zelig

<p>I'm in the process of reconverting my NEFs to DNGs (long story) so I can't upload for a comparison quite yet. But in the meantime, let's say the issue is that NX2 was using my in-camera settings, while Photoshop is showing in sRGB. I guess there's no way to get around the slight color shifts and the required editing that come with this conversion, since I'd have to convert to sRGB anyway for uploading to the web. Is that right? Sorry for such a basic question. </p>

<p>Robert</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

For some reason, the colors of NEF and DNG versions of my photos are displaying differently on my monitor (I have to convert to DNG because the version of Photoshop I inherited was "borrowed" and can't display NEF). I can't figure out if my software has something to do with this since I can't view NEF files in Photoshop (see above) and can't view DNG files in View NX2 (which I use for photo organization).</p>

<p>I was told that DNG files, like NEF files, have no inherent color profiles. Yet when I preview a DNG file in, say, Bridge, the metadata mentions RGB as the color mode. What am I missing?</p>

<p>For what it's worth, both NX2 and Photoshop are set to sRGB, as I edit only for the web. My camera is a D610, yet I figured that its color mode didn't matter since the files are RAW.</p>

<p>Any help would be greatly appreciated!And please let me know if I can clarify anything. </p>

<p>Robert</p>

 

Hi,

 

Similar versions of this question have been posted before, but forgive me as I

give it another go.

 

Can anyone recommend a good, cheap, public/rental darkroom in the NYC area?

Thus far, I've heard of PrintSpace (roughly 18/hour...too expensive), the Jewish

Community Center (must be a member), and Latent Image, which seems to have

disappeared. I feel certain that there must be more options out there --

especially in New York. I'm a graduate student at the CUNY Grad Center in

Manhattan and am looking into darkrooms provided through school.

 

When I lived in Rochester, I had access to their Community Darkroom, which was

largely subsidized and stocked by their neighbor, Kodak. Members could print

for $6/HOUR -- CHEMICALS INCLUDED!!! In short, I'm spoiled.

 

Anyhow, suggestions and recommendations would be GREATLY appreciated.

 

Robert

Oh...one more thing...

 

It occurred to me that much of his work might be done with paper negatives, like the Parke-Harrison's use. Thoughts?

Hi

 

I recently came across the work of Japanese photographer Masao

Yamamoto and was wondering if anyone had any insight into his

technique. What equiptment does he use? Film? Filters, etc.?

 

Take a look here: http://homepage2.nifty.com/yamamoto-masao/e_index.html

 

Thanks,

Robert

Does anyone know anything about the cameras on NASA's current Mars

rovers? It's painfully hard to believe that a robot slammed down

onto a planet millions of miles away can still take such great photos

when I can't even remember to close my lens before removing my

darkslides....

 

I think NASA's next step should be to make a rover that can load its

own sheet film and use the zone system, all while keeping things free

of that pesky red martian dust. Hear my challenge, NASA!

..if I might add a tag to the question...

 

Why to most prefer Tmax 400 over Tmax 100? Especially for large format? Just curious...

Thanks for the responses. I was under the impression that the frames cost $20 a piece vs. $20 for a set of 10 or so. This changes things dramatically.

 

I think I'll take the wide-angle hood back to B&H. It's just too bulky for hiking and probably doesn't do anything a skillfully placed darkslide or baseball cap couldn't do. It also would look really awkward on my 35mm camera.

Hi,

 

I recently decided to make a compromise in buying into the Lee filter

system: I'll use the wide-angle hood and Lee resin grads but use the

cheaper poly black and white filters instead of the resins. It

didn't occur to me until later that each polyester filter also

requires a $20 snap together holder to hold the filter into the

hood. My plan would be ruined if I had to spend another $20 bucks on

every filter. How much trouble is it to use the same snap frame for

every filter vs. buying several? I can already see myself loosing

several to a stiff wind when trying to change them in the field...

 

(to add to my troubles, I don't think the bulky wide-angle hood is

even going to fit in my pack...)

I'm putting together a filter kit for my 4x5 and would love some

opnions on it.

 

I'll be using a Wisner 4x5 Technical Field with three lenses: the

Nikkor 90mm f/8 (67mm ring), 135mm Rodenstrock Sironar-S (49mm ring),

210mm Rodenstock (72mm).

 

I have a rough idea of what I want and it will probably involve the

Lee foundation kit (not the Pro), the 4x6 resin grads, a circular

glass polarizer, and 4x4 resin filters (I know this is expensive; its

the hypothetical answer).

 

Here are my questions:

 

a) would it be a better idea to get the wide-angle hood in place of

the foundation kit? If so, could I use grads and polarizers the same

way

 

b)Is it a real pain to have to screw in the polarizer before

attaching the kit base/hood?

 

c) can you use the wide-angle hood with any lens?

 

I should probably research these more before posting but the research

itself is driving me nuts. I'm getting lazy...

