mirek_elsner1

Coincidentally, I tried it yesterday. I used the the relatively strong #87 filter. The sensitivity is not great, I had exposures around 30"/f8 @ ISO640, but it works.

I'm contemplating purchasing some ND grads for my Lee holder and looking for

advice regarding the types. I would like to start with two or three filters

and learn to work with them. I made some research and lean towards getting two

stop soft and two and three stop hard. I use focal lengths between 17 and

300mm on full frame sensor. My questions are:

<br/>

<br/>

 

- Does it sound like a reasonable starter combination for landscapes?

<br/>

- Are there big differences between brands if it comes to hardness of the

transition?

<br/>

- Is there any difference in quality between Lee and Singh-Ray? In what

aspect? Any other brands recommended?

<br/>

- Anything else I should know before I buy?

<br/>

<br/>

 

Thanks :-)

I did not read the articles you listed yet, but I can offer my experience. I have been running Vista 64 for some time now on my photo editing machine. I haven't seen any content protection that would prevent me from editing my photos in Photoshop. As much as I know, the built-in HD content protection requires that in order to run HD video with 1080 lines that is copy protected (like commercial movies on Blu-Ray discs) you need HDCP compliant video card and HDCP compliant monitor or tv. This does not compromise my photo editing at all. And in fact, Vista 64 gives Photoshop more memory than XP so I am pretty happy.

 

There are some challenges with Vista 64 related to driver compatibility and I also had some issues with certain PS plugins, but I assume this will be all resolved when CS3 comes out.

Are you looking for indoors or outdoors portrait lens? For indoors you should consider how much distance from the subject you can have, the longer the lens, the longer distance you need.

 

All three lenses are fine. If the shooting distance is not a problem, the 135/2 is great, especially on 5D.

My favorite books are Photoshop for Photographers ( M. Evening) and Real World Photoshop (B. Fraser, D. Blatner). From the more specialized books I like books by K. Eismann, Photoshop LAB Book (D. Margulis), Real Word Sharpening (Fraser), Real World Color Management (Fraser, Murphy, Bunting) and Real World Camera Raw (Fraser).

 

If I should pick one, I would recommend the Photoshop for Photographers - it was easy to read, it has CD with tutorials and it helped me a lot with my Photoshop skills.

I remember reading very old book on IR photography (around 1920 - 1930) and this technique was described there. If my memory serves me well, to achieve this effect you need a film with spectral sensitivity that extends relatively far to IR part of the spectrum and use filters that transmit these wavelengths. The sample images in the book looked exactly like what you are showing here.

 

Even though I don't remember details, I would assume that you would have better chance with Kodak HIE and one of the black filters like hoya r72 or RM90 than with red filters or films like Ilford SFX.

I had that lens and replaced it with 17-40. I sometimes miss the extra stop, but my copy of the 17-40 is sharper and it has better weather resistance so I don't regret the change. My answers to your questions:

 

1) I like the 17-40 better, so if the 17-40 new is cheaper than 17-35 used, then no, it is not a good price. Not in my opinion anyway.

 

2) I used this lens and the 17-40 with 20D and 70-200 for nearly 2 years. I filled the gap you mentioned with 50/1.4. The zoom range was ok for me, but it was never my primary lens and your needs may be different.

I am not an expert, but I did similar research several years ago and made some sample prints. I am probably too conservative and still prefer the characteristic glossy photograph or Ilfochrome look, so I was more interested in techniques that use regular photo paper as opposed to Epsons.

 

From the several tests I made I prefer Chromira prints. I found them somewhat easier to prepare than LightJet and the quality is equal or better. I send the file over FTP to the lab and they send the photograph to me. I have been using West Coast Imaging, but i believe there are other labs that provide similar service (Calypso?).

Make sure your components will work flawlessly with Vista 64, this will allow you to upgrade when necessary. With Vista 64 you can take full advantage of your 4G or more, if you upgrade and current version of Photoshop will be able to use up to 3G. But not all components will apparently work with Vista 64 due to the requirement of signed drivers.

 

I have similar PS configuration as you have (with Vista 64) and I switched from XP system with RAID0. The HD performance with RAID0 was significantly better than single disks. Now I have faster computer, but have to wait for disk operations like saving layered psd files more than before. So I suggest you consider configuration with RAID0 and backup your photos to another separate disk periodically.

On Robgalbraith.com you can find that the difference is insignificant. But with Extreme IV and appropriate card reader you can achieve better card to computer speed no matter what camera you have.

If the slowdown was sudden, then there is a good chance that it was one setting that changed or one program that you installed that caused it. Go back in your memory and try to recall what you changed or installed.

 

If the drop in performance is significant, I would suspect that your PS does not have enough memory for its execution and needs to use disk, which is significantly slower than memory. Did you change amount of memory PS can allocate? Did you start processing images in 16 bit instead of 8? Did you change your workflow so that now you use more layers?

 

If this is not a memory issue and your PS used disks before, perhaps something was done that makes disk operations slower. New antivirus? Isn't the D disk an external USB drive?

 

You can increase your chance of resolving the problem by posting this question to forum at Adobe web site. I'd guess you could use their tech support as well.

