brian_m2

<p>I feel very stupid. I'm new to Mac and would like to calibrate my Macbook Pro's monitor using the Spyder3Pro. The problem is, I can't figure out how to do it. The Datacolor software asks me to confirm what settings I have - brightness, contrast, and backlight. I am having trouble figuring out how to adjust these and for some reason I cannot find the answers in the online sources. And when I go into the monitor color profiling menu for the Mac, there is no option for using 3d-party devices to calibrate (it only gives me the procedure for using ColorSync).<br>

Can anyone give me the steps to get off of square one with profiling the Macbook Pro using the Spyder3? Thanks.</p>

<p>If it helps, I recently purchased the Spyder3 Elite to calibrate my new 2475w, just the same as you're planning to do. I had used a Spyder2 with my older CRT monitor and was very very happy with it. When I calibrated with the Spyder3 I found that the prints were coming out much darker than on the monitor. I figured that this partly has to do with the fact that the 2475w doesn't have quite the control that my older CRT had (I think there is no luminance control, although I may be mistaken as it's been a few months since I've attempted calibration). To correct this I had to turn down the brightness of the 2475w to the point where I could barely make out the image on the screen (I exaggerate but only a little); then the prints were of the same brightness as the monitor. It's frustrating to use the monitor, however, and the only suggestions were to turn down the ambient lighting in the room. Which helps.<br>

I do wish I could find a way to calibrate with the Spyder3 so that the brightness matches the prints. But I've had to do that manually so far. I have to disagree with those who say that the Spyder3 works fine - at least with the 2475w, I have had some issues that I still can't resolve.</p>

<p>Apologies in advance if this has already been posted and answered somewhere. I did my due diligence and searched through the forums but couldn't find the answer to my precise question:<br>

I calibrated my HP LP2475w with Spyder3 Pro. But my prints were too dark. So I set the brightness to 0 on the monitor. Better, but the prints are still too dark (Epson 2200 with appopriate profiles; fwiw, I never had this problem with my old CRT so I know it's not the printer). I can't lower the brightness any more; what to do? By the way, the software had me set the gamma to 2.2 and color temp to 6500. Dark room or with dim ambient light.<br>

Am I missing something obvious here? I'm sure I am. No one else seems to have reported this problem with the 2475w, which has glowing reviews.</p>

Real World Photoshop.

Ditto. I use mine for B&W and it's fantastic. I'd never sell it.

 

Same for the SB-28. Couldn't sell it now for more than $100 tops. But it's a fantastic flash and great to have even as a backup.

And FYI, I have not "returned an 85 mm 1.8 or two." I asked the same question that I did here, about whether dust in the elements is normal. The answer came back (from several) that it's fairly normal. Hence, I have not returned it.

 

God, willful misinterpretation pisses me off.

You failed. Please read my original post. Thanks.

I've had two new D70's now that came with sensor dust included. Not

very much (2-3 specks), but definitely noticeable, esp. at small

apertures. Is this normal?

 

How many of you D70 owners out there had sensor dust upon opening the

box?

 

Please don't respond if your response will be "just clean the

sensor," or "buy Nikon Capture for its dust mapping." I know those

are both good options, but 1) I don't want to clean the sensor myself

(although I will if I have to); and 2) I don't have an extra $100 to

spend on Nikon Capture, having just spent $1000 on the new camera.

Just tell me if you've had sensor dust in the camera when it was just

opened so that I know if it's normal or if I should go to the trouble

of returning it (again).

 

Thanks very much for your input.

Thanks, Andrew. I didn't know about the forum. I'll try that.

Can anyone recommend a good tutorial site for PK Sharpener Pro?

How about this one? Is it better to adjust NEF curves in Nikon Capture, or wait to use Curves in PS CS once converted to jpeg or psd?