It's taken me about 10 years to finally come to terms with the fact

that fabulous color prints simply cannot be had without paying big

bucks for custom processing and printing. I've been shooting slides

now for awhile and loving the colors, but am still frustrated with

the expenses of converting them over to prints (or scanning them

well, for that matter). I'm interested in finding some middle

ground.

 

I live in New York City and want to find a way to get great color

prints without having to pay to get them custom printed. (I do my own

black and white work but haven't gotten into color yet...) What are

the varying degrees of quality that can be had from mini-labs and/or

machine printing? What should I look/ask for if I want the best

quality just short of having them custom done? Any recommendations

of labs in the NYC area?

Greetings,

 

I just moved to New York City and would love to know of any good

community/public darkrooms in the area. I'm sure there must be a few

here.

 

 

Also, what professional labs are recommended for LF? For reference

and for those of you familiar with the rochester scene, I printed at

the community darkroom and had Praus do my processing. Any

suggestions?

 

 

Robert

Greetings<P>

 

Wondering a couple of things...<P>

 

How are Lee polarizers used in conjunction with the Lee hood? Is

another ring required so that the polarizer can be rotated

independently of the hood?<P>

 

Also: If the non-pro holder can rotate freely (taking all of the

other filters in the holder for a ride), why is it really necessary

to get the Pro kit?

I'm leaving for the Adirondacks in a couple of days for some

relaxation and photo time. Up until now, I've used the Bogen 3039

Super Pro Head (supports 26lbs; weighs 12kg) but it's really too

heavy to carry on long hikes. I'm going to be in NYC this weekend

and was thiking of stopping by B&H to pick up a new head. Can anyone

recommend one for a Wisner 4x5 Technical Field that would be more

reasonable? Since the camera is only about 3kg, a head rated at

26lbs seems completely excessive. What would be a smarter option?

I'll be carrying it on a LowePro Pro Trekker. Thanks.

I recently bought a Nikon F80s and just returned from picking the

first set of prints from the lab. I'm rather dissapointed in them.<P>

 

I've already diagnosed several of the problems, thanks to the

exposure imprinting on the negatives. I guess it's typical for a

person new to fast lenses to think that f1.8 is actually

functional!! But with depth of field concerns aside, I'm a bit

puzzled by the lack of sharpness, saturation, and excessive grain

that occurs in situatioins where depth of field and shutter speed

apparently had no effect.<P>

 

I used Portra 160NC shot at speed and got the prints processed

through a mini-lab, albeit at a pro facility (Q-lab; does this mean

anything?) Having had tons of experience developing my own black and

white negs and prints, the inverse is true for color: I've never had

a custom print done in my life. As a result, I'm unsure what to

blame for color and sharpness that hardly improves upon shots taken

with my cheap Canon lenses. Maybe it's me...<P>

 

Question 1: At what speed do most people shoot 160VC? Setting aside

any errors I might have made in spotmetering, my prints almost

suggest that I should have shot at 200ASA instead of 160.<P>

 

Question2: How much could graininess due ot underexposure be improved

upon by a custom print? Or is this just a fact of life in color

film? (I took a shot of a girl standing in front of dark foliage

with sunlight rimming her face. It was underexposed it to make a more

dramatic picture, although the grain from the dark trees is

unbearable..) Am I just going to have to grin and bare spending $8

per print?<P>

 

Question 3: Looking at some of my pictures made on a beach during a

very sunny, cloudless day--most having been taken directly away from

the sun--I'm beginning to wonder if polarizers and hoods aren't

absolutely essential, regardless of lens coating or build. Is this a

fair assumption?

 

Question 4: I look at Velvia shots like those from Tuan's porfolio

and am amazed at the beautiful, saturated color. Is it safe to

assume that Tuan--and all of you as well--get back 4 drab, imperfect

shots for every zinger that goes in your portfolios?

 

All very general questions, I know. Have at it.

 

rw

I've a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and a 24mm 2.8 that need lens hoods. If I'm

going to be using screw-in polarizers and UV filters, which hoods

would work best? Rubber? Snap-on? The lens boxes advertise the HR-

2 and HN-1 respectively. Shall I trust the box?<P>

 

With my previous Canon system, which used a snap-on hood w/ screw in

filters, the polarizer had to be removed before the hood although it

was incredibly difficult to loosen the polarizer with the hood still

on! Should I just stop whining and get used to it?

sorry....meant to say PRO trekker on the last post...

I'll second Tim's answer. I use the next biggest model--the photo trekker AW--and have had success when the bag isn't packed too tightly. Since yours is a bit smaller, you shouldn't have much trouble.

Thanks!

Pete,<P>

 

I'm at a point with my LF photography that is probably just a step beyond where you are now--I had a powerful eureka moment just a few months ago. It came with the help of articles on <A HREF="http://www.largeformatphotography.info "target=_blank">Tuan's site</A>, specifically the ones on focus and depth of field, and using Harold Bond's procedures that were mentioned above. My advice is simply to be patient and to--as others have suggested--setup very simple situations for the sake of practice. You're going to feel all-powerful once it clicks!

