mbeebee

<p>Tom's last suggestion was the easiest. I logged into XP under a different user, and everything was back to normal.</p>

Thanks for the responses. I tried hiding the Windows toolbar, but still couldn't find the palattes. I'm inclined to think John might be on to something: I reinstalled Nikon time four times yesterday, with no progress. And each time I opened the new install of Nikon Scan, it showed not only a preview of the latest scan, but a offered a list of my customized palattes, suggesting that something was getting left behind in the uninstall process, and perhaps carrying over the disappearing palattes problem. I've deleted the temp folder, but that makes no difference, so it looks like I'll need to get on the phone with Nikon. Sigh. . . .

 

Thanks again,

Martin

Okay, here's a rather embarassing situation. I seem to have lost my

tool palettes for Nikon Scan. I normally have several palettes holding

various tools (crop, info, etc.) set up next to my image for scanning.

I haven't scanned anything in awhile, and when I opened up Nikon Scan,

they were gone, and I can't seem to get them back. I've used the

"View" menu as well as the little "Tools" drop-down button to no avail

-- I just click and nothing happens. I can get the Progress Window to

disappear and reappear, but none of the others. Needless to say this

slows down my scanning a bit.

 

Anyone have similar problems? Anyone have any suggestions?

 

Thanks!

Martin

Thanks for the review, Carl.

 

Do you (or anyone) have an idea how the 5000 compares to the Coolscan V? As far as I can tell, the only real differences are 14 vs. 16 A/D converter, no multi-scanning, and longer scanning time. Oh, and the Coolscan V is half the price. . . . I assume that otherwise the quality is going to be the same?

 

Were any of these deciding factors of the 5000 over the V for you?

 

Martin

I use Singh-Ray (no experience with other brands), and am very happy with them. But the general concensus seems to be that yes, you will notice a difference between the Cokin and other more expensive filters.

 

Martin

I've used the Canon 500D on a Nikon 80-200/2.8 with excellent results. In direct comparisons with a Tamron 90mm macro (a very good lens), the results were nearly identical. And John Shaw mentions (in his book Nature Photography) that close-up filters with a zoom lens are one of the EASIEST ways to work.

 

Martin

I've traveled in the US several times with this exact combination as carry-on (since Sept. 11), and had no trouble -- nobody even looked twice.

 

Martin

<p>I was always disappointed with how my photos looked on the web (on various makes and models of computers)--until I started converting my images from Adobe RGB (1998) to sRGB in the last step of making a "web image." I can't tell any difference when converting the image in Photoshop, but man-oh-man is there a difference in IE, Netscape, etc. I would definitely convert to sRGB for web images. Otherwise, I don't bother trying to predict how the viewer's monitor is going to be calibrated, since there's so much variation out there.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p><a href="http://www.martinbeebee.com"www.martinbeebee.com">www.martinbeebee.com</a></p>

I use one on my Nikon F100, and won't leave home without it, so-to-speak. I find it very useful for cutting out stray light from the side, and giving me a less-distracting view of the image. (I don't wear eyeglasses.) The one for the F100, at least, can be a bit of a hassel when changing film, however, because you have to hold it out of the way when closing the camera back, but it hasn't been that big of a deal. An eyecup would be cheap enough to just pick one up and try it out--this is going to be one of those "personal judgement" things.

 

Martin

<p>Hi Bob,</p>

<p>Have you checked out <a href="www.cnet.com">www.cnet.com?</a> I'm not sure how detailed you're looking for, but they have basic reviews. Try this this link:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/Storage/2001-3185_7-0.html?tag=cnetfd.dir">http://reviews.cnet.com/Storage/2001-3185_7-0.html?tag=cnetfd.dir</a></p>

 

Martin

I third A&I. I used Fuji for quite a while but finally got tired of the long turn-around time and random scratches. And then their new mailers have a disclaimer stating quite clearly that they are NOT a professional processing service. Nothing like inspiring confidence, eh? A&I is a little more expensive, but they do great work and have a reasonably quick turn-around.

I agree with the above posts: If you're going to shoot macros seriously, you should look into a macro lens. I have the Tamron 90mm f2.8, and it's a really nice lens. Since I only shoot macros occasionally, though, and I try to cut down the amount of gear I carry around, I recently outfitted my 80-200 f2.8 with a Canon 500D close-up lens, and am really happy with the results, frankly not noticing much difference in direct comparisons with the Tamron. The nice thing about the zoom is that it also gives you more focal lengths, which can be useful for varying the background (because of the different angles of view).

