stepan_pylyp

Pedro

 

Postage is charged by B&H with the order. You can calculate the shipping costs for the complete order directly on the B&H home page so there are no surprises. I have always used UPS Express.

MWSt etc. adds up to about another 10%. My last order cost $1300 and I was charged CHF 160.-. UPS takes care of this and you simply pay them on delivery.

This all adds to the price but you can still make a saving on some (but not all) items due to the low $.

 

Step

Hello Pedro

I have ordered from both B&H and Adorama in the past and I have been very satisfied with the service and the delivery to Switzerland via UPS usually takes about 5 working days. The $ is in our favour at the moment so it can be interesting as long as the postage costs are not too high. Another well known alternative in Europe is www.isarfoto.com (Germany) but the Euro is still quite high.

I have never ordered online from a Swiss supplier but I know of several people who have dealt with www.keiser-shop.ch direct. They also offer a mailing service and have very competitive prices.

Good luck.

Step

Thanks Ethan, that was the missing part of my puzzle! I guess the calibration works so well with my monitors that the profile only makes very minor, hardly noticeable, corrections.

 

Nathanael, just an idea, could it be that your graphic card doesn't support colour management? Assuming that the Eye-One still attempts to calibrate/profile the system it would then have to perform the entire colour management using the profile alone. Non aware applications would then have no correction (from the profile) or calibration (from the graphic card) at all. If you then "convert" the image using the monitor profile and view it in Irfanview I would then expect it to appear very similar to the unconverted image viewed in Photoshop. This is just my theory but I don't know if I can verify it with my system. Perhaps Ethan can comment?

 

Step

At a guess I'd say that you are using Perceptual rendering intent when converting to sRGB in Photoshop. This results in washed out images when viewed in ImageReady. If so, then try using Relative Colorimetric instead.

 

Step

Sorry Nathanael, my explanation could have been clearer! The point I was trying to make was that the profiles generated by the Gretag application are used by the graphic card to change the appearance of EVERYTHING that it displays. This means that IExplorer, Photoshop, and all other applications will all be affected. It sounds like you may be applying the monitor profile twice somewhere. The graphic card takes care of the monitor profile so you shouldn't be applying it anywhere else.

I just downloaded a copy of Irfanview and viewed an image which I had previously saved as sRGB using Photoshop - they both look pretty much the same to me.

 

Step

Check out the DisplayProfile.exe application in the Tools directory of the Eye-One application CD. It allows you to interactively select any one of the monitor profiles available on your machine. You can view an image in IExplorer and swap profiles in the tool to see effects of the different profiles. The monitor profiles generated by the Gretag application are managed by the Graphic card (assuming that it is icc profile aware). They affect all applications including those which I have written myself - I therefore know for sure that they do not evaluate any profile information what so ever.

 

Step

Simon

 

I just tried again with each of the *.icc, *.icm and *.pf extensions and all show up in the "Print with Preview" dialog. The "Proof Setup" shows profiles from several directories including the "C:\WINDOWS\system32\COLOR" where my scanner profiles go. I've had them mixed up several times which is why I asked in my previous reply. I'm sorry but I don't think that I can help any further.

 

Step

The question is in "which right place" are you saving your profiles? Just for the record the printer profiles belong in the "C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color" directory (or similar, depending on your windows configuration). Once they are in there they should be available for Photoshop but if it was already running when you saved the profile it may not be available in the "Print with Preview" dialog. Rather than re-start Photoshop, simply open and close the "Proof Setup -> Custom" dialog. This re-reads the profiles from the respective directories and the next time you access the "Print with Preview" dialog the new profile should be available in the combo box.

Steve, the "how long" part is incorporated in the binary encoded pre-flash sequence which completes about 10ms prior to the synchronisation flash i.e. before the shutter opens. This can safely be performed while the mirror is flipping up and there is no reason to wait for the shutter to open.