Thanks to all who posted helpful comments. I think I have a better handle now on what the "standard" is, and am satisfied that the lens is ok even if it has some visible internal "somethings." Can't tell if it's bubbles or dust, but it doesn't seem to affect the pictures, so I'm ok with it. I did go back to a reputable store who had three of the same lenses and inspected them there, and was actually quite surprised to see that all three of them had worse dust (or whatever) than the one I had (though not worse than the one I sent back to the mail order store). So I concluded that with my other lenses, I must have just gotten dust-free ones by fluke, I suppose.

 

Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! (Even to you, Edward.)

And i do in fact have the perfect wife, and perfect child(s). :-)

 

Now myself, that's a different story. I do have to disagree with you that we can perfect ourselves, though. I think we need lots of help. Merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate).

 

Brian

Um, Frank . . . I just got the lens . . . and just wanted to know if it was defective . . .

 

But thanks for the tips.

 

Walter, I think Neil was kidding.

Thanks, Albert, for your helpful comments.

Does anyone have an actual answer not snide comments?

Truth be told, I haven't taken any pics with it yet. I'd really like to be able to chalk it up to the process and say that any lens would have bubbles in it, but I also don't want to pay $$ for something of lesser quality than I'm entitled to for the money. What's the best test I could do to test the lens with a D70? I was thinking of taking a test shot of a medium gray card at various apertures, and seeing if I can see evidence of any imperfections. Is there a better test?

I'm on my second 85 mm 1.8 AF-D from a reputable mail-order store

that many here use, and I still find flaws in the lens elements

(inside). The first was fairly obvious, but the second less so. My

question is, am I being too picky? What I see are very small specks

within the elements that look sort of like bubbles. They're very

small but there are 4 or 5 of them, and they're only visible under

strong light and at an angle. (so the light reflects off of the

irregularities). I've compared my other lenses and don't find

similar artifacts except maybe in my 24 mm (one).

 

Am I right to expect perfect glass? Or will there always be very

minor imperfections in the optics? Anyone thought about this

before? Many thanks.

Several reviewers have preferred the image quality of Capture's NEF processor to Adobe Camera RAW. That's why I got it. I haven't really taken it out for a test spin yet.

 

If you convert your RAW files to TIFF in Capture, then export to PS, I don't think PS will "ignore" the custom curve because TIFF is an image file. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

 

I like the ability to change all of the camera settings without navigating through the camera menu, which is a pain.

How about step-down rings for the D70? I'd like to use my 52 mm filters on my 62mm 85/1.8 AF-D. Anyone foresee any problems with that?

I agree with Shun's comment that the best equipment in the world will do a crappy photographer no favors. That's precisely my point, though; there are other forums on this site that are intended for discussions of photographic technique and art. This is the Nikon forum; if it is to be distinguished at all from any of the "substantive artistic/technique" forums, then the distinction must be that this forum is for discussions of Nikon equipment and its various uses/characteristics/effects, etc.

 

In this respect, John's original post should not have been here, I suppose, unless the picture was taken with a Nikon lens (I haven't checked).

That's a strange point of view to be posting on a forum called "Nikon." If this forum isn't meant to discuss equipment, then what's it for?

You people need to relax a little bit. Look at the original post. There was no hint of a request for a critique of the photo. He just asked for someone to explain whether the points of light in the photo were examples of good or bad bokeh to clarify his understanding of the term. Then, his thread was hijacked by someone wanting to offer a substantive critique of the picture. IMO, he was not obligated to disclose it wasn't his photo, given the nature of his question - it wasn't as if he was asking people to pronounce judgment on the photo.

i suggest Noiseware. Great program; PS plugin supports 16-bit files. Works better than NN IMHO; it removes the noise without killing the texture, like NN is prone to do.

Just installed Nikon Capture and it made my AMD Athlon 64-bit

processor (XP SP2 installed) crash upon opening. I know this has

been a common problem (found out after the installation). Per one

person's suggestion, I have altered the BOOT.INI file to disable

SP2's no execute feature, and this has solved the problem. However,

I don't want to keep the no execute feature disabled forever, and am

wondering if anyone knows whether Nikon or Microsoft has released a

patch to address this problem?