I've been using this lens since May, and really like it. The images are nice and sharp, and the focus is really quiet and really fast. There seems to be a bit more distortion at the 24mm end compared to my 24mm and 18-35mm, but not too noticeable unless you shoot buildings or other shots with lots of straight lines at the edges (I shoot primarily landscapes, so it's not an issue for me). Unless you shoot in low light a lot (with relatively slow film), or buildings and such, you should like this lens.

 

Martin

Don't you lose the focus/spot meter indicators with the E screen?

Hi Gordon,

The Hill and Wolfe book matches almost perfectly your description of what you're looking for. It goes through many of the basic compositional elements (form, color, line, etc.), and doesn't spend too much time on the technical. I really enjoy this book.

 

Of the others you mention, the only one I'm familiar with is that by Freeman Patterson, which is a bit more "meditative," and contains lots of little assignments for getting yourself to be more creative and break out of ruts. A great book, but it may not be exactly what you're looking for.

 

Martin

Okay, to get back to the original post and away from the cynical "whatever he says doesn't matter because I didn't get mine for free":

 

http://www.photofocus.com/zine7/shaw.html

Hi Douglas,

 

I use the Nikon 18-35 with Singh-Ray ND Grads in a Cokin P holder with all but the inside slots cut off--just like you describe. I haven't experienced any vignetting at 18mm.

 

Martin

Thanks, guys--that was it. I was comparing focal lengths at close range in my home office. Outside, at distances close to infinity, the focal lengths matched perfectly (at least as far as I could tell). So the discrepency appears to be an issue only at close range, at which point the 85mm setting isn't quite 85mm. Perhaps--as Bruce mentioned--because of the internal focusing.

 

Thanks again,

 

Martin

Hi Everyone,

 

I just received a Nikon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G from B&H. Seems like a great

lens. Then I noticed my intuition about focal lengths conflicting

with the numbers on the lens barrel, and some testing confirmed it.

At the wide end (24-35mm), everything appears fine: the field of view

for the 24mm setting corresponds to that of a 24mm prime (Nikon 24mm

f/2.8), and the 35mm setting corresponds to that of the Nikon 18-35

f/3.5-4.5. But things get off from there. The 50mm setting is a bit

wider than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8, and the 85 mm setting is no where

near 85mm: tested against the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 set at 80mm, the

85mm setting is still wider�-perhaps corresponding to ~70mm. (All

tests were done on an F100, if anyone cares.) I�m afraid I don�t live

in an area in which I can pop down to the camera store and try out a

few others.

 

Questions: Can anyone who owns the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G confirm

these tests for me? Is this how these lenses are, or is this somehow

a �bad sample� that I need to send back?

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Martin

Hi Eric,

 

The East Bay, especially around Mt. Diablo and all those windmills, has one of the largest concentrations of golden eagles around. I'm not sure how accessible a lot of that area is, though. . . .

 

Good Luck,

 

Martin

I usually just use my self-timer. This technique falls short when timing the shot is critical, but that hasn't caused too many problems for me.

 

Martin

Hi Tim,

 

I use this exact combination with an "L-bracket" from Really Right Stuff to mount the camera on a Kirk BH-1. (I don't think you stand much of a chance without the L-bracket for this combo.) I get excellent results, but the tripod coller version of this lens would be the better option, both for stability and ease of positioning--I feel this overall camera/lens combo is probably about the max for this tripod, though, and certainly wouldn't go any heavier than this.

 

Martin

Hi Peter,

 

I've been very happy with Dreamweaver for my website. I built the site myself with no experience, training, or html background. Of course, I have all those things now (at least to a limited degree), but didn't when I started. I've stayed away from flashy gizmos (because I think they're too distracting etc.), but for a basic site, I have found that Dreamweaver works well.

 

Good Luck,

Martin

Hi Mark,

Absolutely. I actually take far more shots of fungi and plants than I do of birds and other wildlife. My tripod is set up without a center column, and the legs can splay out 90 degrees, allowing me to take the camera almost to ground level--lying on your belly is the only option here for looking through the viewfinder!

 

As long as people are directing you to their pictures: If you're interested, you can see a few of my mushroom/fungi shots here:

 

www.martinbeebee.com/gallery_mf.htm

 

As for flora, I don't have many close-ups scanned yet, but:

 

www.martinbeebee.com/gallery_wp.htm

 

Martin

I've been to both, and loved both. But in my opinion Banff and Jasper beat Olympic for sheer spectacular beauty that seems to go on and on and on . . . . On the down side, when I was there (early August a couple of years ago), Banff and Jasper had a higher ratio of RVs and bus tours, with some of the more popular trails and overlooks feeling like Dinseyland. Overall, though, it might just be the right combination of landscapes and animals you're looking for; you might see some elk in Olympic, but you won't see any grizzlies.