bgelfand

To get a low-ball figure on the worth of the lenses if you were to sell them, I went to KEH site and entered each on the "Sell" quote page. I entered both as having lens caps and in "Excellent" condition. KEH quoted: the 70-300 at $149 the 28-300 at $365 It would seem the market values the 28-300 at well over twice as much as the 70-300. BTW they quote $463.66 to sell you the 28-300 in "Bargain" condition. (They do not have an Excellent Condition lens in stock) The 70-300 in Bargain condition would cost you a whopping $61.08, over $400 less than the 28-300. So...

The Bronica with the Nikkor was a great combination. I liked mine.

One quick question. What remote are you using? Make and model, please.

Not quite a layover. In March 1989 I was returning from a ski vacation in France and Switzerland. I had taken the trains from St Moritz to Paris the night before and was waiting for my flight from Paris to Toronto and then on to San Francisco. All of a sudden, these three French Police officers raced in laden with equipment which they began to unpack and dress one of their number in a bomb disposal suit. It seems someone had abandoned a package near the gate of a Middle Eastern Airline. I, of course, decided it was the perfect time to grab a few candid pictures with my trusty Nikon FTn loaded with Kodak Gold 100 and, of course no flash. The French Police disagreed and shook a stern finger at me. I smiled and pointed to the nearby pretty gate agent and got a nod. So, I snapped a picture of her. I noticed the spool of wire that they had unloaded and a box for firing electrical blasting caps. Oh, they intend to "blow it in place". At that point I decided to put a good solid wall between me and them. A few minutes later there was a loud sound of a police whistle followed by a BANG. When I returned, there were small pieces of the cardboard package and its contents of books and VCR tapes scattered about. An interesting end to my European vacation. Camera: Nikon FTn, Lens: Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 (manual focus of course), Film: Kodak Gold 100. Scanner: Nikon CoolScan V. I am quite happy with the results taken indoors under mixed lighting and the fact the negatives are over 30-years old.

It sounds as though you D800 thinks it is in "Time" exposure mode rather than "Bulb" mode. The problem is, according to the D800 manual, the D800 does not have a Time exposure mode. The most obvious causes are: 1) The camera is malfunctioning. 2) The third-party electronic release is malfunctioning. 3) You are misinterpreting when the exposure actually ends and pressing and releasing the remote a second time actually takes another, brief, Bulb exposure since you simply press and release the button on the remote. To see when the shutter actually opens and closes, remove the lens, look in the camera mount and take a Bulb exposure. You should see the shutter open when you press the button on the remote and close when you release it. As for your original problem of all exposures seem to be at 1/3, how did you determine the exposure time was 1/3 sec? Was it from the EXIF data? If so, I suspect the EXIF data is in error. For normal exposures, the time in the EXIF data is the time for which the camera is set; there is no separate timer to time how long the shutter is actually opened. I suspect that for Bulb, the firmware simply inserts 1/3 sec, although I cannot find a reference to this in any manuals. You might listen carefully for the sound of the shutter opening and closing and time this on a watch or wall clock, then compare it to the EXIF data.

Taken in Elk Grove, CA 17 June 2009 @ 5:08 PM Canon PowerShot Pro1 1/640 sec, f/4.0, ISO 100 Please view full-size

Here is another Do It Yourself project this time a macro lens. LINK Macro Photography with a $20 3D Printed Microscope Lens | PetaPixel Well, the DIY part is a holder for a microscope eyepiece which is purchased. The handheld images posted are nothing to write home about, but coupled with a sturdy tripod or the DIY stand I posted in a previous message, it might hold some promise. LINK A Stand for Macro Photography | Photo.net Photography Forums

Was this taken with the Z9?

For locking the aperture ring at the smallest aperture (largest number) so it will work with electronic cameras like your N90s. Flip the switch off and you can use the aperture ring on the lens to set the f-stop manually, but it will not work well with cameras like your N90s, my F100, and most digital bodies.

