time you add an electronic finder on the camera, you're looking at about $3,200- which is the current price of a 35mm f/2.0 Summicron ASPH lens. So, you'd still be way ahead of the game price-wise compared to shooting digital Leica M stuff:</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Deleted repeat post due to p.net's slow-loading problem.</p>
-
<p>I bought a black X100 kit and I love it for size, weight and image quality. That said, my primary cameras are now D800E's, and the X100 was at the very top of my price range for a knock-around camera.</p>
<p>The APS-C-sensored X100 has a 35mm f/2.0-FF-equivalent lens. The X-E1 is also an APS-C camera and the comparable lens would be an 18mm f/2.0 lens- the 35mm f/1.4 lens would be the FF equivalent of 52.5mm on the X-E1.</p>
<p>The X-E1 has a newer 16MP sensor, where the X100 has an older 12MP sensor. A newer, higher-rez sensor would be nice.</p>
-
<div></div>
-
<p>An FYI, you might be interested in the Stroboframe Pro-T with the custom base for Mamiya 6/7 cameras. The base has cut-outs, so you don't have to remove the bracket to change film:</p>
<p>As an aside, years ago, I called Tiffen and the company custom-made me a pair of the shorter Press-T brackets for my Mamiya 7IIs.</p>
<p>As another aside, I like your first name. :>)</p>
Cryptowall 2- Warning, Question
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted
<p>Last Friday, I was hit by a horrific malware program, Cryptowall 2. The technician working on my computer and trying to recover some documents and images that had yet to be backed up said it is THE worst malware program he's seen. I would first tell everyone to make sure your malware software is up-to-date, run it and keep running it. Cryptowall 2 is making the rounds.</p>
<p>In trying to figure out where the malware came from and to prevent a reoccurrence, I'm concerned about the possibility that it might have crept back into the CPU of one or more of my digital cameras. I know malware can infect memory cards, my question:</p>
<p>Can malware infect a digital camera?</p>