Sean, your observations are absolutely correct, the 550EX does emit a flash when the shutter is open even when in master only mode. I don't know which terminology Canon uses but I would define pre-flash as the burst of flashes emitted prior to the shutter opening - obviously not what you are seeing. This pre-flash is not a single flash but a series of short flashes that transmit a comprehensive set of binary encoded instructions to the slaves (typically a sequence of 20 to 30 flashes!). When the shutter opens the master generates a single, slightly longer flash that appears to be used in order to ensure that the slaves trigger synchronously with the master. This can however cause some annoying catch lights. If you can, simply point the head of the master towards the slave and away from the subject.

CG

 

My custom profiles were made with a Gretag eye-one and I used both of the RGB test charts provided (288 and 918 patches) but I couldn't detect any differences in the areas causing me problems. Would you mind telling me which hardware / software / target combination you used?

Thanks

I've been waiting for a 2100/2200 upgrade for over a year but decided that A3 wasn't actually large enough for me. I decided to settle for the R800 for smaller images and proofs and to send the larger stuff to a lab.

Photokina is at the end of September so it wouldn't surprise me from the timing point of view if they replaced it. On the other hand I have to say I'm a little disappointed with some of the results I'm getting from the R800. Some images are very impressive but it appears to have a limited gamma in some areas, particularly noticeable in the brown and green areas. I also have some posterisation effects which I find very disturbing. I plan to post an example in the next day or so when I have time.

I've never heard any other complaints about the R800 so perhaps I'm the only one. If not then I'd be surprised if they introduced another printer based on the same technology without first sorting out these problems.

Grant, what's your problem? I've read a lot of impolite answers on Photo.net but yours tops them all. James wanted to be as helpful as possible by sharing his experiences. What were YOU trying to achieve? Was your contribution useful? Not at all! Did you do it well? Not at all!

If you have nothing to contribute then please refrain from commenting in the future.

James, take a look at the histograms of the images in Photoshop and you will see that they are all very different. The histogram of the Nikon scan shows that the darkest areas have been "lifted" to about 20 (on a scale of 255) and under this there is nothing. This just means that the darker areas are easier to "see into" but I doubt there is any more detail in there. The Minolta scan shows indication of some automatic adjustment, particularly in the highlights. If this is correct then I suspect that you will obtain better detail in the highlights and most likely also in the shadows if you turn all automatic features off.

Ruslan Garipov just replied to an earlier post indicating that the latest version of the DiMAGE software (1.1.3.) should, according to Minolta, solve the banding problems. I�ve just finished the first scan with this version and the banding has been significantly reduced but its still there. The Windows Photoshop plug-in mentioned in an earlier post didn�t interest anybody at all so I can only assume that these effects are really unnoticeable in normal output. Otherwise I�m very happy with the unit. I have also evaluated other scan software but haven�t found any that (in my opinion) are easier to use or produce better results the Minolta Dimage Scan.

 

The easiest way to keep your slides flat during scanning is to use Wess AHX002W-slide mounts. Unfortunately I only have a link to a German page, but it might help:

http://www.fotovision.de/produkte/wess/wess_pdf/wess_ahx_deutsch.PDF

I quite agree Steven. I would hope that they have separated the analog and digital grounds well (optically) and that the sensor circuitry is well shielded. It is however quite possible that some interference could still get through. Another likely path is over the power supply. Although the input is already DC I don�t expect everything to run directly from 24V so there is most likely an additional DC-DC converter to step down the voltage for the control and sensor electronics. I�m guessing, but I would expect the analog circuitry to be powered from an isolated output of such a converter. Although these converters isolate well, their ability to block high frequency disturbances depends on the effectiveness of the filters, the layout of the printed circuit boards and the design of the case. As I say, its my guess, any yours is as good as mine (or better)!