As Shun wrote, be sure the Multi Selector is unlocked. Next be sure Single -point AF mode is selected, press the AF-mode button and rotate the sub-command dial (front dial). To center the focus point, press the OK button in the middle ot the Multi Selector (see pages 95 and 96 of the English version of D7000 manual).

I must disagree with you. With film it takes work in the darkroom to produce good images, both in developing the films and making the print, as well as good work behind the camera. Ansel Adams devoted a book to "The Print" as did Tim Rudman with "The Photographer's Master Printing Course". To paraphrase Adams comparing photography to music, "The negative is the score; the print is the performance." If you are ever in Tucson, AZ go to the University of Arizona Art Department. They have a large collection of Adam's negative and prints as well as many of his darkroom notes.

An interesting DIY article about building a stand for macro photography. LINK How to Build a DIY T-Rex Stand for Macro Photography | PetaPixel

You are correct; for display outside Lightroom, I must render the image. Render means apply all the edits to the image in memory and then generate an appropriate file - usually JPEG or perhaps PNG for display or TIFF for external printing. What is thew advantage? The advantage is I have an untouched base file and a set of instructions. If I want to make a different edit of the file, Lightroom simply opens another container for the instructions, leaving the original base file untouched and my original edit instructions intact. An example. Let us say want to make a Black and White version of a color image I have been working on. I tell Lightroom to make a virtual copy. If I want the Black and White based on the image as I have edited, Lightroom copies the edit instructions to another container and that is my starting point. The instruction to convert to Black and White and subsequent edit instructions to the Black and White image are recorded in that container. While the changed pixels are displayed on the screen, only the instructions are recorded, not the changed pixels themselves. Very little data being written to disk. If I want to go back and look at the color version, no problem. I simply open the original version and there it is my original edit. Lightroom simply opens the container of instructions for my original edit and applies them to the SAME base that is common to both images. In a bit level editor, I would need two complete base files and the changed pixels themselves recorded to two separate files.

There is no reason resaving a TIFF file should be destructive. TIFF usually uses a lossless compression scheme like LZW or a variation of ZIP. On the other hand, the editing process may be a bit level edit such as a Photoshop edit, which does change the file as the edit is made. But if you use layers (TIFF is capable of saving layers) even that would be nondestructive. Lightroom, of course, uses parametric editing (in effect it saves the edit commands rather than making changes to the file and then applies these commands when the image is rendered).

If the SSD is still functional, use the manufacturer's utility software to perform a "Secure Erase" This instructs the drive to set every bit to 1's which, because it is NAND memory, read out as zeros. Then repurpose or sell/donate the drive. Certain government agencies or research labs might be able to recover data from the drive, but normal data recovery services cannot. If the SSD is not functional, beat it with a heavy hammer breaking the chips in the drive. Then throw the broken chips in the garbage. For HDD I take them apart. There are usually only five screws to open the case, one in each corner and one hidden under the label which acts as the anti-disturbance indicator that invalidates the warranty if it is removed. Open the case, remove the many screws holding the platters to the drive hub, and remove the platters. They make wonderful coasters for glasses and cups. My coffee mug is sitting on one now on my desk. Remove the head assembly and put it in recycle. There are no solder connections; everything is crimped, so no lead. Pry the magnets lose from the case. You now have two powerful magnets which have many uses from FIRMLY holding items to the side of the refrigerator to finding small magnetic parts dropped on shag carpet. Discard the small circuit board. Recycle the metal case.

Great capture. You nailed it, and with a telephoto lens no less.