Robert L.,

 

Large-format and 35mm photography are--to me--completely different beasts. One is largely slow and ponderous, the other convenient and versatile. They are different machines for different jobs. Having only manual focus on a 35mm camera is like pedaling a car; it defeats its whole purpose. If I'm shooting a situation that allows me to be slow and ponderous, allowing every shadow to be evaluated and considered, allowing every tree to be checked for convergence, then naturally I'll use large format. If I'm at a public market and want to catch people in alluring candid poses, I'll use the 35mm and its terrific auto focus. The beauty of large format is its purity, not only optically but in process; everything is done from scratch, and all the while in a terrific meditative state. Since it allows so much time for deliberation, the perfect negative becomes the natural goal. Every negative counts.<P>

 

Unfortunately, a drawback of the speed of 35mm and its relatively cheap film is waisted exposures. It becomes too tempting to not think critically and to simply bracket. Yet this is exactly what 35mm is for: being able to record great pictures under any circumstance. And sometimes bracketing is required. Being a LF photographer, however, it's in my blood to cognitize every move.<P>

 

As for the spot meter, using a handheld meter with a 35mm again defeats the camera's purpose. I love using all of my gadgets with my LF camera. But with 35 they simply become cumbersome. However, if I do ever want to pop my 35mm on a tripod and be ponderous, I'll know I have the spot meter on board to be as specific as I want to be.

Ok. I think I've made up my mind. Now to find a cheap F80s. Adorama is listing it for about $450 while B&H has it for about $470. The rebate apparently doesn't apply since it's an import. Should I try and find a cheaper price or is Adorama going to be the best way to go?<P>

Thanks for the great responses so far. I wanted to add that I'd also be appreciative of comments regarding the whole grey market issue with the N80. I want those exposure imprints! Let me hear your opnions.

Hi,

 

I have a dilemma. I've been using a Rebel 2000 with bad lenses for

years now and have decided that it's time to upgrade my equipment.

While most of my photography--and money--have gone into quality large-

format stuff, I'm always asked to do jobs with hte 35mm and my

equipment just isn't doing the trick.<P>

 

As a large-format photographer, I guess I'm somewhat of a purist,

which means that I don't really use excessive program modes, eye-

focusing or other things along this line. However, I am looking for

a considerable upgrade from the Rebel. The cameras that most

obviously fall into this spot--and my price range--are the Elan7 and

the Nikon N80. Here is my dilemma:<P>

 

I'd like to stay with hte Canon system, since I"m used to it and

already have some equipment that I could use w/ the new body, ex.

420ez flash, 75-300 USM lens, hoods and filters. The problem is that

the Elan7 doesn't offer a spotmeter(a dilemma spawned from my large-

format habits) and the canon lens I'd buy (50mm f1.8) doesn't offer a

distance scale. Not to mention extraneous stuff I'd never use, like

eye-focusing. <P>

 

Thus, in order to stay with Canon and get what I need, I'd have to

either bypass the ELAN7 and spend much more money than I'd like to on

an EOS3 (and thus more money on things I won't use) as well as more

money to get the 50mm f1.4 w/ distance scale. The plus is that I'll

still be able to use equipment I already have, like my good zoom, my

flash, etc.<P>

 

The other option is to switch to the Nikon N80 which, at $300 bucks,

offers everything I have in the rebel plus the stuff I want:

spotmetering, exposure imprinting (grey market), distance scales on

all lenses, and no dumb program modes.<P>

 

I could sell all of my Canon stuff for about $400, get a new N80 and

two lenses for about $650 and only lose about $250. OR I could buy a

used EOS3, sell my rebel body, lose a bit more money but stay with a

system I know.<P>

 

It seems as if Canon is really going out of their way to dumb down

the photographic community. The absence of spotmeter and distance

scales just baffles me. Maybe they think people will resultantly

plunk down the extra money for the EOS3, thus making more money.<P>

 

Is it really true that Nikon is the real photographer's camera? I'd

love to hear everyone's comments.

YARR!!!

 

I was just made aware of another negative fact about Canon equipment that just might force me to make the jump to Nikon. Not only do they assume that those buying the "sub-pro" ELAN 7 would be in no need of a spot meter, they assume that anyone buying the cheaper f1.8 lens (vs. the f1.4) would be in no need of distance scales. This is absolutely maddening.<P>

 

It seems to me that Canon is doing more than their fair share to dumb down the amature photographic community by forcing them to rely, through the cheaper cameras they might buy (and in an act of economic discrimination, no less!) on brainless automated devices that prevent one from truly understanding what they're doing. Again, maybe this is the large-format photographer in me speaking out here. But am I wrong?