I use 5D but haven't used MF for 2 decades. I also think 5D comes close to MF but not to 4x5.

 

In addition to what Paul Butzi in his very interesting article describes, I would add that if one wants to do such comparison, lens quality should be taken into consideration. It would not be a big surprise for me to find that Canon zooms are inferior to Zeiss MF primes...

 

One thing that I noticed with 5D is that the noise does not get worse as significantly with higher ISO as grain with slide films. So I would think that the comparison might be even more favorable for 5D if such test was conducted at ISO 400 or 800.

I don't have iP6600, but with i960 and i9900 and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag i used setting for matte photo paper with very good results. The rest of the printer settings was driven by color management requirements. Check on Hahnemhle (Crane etc.)web site, perhaps they have some info.

I think buying lenses first is better investment, because quality lenses will stay longer with you and if you decide to sell them, they keep their value better. I also think that 400d can take full advantage of high quality lens (not only sharpness, but also speed, stabilization etc.), while 5d would be degraded by your 90-300 and 28-105 lenses.

 

Unless you need full frame sensor or some of the other features of 5d, I'd go with 400d and a good lens like 24-105 (or whatever suits your needs).

I use Ilford Smooth Gloss for most of my prints. However, if you are looking for "best papers", Ilford Smooth High Gloss and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag work just as well and give you more attractive look.

Will Webster wrote:

"...the 300/4 IS is significantly larger in diameter and its collar won't fit anything else that I know of"

 

The tripod collar from 300/4IS fits 70-200IS. I use it this way - it saved me money for second Arca-Swiss plate.

Different people have different tastes, so it is difficult to give recommendation that would work for you. I would say for once in a lifetime trip go to Denali and Kenai. But since money is your concern, I'd suggest Yellowstone, Grand Teton and Glacier. They are close to each other, so that you won't spend much time getting from one place to another and they offer several "attractions" - wildlife, mountains, geysers... If this is photographic trip, I'd go in first half of September when fall colors start to appear (for best time double check in this forum). I think 9 days is reasonable for these 3 parks.

I like Ilford Smooth (not Classic) series papers. They work well with my Canon, including the extra glossy polyester media. If you like watercolor papers, check out Museo and thin versions of smooth papers like Photo Rag from Hahnemuhle. I'm sure there are more papers that work well with Canons, but this is what worked best for me. The way I found what works for me abd what doesn't was to order samplers from B&H. Unless you want to have your profiles custom made, you can usually find some on manufacturer web sites.

I had to replace my old printer and now I'm wondering who currently

makes the best custom printer profiles. I know this question has been

asked before - but i'd like to know who is the best to work with today.

 

Thanks,

 

Mirek Elsner

Expect the bus to be full and expect the little window of the school bus to be crowded by several people wanting to take a picture. This pretty much disqualifies both tripod and the bean bag and IS will be your biggest friend. I would take tripod and use it off the bus, at Wonder Lake, Polychrome Pass or elsewhere, however, the trip to Wonder Lake and back is actually quite long and does not give you too much time to spend off the bus.

 

Animals can get surprisingly close and your 600mm become quickly unusable, so have your 100-400 ready. Since you will be sitting all day, having both should not be a big deal.

 

The weather can be rainy so if you are not shooting digital be prepared to have faster or pushable film.

I have both 135mm and 70-200IS and they are both excellent lenses. 135 is one stop faster, perhaps a bit sharper and has better background blur. 70-200 has the flexibility of zoom and image stabilizer. 135 is small, unobtrusive and light, 70-200 is big, bold and heavy. I tested them against each other and my results are similar to http://www.falck-andersen.com/test110605/index.php.

 

Which one is better? It is a matter of taste.

With Ilford Smooth High Gloss Media and dye ink printer you can get even glossier. This paper (it is actually a polyester base) is very similar to Cibachrome.

Hi,<br>

Based on some reviews, I have been flirting with an idea of

purchasing manual focus, Contax mount, wide angle lens for my 20D. I

don't have any previous experience with manual lenses on EOS bodies

and I was wondering:<br><br>

 

- Does EOS 20D confirm focus with manual lenses?<br>

- Is manual focus with this camera accurate?<br>

- Does this camera meter correctly with manual lenses? <br>

- Does anybody actually use Zeiss lenses like Distagon 21mm or

similar with EOS 20D? Is the performance worth the hassle? <br><br>

 

Thanks,<br><br>

 

Mirek Elsner

<i>if i want to clean the remjet off properly how would i do this .... could i make up some kind of bath? </i>

 

Your C41 developer will act the same way as the special bath from the original process so the rem-jet will be easy to remove after processing. With 35mm I removed it with sponge and rinsed with water.

I don't know how old film it is, but if 7291 is intended for "hot process", it will process in C41. The Eastman movie films use to have rem-jet anti-halation layer on their back (black layer similar to Kodachromes). The original process for Eastman has alkaline bath before developer that releases the rem-jet and it is mechanically removed before development. If you use c-41, the rem-jet will release in first alkaline bath of your process, which is the developer and you will have black dirt in all of your baths. You will also have to remove residual rem-jet after processing (after final rinse and before applying wetting agent) with sponge or so.