If a deal looks too good to be true, it usually is. Or as Robert Heinlein wrote, TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Why do we make backups? To be able to retrieve otherwise irreplaceable data in case it is destroyed. The one property backup media MUST have is reliability. If you need your backups, it is because the primary data is unreadable. At that point the backup media must be reliable and readable. I realize you said you take multiple backups. Although this is a good practice, it is far from foolproof, especially if you are backing up large datasets to questionable media. An example. Suppose you are taking a System Image of your boot drive. (My boot image is about 125 GB. Let's use that as an example) Your boot drive fails. No problem you have your System Image backup and multiple copies of it on separate media. You replace the failed System Drive, boot your stand-lone recovery software, point it at one of your backup drives and begin the restore. 25 GB into the restore, the restore fails due to a data error on your backup drive. You start the restore again and use another copy of the backup on another drive. This time the restore runs for 55 GB and again fails due to a data error on the second drive. You try again with the third drive; this time it fails at 120 GB. That was your last copy You are now SOL - Sorry, Out of Luck. Invest in decent hardware. Otherwise, you are just fooling yourself thinking you have a backup. About ten or so years ago, BH had a sale on 32 GB Kingston flash drives. I believe the price was $10 per drive, a real bargain at the time. I bought four drives. What could go wrong? BH is a reputable vendor and Kingston is a well-respected manufacturer. I copied some data to the drives. They were a bit slow, but acceptable. All four of those drives failed when I tried to read the data a few days later. Since the data was financial data, I took a five pound hammer to the drives insure no data could ever be recovered and consigned them to the garbage can. I wrote a bad product review on the BH site, and I have never bought a Kingston product since. Lesson learned. Another point in your post that I think is a bad choice. Never leave your external backup drives connected to your computer unless you are accessing them for backup or restore. If your backup drive is connected, that data is vulnerable to destruction through user error, malware, or even electrical problems (think lightning strike or the like). I have yet to see malware that can beat air gap. For copying files to backup media, I use Microsoft's SyncToy. Unfortunately, Microsoft withdrew the free package this past February. If you know anyone who has the software, perhaps they will provide a copy; it was a free download from Microsoft. Otherwise, you might look at Robocopy; it is part of the Windows distribution.

Taken 17 June 2009 @ 5:09 PM Canon PowerShot Pro 1 1/640 sec F/4.0 ISO 100 (In Macro Mode) Please View Full-Size

No, they had to wait until the software was distributed; until it had been distributed, there was no infringement and nothing to sue over.

It is "business as usual", but not in the sense you mean it. If you have a patent, but do not assert it and defend it, the patent falls into the public domain. By the way it is the same with trademarks.

Neither RED nor anyone else can patent the concept of compressing raw video. They can patent and others have patented a specific method of compressing data. An example is MP3 which was developed and patented by Fraunhofer. You can read about it here LINK: MP3 - Wikipedia Another example is good old ZIP. LINK: ZIP (file format) - Wikipedia As for the timing, it is hard to claim infringement until an entity actually infringes i.e., Nikon uses the method in a product. It is up to Nikon to do a patent search before including the process in their product.

When I upgraded my computer in December 2019 and tried to install both Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS5, neither would install from the DVD media. I opened a trouble ticket with Adobe Support. Support requested my Serial Numbers, and upon verifying them sent me links to download new installation copies of Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS5. The downloads each were over a gigabyte long. They software installed without any problems. I backed up each of the files to separate DVD media and added them to both my onsite and offsite backups. When I re-installed Windows earlier this year, both Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS5 installed from those files without any problems.

This should keep the lawyers busy. LINK RED Sues Nikon for Infringing on its Video Compression Patents | PetaPixel

Having the negative in the scanner with the wrong side down will be very apparent if there is any writing in the image - store signs, license plates, etc. The wiring will appear backward. Also right-handed people will suddenly be "southpaws". The instructions for my Epson V600, a flatbed scanner, say place the shiny base side DOWN. The wording and any wording in the film should appear backward when viewed from above. I assume this would be the same for most flatbed scanners.

First it was an Owl LINK A Great Grey Owl Up Close ... Too Close? | Photo.net Photography Forums Now it is a bear LINK