mirek_elsner1

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure I'll have room for a second digital camera. Can anyone recommend the tiniest one they can think of? Tiny including the battery size, charger, etc. Ideally perhaps one with throwaway batteries that I can buy and dispose of as needed. Carrying a charger is unnecessary bulk. I'm taking a 50L pack (traditional that's considered a weekend pack, not a long-trip pack) for the entire year. I'm traveling ultralight (e.g. two pairs of boxers, three pairs of socks, one t-shirt, etc). I want to keep it simple. If it means I lose out on pictures, so be it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you take second camera, you don't have to take so many films with you. 5 less films and you have room for the digital camera... One disadvantage of film, unless you shoot several rolls a day is that you can't change the speed in the middle of the roll (not easily, anyways). So you will have ISO 100 film in your camera and you will need to shoot something that requires really high ISO. Or you will have an ISO 400 film that is shot to be pushed to 1600 because you needed it yesterday and now you need really clean picture. This is where the digital camera may become handy, especially if it has good high ISO performance. Some digital cameras like the Sony NEX can even take Leica M lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>PS: One final question: How many rolls of film did you develop before you felt like you were starting to get the hang of it, and you worried less and less about ruining the film because you were still on the wrong side of the learning curve?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You compared it to baking. If you follow the basic recipe to the letter, you will do well after few first films. If you start deviate and experiment (temperature, agitation, special developers etc.), the odds will likely change.</p>

<p>The download works for me. You may get totally different comments and suggestions from others, but I think it could print well as it is. I would probably crop about ~5% on the right hand side to remove the piece of snow that interferes with the frame of the picture. Also, the picture does not seem very sharp and I would not print it very large.</p>

<p>I downloaded the picture and converted it to sRGB on my MBP. The display shows the converted image with a very slight purple tint. The display is calibrated with ColorMunki.</p>

<p>Isn't it possible that the plugins are 32-bit only and you use 64-bit version?</p>

<p>If you use the 64 bit version, switch to 32 bit and check if the plugins are there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are than<br />I question just how precise your focus actually is because under those<br />conditions a matte VF will appear to be in focus even if the plane of focus is<br />a couple inches in front of or behind the desired target. It's not a matter of<br />your skill or eyesight or how good you think you are. The matte screen is<br />insufficient to the task.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the matte focusing screens designed for manual focusing (Ee-S, for example) are quite reliable. And you still have AF confirmation LEDs in your viewfinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, there seem to be 3 50mm lenses: a 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8. What difference does the small change in aperture make, and which one might best fit my needs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Besides the differences described earlier, the 1.2 is designed to create nice looking background blur, which may be important for you, if you shoot portraits. If the lens is too expensive, take a look at Sigma 50/1.4 - I don't have it, but it has pretty good reputation for portraits as well. If you have FF camera or do not mind larger distance from your subjects, consider also Canon 85/1.8 (or the new Sigma 85mm lens).</p>

<p>If you want a lens that is approximately as sharp as the 135 and focuses closer, look at EF 100L and Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro. If you want to see "every wrinkle", look at lighting techniques rather than lens sharpness.</p>

<p>There are at least 4 MF lenses around 50mm with Canon mount and electronic aperture that have good reviews, good construction and work way better with manual focusing than AF lenses:</p>

<ul>

<li>Zeiss Planar 50/1.4</li>

<li>Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2</li>

<li>Voigtlander Ultron 40/2</li>

<li>Voigtlander 58/1.4</li>

</ul>

<p>I believe all are all metal lenses and worth of exploring...</p>

<p>Do you have to use ceiling lamps?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>John and others: If faster bus speed is the important thing for Photoshop.....is there a big difference between 2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz? It's a $350 difference for refurbished versions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The difference will be some 10% and only for operations where hard drive is not involved. $350 is already half of the cost of Creative Suite upgrade.</p>

<p>I use Ethernet, because it allows me printing from my several computers wirelessly. I tried the USB connection too and both are fast enough to feed the printer with data, so that the actual printing is the bottleneck.<br>

If you have only one desktop computer and distance is not an issue, USB will be easier to set up.</p>

<p>Samplers are a great way to familiarize with different kinds of papers. I would recommend samplers from Innova, Hahnemuhle, Canson and Museo. You should also try some Epson Exhibition Fiber.<br>

You will notice that papers have different bases (paper, cotton, polyester or RC), different surfaces and shine (from glossy to watercolor) and that some papers use optical brighteners and some don't. This all has impact on the final character of the print. The samplers are great because they will show you the differences.</p>

<p>I like it and I think it works well with your style of photography. And I like your photographs, too. One thing to point out though is that the web site won't display on iPhones and iPads. It gives a message that I should upgrade Flash, which is not an option. If its likely that your clients would use these devices, you may want to consider some alternative content or approach.</p>

<p>Lightroom and Camera Raw in PS CS5 have lens distortion correction. I have never used it, but I hear PTLens does an excellent job.</p>

<p>Canon makes 100/2 lens, 100/2.8 macro lens and 100/2.8L IS macro lens. I have experience only with the 100L and I have to confirm what Scott says. I would also add that it is the only 100mm fixed focal length lens from Canon that has weather sealing and it is very light for a 100mm lens, which combined with the image stabilizer makes it great for outdoor shooting. Some time ago I did small comparison with Canon's 85 and 135mm short teles, if you are interested you can find it <a href="http://www.elsners.org/wordpress/?p=93">here</a>.</p>

