dsc

Hi Scott,

Your plan for the church sounds good, especially if the officiating Pastor is ok with flash. You might also want to do a WB with the expodisc and take some existing light shots to see how you like them too.

My shoot went pretty well, but I spent a lot of time with Capture One LE tweaking, and some of the skintones are still a little off. Here's the job if you want to take a peak: http://www.thelionsden.ca/dqstudios/seac/jackylauordination/index.htm

"I'm curious about one point you mention: "you don't have to switch back to AWB every time you shoot thru the expodisc". Do you mean custom balance?"

Yes. The expodisc manual says that you should switch the camera back to AWB mode every time you shoot a white frame with the expodisc. This is not necessary on the 10D which is clearly stated in its manual (i.e. WB picture can be shot in *any* WB setting). Saves tonnes of time. Hope it's the same on the D30.

All the best on your shoot, and let me know how it turns out.

Best,

Hi Scott,

picked 2 up 2 weeks ago. Had an engagement shoot this past Friday which I used it on and love the it. I use it for white balance, and it gives me the best skintones that I've seen on my 10D (and they were already really good with AWB). The consistency is wonderful, and editing is a breeze when you don't have to worry about white balance.

Had a shoot in a church which it couldn't lick, but that was horrible lighting: sodium vapour overhead, stage lights on stage, and flourescent lights around the room. Yikes! Tried using the expodisc straight at the overhead lights, angled btw 2 lights, and from the stage to my shooting point. Nothing worked consistently, but this was some of the worst lighting I've encountered.

Anyways, I'm glad I bought it, and will be using it for all future weddings. It takes a bit more time to use, but saves *much* more time in post process that I won't be shooting without it.

BTW: Unlike the manual states, if you're using a 10D, you don't have to switch back to AWB every time you shoot thru the expodisc. This saves a bunch of time during a shoot.

Best,

Check DPReview. Someone else had the same "problem" which it is not. Chuck from Canon Tech responded to it.

Best,

Hi Bob,

just picked up the 16-35L and I think we've got a focusing problem with both our 10D's. We also have the 28-70L and 70-200IS L and both of those lenses focus fine. We've only shot one wedding with it so far, but don't trust the wide anymore <doh!> Sure hope we don't have to send BOTH cams and the lens in for alignment!!

Anyone know if Canon needs both the body and lens for a fix?

Thanks in advance!

Best,

Hi Ellis,

great scanner for the price, BUT, as others note, dust is a major pain. If you're doing any serious volume of scanning, I would seriously consider a scanner with IR dust removal, as it will most *definitely* save you lots of hours in dust removal. I was planning to use mine to scan all our wedding client negs (printing on our Epson 2200), but became pretty disillusioned while making our portfolio album. We've since gone digital (10D's) and love the clean files we're getting. Can you tell I hate dusty negs? :)

Best,

Yakim,

you will not be disappointed with this lens. It is our favorite lens (wedding photography), and handles flare very well (we always use the lens hood). I've seen worse flare with the 85 1.4, but without the lense hood.

Expensive, heavy, and worth every penny.

Best,

Forgot ANOTHER thing <geesh: must be too early on a Sunday!>

Noise is very very low on the 10D. Yes, the Elan 7 is a very quiet cam, but the 10D is equal if not better.

Forgot to add: I shoot with the 550EX, so low light is not a problem. I tried shooting some pics of my baby son sleeping one night, with only the nightlight on in the other corner of the room. Needless to say, focusing without the flash was useless.

Like many others, I'd suggest using the AF assist of the 420 or 550.

Hi Nicholas,

I've just received my 10D on Wednesday, and have been putting it through some paces. I too shoot weddings with the Elan 7, but will go digital this year <film scanning is such a pain>. It may be psychological, but the AF on the 10D seems to be a bit faster and more sure than the 7. Shots at 1600ISO also blew my socks off! I usually shoot NPH at 320, so it'll be nice to even shoot at a true 800ISO rating. The body is *much* more solid than the Elan: I was always worried when I mounted my 70-200L IS on it since the body would noticably flex. The magnesium shell of the 10D is solid. It's a much thicker camera, but feels really good in the hands. So far, I'm in love. I've yet to shoot a paying gig on it, but hope that it will delivery what I think it will.

