darrellm

<p>I like <a href="http://mpixpro.com/Catalog.aspx/dvdcase">Mpix</a> and have used them for some time.</p>

<p>Katrin, my best advice to you is to contact photo.net and beg them to have this entire article removed.</p>

<p>Funny that Edward mentioned it - I was going to say Nikon FG20. It is one of the most acurate and reliable camera I've ever had, since the 80's. Unfortunately, I gave mine to my nephew while he's taking photography class in high school. It's one of my favorite all around shooter camera.</p>

Thank you all for your insight and great advice. I appreciate everyone's comments - Thank you.

 

Now, on to learning...

this is another image taken with window about 5ft to left of camera..even images taken in lobbt with no window were very red. i do change wb setting to match lighting..also like I said more of the problem is why do the images look good in camera and then turn out like the ones above after being loaded into photoshop?? They do not look red or underexposed in camera.<div></div>

This image was taken under almost same conditions and settings only with the 50mm.

While shooting with my nikon d40x 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lense my pics look great in

camera (correct exposure, color, sharpness etc.) Then when I load them to

photoshop they look way too dark and red and sometimes not as sharp. The skin

tones hardly ever look good. I played around with different settings and use

manual and nonflash modes. I would get excellent pics in same lighting

situations from my old manual camera (nikon fg20) with no flash..yet this

digital camera seems to make horrid looking pics??? What am I doing wrong?

 

Just a note I did buy another lense a 50mm 1.8 and when I use it with the nikon

d40x it takes nice clean clear looking pics that DO look the same in camera and

in photoshop. I don't have to color correct. How could it be that the lense

that came with the camera (18-55mm) makes pics come out red and dark and the

other lense does a great job?<div></div>

It looks as though both the 285HV and Metz 60CT-1 worked just fine either connected to a safe sync or wireless. Here's an image done recently of a local band using the Metz with a flash card.

Thanks James. I did exactly that before but wasn't sure if it's alright to enlarge the image that way. However, I didn't see a difference in the image as far as blur. I guess as what JC says below - if done in excess it creates a blurry effect. And I've also tried the way JC did it. What is the difference between the two? Both achieved the same thing...

 

And Ellis, thanks for the math lesson ;)

It does matter to me because if I'm using their Photoshop template and they have to go in there and fix stuff after me I will get charged for it.

 

Thanks...

I have a Nikon D40X and when I set the image size to the highest (L) setting I

get 3872x2592. However, when I download it into Photoshop the same image size

only gets me approximately 8x12 inches at 300 dpi.

 

My question is, how do I get a 12x18 in. image and keep it at 300 dpi? Or does

it matter if it's less than 300? If I uncheck the "resample image", which is

set on bicubic and resize to 12x17 it changes the dpi to 216.

 

What's the best way to get a decent image at least 12x17 inches. I would like to

do a book that's 8x8 in. and I'd like to be able to spread the image over two

pages if I wanted to.

 

I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.

I have a question on the subject as well... I have mine set up on JPG FINE, however when I send it to Photoshop the image is only at about 8x12 at 300 dpi. How do you make the images bigger?

 

I'd like to shoot RAW, but feel that having to purchase another software to convert NEF to JPG is kind of a ripp off on Nikon's part. So I'm pretty much stuck with JPG.

Thank you everyone for the helpful advice and knowledge. I'll give it all a try.

I have a D40x and an older Vivitar 285hv. Can someone explain to me what I need

to use these two together? In other words, what is the safest way I can use the

285HV on my D40X. I also have a Metz 60CT-1 that I would like to use. Any

advice as in off camera as well as using a Wizard or something similar set up.

Thank you in advance.

No one seems to know the scan density range for this scanner. I've heard someone say around 3.3-3.8. If you do a search in the forum you might find it. Regardless, I'm selling my 8600F and decided on a Nikon instead. Look for it in the classifieds by the end of the week. I've only used it to run a roll of 35mm and a roll of 120.

Thank you, Norm. I did receive my scanner in the mail last week and have so far scanned 6x6, 35mm both color and black and white. You are absolutely right about the results, it does have a bit of softness about them. I know I used a Ilford HP5 for some of the 35mm bw but, comparing with my older Epson 2400, I find the Epson had better sharpness and clarity. I'm beginning to think that perhaps the Canon software have something to do with it. I'm waiting for Mr. Hamrick to get back with me on the news with Vuescan. I downloaded a version but the Canoscan 8600F was not included in the scanner list yet. I'll see how it goes when I get the news.

 

For now, I'm thinking that my Epson isn't ready to retire yet. It's been a very good scanner. But I'm willing to give the Canon another chance to prove itself.

Three days after this shot these trees were cut down.<div></div>

Hey Randy, why not use iphoto. You can create a slideshow and add music from itunes and save it a quicktime. You can burn it on dvd by using Toast 6.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Thanks Doug. For the price I think it's a pretty good scanner myself. I'd prefer one that can scan 4x5 but, you're right, for the price range I just don't shoot enough 4x5s to upgrade at the moment. I can still go to my local photo lab and have them scan it if I really need one. Thanks again, for your helpful comments.

Hi - can anyone share any experiences with the Canoscan 8600F flatbed film

scanner? I'm looking for personal experiences, possibly.

 

I recently have a Epson 2400 with the attachment (4x5, 120, 35mm) that didn't

come originally but was purchased later at Epson.

 

I was looking for something that could scan strips of film rather than single

frames at a time and possibly have an aftermarket film holder that would scan

4x5. Although, not that important on the 4x5 but nice to have. The Canon seems

to be a good choice at the moment but haven't seen the attachments.

 

Thanks.

You can use folderblog.org - a php script you can upload to your own site. It's actually one of the most flexible ones out there. There is a bit of a learning curve, hopefully the forum can help you out.

 

Good luck,

 

dm

Hi Jared,

 

First of all, your gallery is not showing up on any of my browsers. Is it because you haven't uploaded it? I'm on a Mac OS.

 

On your Simple Viewer, the only workaround to this is if you go to Photoshop (or whatever software you use that can do this) with your originals and individually resize all your images to something like 75 pixels (I just followed the default) and save them for web. Make sure that all images are "non-progressive". Make sure on both original and thumb images that the size is the same as the dimension on simpleviewer. Otherwise, you can change the dimension. If you don't your images will look jagged.

 

You can view my simple site using Simple Viewer: www.darrellmankin.org

 

If you need help, email me - I'd be glad to.

 

Regards,

 

Darrell