<p>Joseph is right that the manual focusing close to infinity is a bit difficult, but the AF is very precise and reliable. Bokeh is great, at least to my taste. You can judge it for yourself on the link above. It is 2.8 vs. 2.0 lens, but it has a 4-stop stabilizer.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So which ACR profile should I use in Lightroom? ACR 4.4? ACR 4.2? Adobe Standard? Camera Faithful? One of the others?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pick the one that gives best looking results. It may depend on your camera, on your style and on your taste...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What are they, anyway?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:FAQ#WhatIsNewAS</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can see that different profiles make my images look slightly different. Which should I pick and which do you use?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't use any, I made my own using X-Rite Color Checker.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I plan on learning at NYU so i was thinking on the 1.4 because I hear it is a bit better than the 1.8 but I am not sure if it is worth the extra money.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know if this is important for your upcoming training, but the 1.4 has distance scale, while the current 1.8 does not. The 1.4 is quiet, so it is easier to shoot unnoticed. If you get the 1.4, consider also getting the lens hood. In certain situations it improves contrast and protects the front element.</p>

<p>I don't know about books, but besides Eric Chan's blog, which is free, there is also paid video tutorial with Jeff Schewe on Luminous Landscape that I liked. Another video on printing with Epsons I liked is on kelbytraining.com, it is called "Getting Killer Prints From Your Epson Printer". </p>

<p>In addition to what Andrew says, if you use Photoshop, there is a plugin with similar functionality called PhotoKit Sharpener, it has been developed by the same people who are behind the sharpening philosophy of LR3. Both PK Sharpener and LR3 give great results without guesswork and apply proper sharpening amount and type for different sizes and types of prints.<br>

If the article on creativepro in Andrew's post above is not enough, there is a book Real World Image Sharpening by Fraser and Schewe that goes to greater detail.</p>

<p>Since you are shooting RAW, your images will be processed in internal working space of LR3, which I believe is ProPhoto RGB or something similar. Don't forget converting to sRGB before placing images on the web or sending to a lab that does not support color management.</p>

<p>Although setting of color space in camera does not have any effect on RAW images, it effects in-camera histogram. Some people believe that if you are shooting RAW, histogram displayed with AdobeRGB settings gives more accurate representation of actual data.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please describe the perfect pot or pan (but not both) to be used for all cooking. It must capable of tackling these situations: unknown(in advance ) circumstances, boiling spaghetti, frying eggs, making waffles, baking cakes, etc., etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, but with only one 4qt pot and one pan you can make lots of delicious meals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Suggest one single prime lens to use as a walkaround lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar (on a FF camera).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But most importantly, I'm interested in why you suggested what you did.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think you want to have only long or only short lens. That's why 50mm.<br>

This lens has shorter minimal focusing distance than most other 50mm lenses I know, so you can go close to your subject. That gives more creative options than regular 50mm. It has well corrected distortions (can be useful if you want to create wide angle by stitching) and has more pleasant bokeh than most other 50mm lenses. Other interesting options for a single lens setup (with different compromises) would be Sigma 50 (nice bokeh), Voigtlander 40/2 (very small), Canon 50/1.2 (fast, nice bokeh). For APS I would get Canon 35L or Zeiss 35/2. Great lenses, but I think it is more fun to use primes on FF and I would upgrade to FF first.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I sort of hate to open up a new can of worms, but what might make a good 2-prime lens combo in the 1mm-99mm range?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This gives lots of interesting combinations, on FF for example:</p>

<ul>

<li>Zeiss 35/2 and Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar (two of the best lenses in the Zeiss Z* line)</li>

<li>Zeiss 28/2 and Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar (similar but wider)</li>

<li>Zeiss 21/2.8 and Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 90mm (great lenses with no CA, for landscape?)</li>

<li>Canon 35/1.4 and Canon 100L (some of the best lenses in Canon lineup, great for available light, nature, people, travel)</li>

<li>Canon 24/1.4 and Canon 85L (for people and events?)</li>

<li>Canon 35/1.5 and Canon 135/2 (for people and travel?)</li>

<li>Canon 28/1.8 and Canon 85/1.8 (lighter and less expensive variation of the above)</li>

<li>Any combination of the above</li>

</ul>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If this is important, one lens is the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM and my use is primarily insect/flower closeups and also portraits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For best image contrast and flare mitigation in general, you should use a lens hood. This particular lens has a lens hood that is so deep and narrow, that I can't imagine any additional protection from a filter. If you can't use the lens hood for some reason and still think you need that extra protection, both Hoya HD and B+W XS-Pro are nice. I don't use filters for protection for many reasons. One that nobody mentioned in this thread earlier is that in my case filters usually get dirty pretty quickly, while front elements of my lenses, that are often recessed, don't. In any case, it is a good idea to have UV or protective filters in your bag so that you can use them if your lens is exposed to ocean spray, you shoot near waterfalls, dogs etc.</p>

<p>Kelly, I used 50/1.4 on FF camera for delivery and I would use it again. Since you have an APS body, I would recommend 35/1.4. It's speed will be also useful in the following weeks and months after the delivery when the baby does not respect the clock, photographic opportunities happen when no reasonable available light is available and you will hate to fire flash to your baby's face. It is a great lens to keep, but if you want, you can sell it later with minimal loss.</p>