Best,

Scott: did you buy your 2200 yet? Now I'm relying on poor Peter to figure out this Metamerism mess! <No offence Peter ;)>

:):):)

ACDSee 5.0 at $50US. Should do everything you mentioned save one exception: there will be one extra step to resizing your image down for the web. However, this is minor as ACDSee will do this as well (just not automagically).

DPReview just posted a full review of this latest edition. I'd suggest downloading the free 30 day trial: they send you promos via email on a weekly basis and include one of their software add-ons free with purchase.

Best,

Hi Joel,

I'm in the same boat: unbelievable color prints, but far less satisfactory B&W. I've tried Luminous landscape's recommendations for printing as well as their Photorealistic method, with little improvement. I've also tried the Grey Balancer software with Kodak targets, and didn't like the results at all ... a waste of time for me.

I've just received Profile Prism this past week, and have been madly profiling all my paper and ink combos. So far, it has given me even better color results than either the ICM or Epson PIM profiles (BTW: Bill Atkinson's 7600/9600 profiles were not useful to me at all: poor contrast and color accuracy with my 2200. Can't see how some people claim it gives them good results. George Lepp's were ok, but no better than the ICM method with my printer). B&W seem to be *much* more neutral, but not *totally* void of tints. I was previously seeing a strong green cast to all my B&W prints, which is mostly removed with my new profiles. I've only tested Luster paper, however, and would like to test the Matte ink on other papers as well, so this is a work in progress.

At this point, I'm pretty desperate to get good B&W from this printer, but don't want to invest in PowerRIP 5.0 @ $500US. I hope it doesn't come down to that. I'm excited by my preliminary results with Profile Prism, but have my doubts that any software can remove color casts and metamerism completely ... Hopefully I'm wrong.

I suspect Peter Nelson will chime in with his thoughts as well. It's been quite the quest to solve this problem, but I'm not selling my darkroom equipment any time soon ;)

BTW: if anyone is interested, I would be willing to email my profiles ... would be interesting to see if they work on other 2200's as well as mine.

Best,

Is is normal. I use my hand to cover the area from which the sun is aimed at the lens ... after seeing my hand in the pic alot, I think I've finally gotten the hang of it :)

Enjoy the optic ... it's amazing.

Best,

The 2200/7600/9600 will give you *great* color prints. If you're thinking of B&W, however, you might be in for a bit of disappointment.

I've been trying to figure out how to avoid any color tints in my B&W prints on my 2200, and have almost given in to purchasing ImagePrint RIP 5.0. From all reports, it seems as if they've licked the metamerism issue and totally neutralized the B&W prints ... the Holy Grail if it's true. Unfortunately, IP 5.0 is quite the expensive piece of software ($500-2000), so I'm still grappling with the choice of purchasing it, or living in futility printing B&W so-so prints that I would not feel comfortable selling or displaying <sigh>

Be sure to be Rich before Famous with the cost of the printer, consumables AND a RIP.

Best,

Hi Jeff,

I've had 16x20 B&W's printed on the 96000, from XP2 scanned on a Nikon Coolscan 4000. My shot was somewhat blurred to begin with (dancing couple in twirl), so I can't comment as to resolution. The sepia you see is, however, seemingly from a bad print.

I own the 2200, and can't figure out how the local shop with the 9600 printed my B&W on matte paper with *no* color shifts. I understand they use the UC inks, but I can't get my prints anywhere near neutral, and they did an excellent job. I should note that the guys running the machine don't seem especially skilled, shall we say; fresh out of the local college, with no idea what Color Space to use. I'm frankly quite surprised by the quality, and their prints (both color and B&W) is one reason which encouraged me to purchase the 2200. Their B&W print also seems void of metamerism issues that plague my 2200. Too bad I haven't figured it out yet ... Scott: have you bought your 2200 yet? I'm still waiting for your advice! :):):)

On the other hand, I'm not sure if they're using a 3rd party RIP or the original Epson drivers, but know they are printing from Photoshop 7.0.

I'd suggest trying another lab with the 9600 if you have that option. I've only printed the one print in B&W, but am sure I'm going back to print my other work which I couldn't do in my darkroom.

Best,

Hi Peter,

here's the link: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/ then click on "Talkshop" in the left margin. That should bring you to the Grey balancer tutorial using the standard Kodak Gray Scale (CAT 152 7654).

I've tried it, and am frankly still annoyed at the metamerism issues and green tint in my B&W's.

From a tip in the last thread on this issue, I've just ordered Profile Prism, in the hopes of getting better B&W from the 2200. Has anyone else used this software on this printer?

Hope that helps.

Best,

Hi Tim,

thanks for the update. I might just have to pick up some Ilford paper to try it out.

As for bronzing: yes, I found it distracting too, but have found a solution which suits my needs very well. I use Epson Premium Luster, and have all my prints cold laminated in a luster finish. This works *extremely* well, and completely removes the bronzing effect. As a bonus: when the paper is viewed at an angle, it seems as if there is some traces of gold in the paper in the stipples of the surface! Very nice indeed.

I should note that I am primarily a wedding photographer, who also has some prints up in a local cafe, so fine art and gallery selling is not my forte, so take the above with a grain of salt.

Hope it is of help.

Best,

Hi Jim,

guess I'm just not trusting of the technology ;) But thanks for the clarification.

Best,

Hi Richard.

The 7e doesn't prewind to your last exposed frame (at least my 7e doesn't :)). It's a dummy system: you have to do the math and remember which frame you were on. I just mark the canister with the last frame shot before rewinding with the leader out. When reloading the same roll, I put a lenscap on and shoot at the fastest shutter speed and smallest aperture till the counter goes 1 or 2 frames past the last exposed one.

Best,

Hi Scott,

for purely selfish reasons, I think you should purchase an Epson 2200 ... I did 2 weeks ago and am aMAZed at the color print quality: knocks my old 870 out of the room (on Epson Premium Luster).

B&W is the problem. I'd love to learn from you how to get decent B&W's out of the standard Epson inkset ... I'm getting *very* annoying metamerism problems.

Oh yeah: in respons to the question: Premium Luster all the way!

Best,

Hi Jake,

I just got several prints from my 2200 and 9600 professionally drymounted and framed. All prints were on matte paper which was first cold-laminated with a luster finish. The color and B&W prints came out beautifully, and I don't need glass to cover the prints (much better in my case, since I'll be carting them around to various bridal shows etc).

As suggested above, drymounting the prints reduce your future options with the print, but with digital, you could just print another. I don't know how "archival" these prints will be, but I doubt that the drymounting will deteriorate before the inks (even the ultrachrome inks) or paper (changed the name from "Archival" Matte to "Enhanced" Matte for a reason) start to shift. Hopefully the cold-laminate will decrease the effects of light and gas.

Best,

Hi Scott,

I too love the look and "feel" of Epson's Premium Lustre (I mostly print portraits). I am using the Photo 870 with dye inks with great success. Are you reluctant to use dye + Premium Lustre due to its lack of archival stability, or are the results you are getting not esthetically satisfactory?

Just curious, as I respect your opionion on all film and paper matters.

Best,

Hi Patrick,

I'm by no means an Epson printing expert, but I'll try to help.

First I'd max out your printing resolution to 1440. It will make a huge difference to your final print. As far as color accuracy is concerned, I'd recommend calibrating your monitor first, then dealing the printer.

My Epson 870 doesn't print well with the included ICC profile, so I print without the ICC profiles (Output), and set the Advanced tab to ICM. It works better for me than setting the printing ICC to "Same as Workspace" or whatever. YMMV. It's pretty much an art to get your prints to match your monitor *exactly*, but with a little bit of fiddling, you can get close.

Best,

Hi Diego,

I use the 190 with 352RC head for my Hasselblad and Canon systems. I also pondered the 055, but found it too bulky to carry around for the weddings we shoot. The 190 will easily handle the weight, and though others may think me foolish to use such an inexpensive head with my setup, it works fine with my Canon 70-200L IS with 2x teleconverter.

FWIW, the head began to slip after about 4 years of heavy use. All I had to do was take it apart, clean it and adjust a tensioning screw. Now it's much tighter than even a new one, and it holds my gear much better. I'm still lusting after a Kirk or similar ballhead with QR, but can't justify it since my setup is serving me so well.

Best regards

550EX for sure. For wedding photography, you'll also love the fact that the 550 will let you fire another flash even if the flash hasn't had a chance to recycle to a full charge. Granted, it won't give you full output, but most likely the results will be useable.

Be blessed.