 

You also mention that the induced signals may generate some �very interesting patterns�. That�s roughly what I would expect to see, or simply apparently random disturbances, if the interference was induced during the scanning process. However, I see very clearly defined, one pixel wide stripes running in the direction of the scan. Seth also reported banding in the direction of the scan (although we haven�t seen the results yet) which leads me to the provisional conclusion that the affect is constant throughout the scan and is therefore the result of either defective pixels or sub-optimal calibration (which could be due to interference during the calibration phase). Comparing some of my images it appears that the stripes are always in the same place but vary with intensity probably depending on the degree of success of the calibration. This leads me to believe that the banding that I'm personally observing is not a result of external influences (I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise). I find them very annoying but I can filter them out effectively. Others may however be observing different effects.

To re-calibrate the scanner from within the DiMAGE Scan software press Ctrl + Shift + i.

 

The firewire interface is digital and therefore has an intrinsically high noise immunity. However, if the walkman causes a high level of interference and it is very close to the cable then it quite possible that this could cause problems. The sensors on the other hand process VERY small signals and are therefore more susceptible to interference. Minolta SHOULD have designed their case and earthing system to prevent normal levels of electromagnetic radiation from affecting the result but ...

You didn�t say what kind of banding you found which makes an analysis a little harder.

The usual banding produced by the 5400 (my 5400 included) are usually one pixel wide and run in the direction of the scan. These are not (in my opinion) caused by interference during the scan because they always affect the output of the same pixel. It may however affect the calibration of the individual pixels and therefore produce consistent errors across the length of the scan. I have a Photoshop plug-in to filter these bands out and I can provide anyone who is interested with a copy. You also didn�t say whether you re-calibrated the scanner between the walkman scan and the shower scan. If so, then the scanner may just have been in need of a re-calibration.

If you found banding running in a direction perpendicular to the scan direction then it is quite likely that they were caused by external interference during the scan. It is possible that the 5400 is (too) sensitive to interference but it is also quite possible that your walkman generates too much noise.

In order to determine whether the walkman does indeed affect the scan quality simply let the system warm up for say 30 mins. and then scan once with the walkman, then once without, then again with and perhaps a fourth time without. BUT DON�T CALIBRATE OR CHANGE ANYTHING BETWEEN SCANS. It should then become evident as to whether the operation of the walkman is in any way related to the banding.

And most important - post the results!

Assuming that the 550EX is working and it has been set up correctly (which appears to be the case) then there are two possibilities:

The communication between master and slaves is more complicated than most people imagine. In manual mode the master first programs the slaves during the pre-flash phase by transmitting a complete set of configuration data. This is digitally encoded in a sequence of very short flashes. The information includes mode (in this case manual mode) the number of channels used (A, A:B or A:B:C) and the respective power levels for each activated channel. The slaves are now ready and waiting to be triggered. This pre-flash phase takes place while the mirror is still down and before the shutter opens. This may be what you are seeing but it will not affect the resulting image in any way.

At this point the slaves are now waiting� waiting for a trigger pulse. The master generates the initial pulse and all the slaves then trigger synchronously. Although the pulse is clearly visible when looking towards the flash unit it will not usually affect the exposure because it will be overpowered by the main strobes. It can however produce an additional catch-light. If you are experiencing problems with this trigger pulse then you should direct the master away from the subject if possible (in the direction of the slave) and if necessary, attach a piece of card to the flash to prevent it causing any unwanted reflections.

Hope this helps.

Step

Thanks for your input. The led didn't light up at all - no blink blink blink. It went back to the store today, should receive a replacement in the next couple of days. Thanks again. Step

Yes I did install the software prior to connecting the scanner. I've repeated this process many, many times using USB and IEEE1394 on two different computers but not even a blink of an LED. Thats why I suspect there must be a hardware problem.

 

Thanks again

 

Step

Just bought a Minolta 5400 scanner and can't get it working at all.

When I turn the unit on I can see a white light when I look inside

the door but the On/Off led doesn't light up � I've never even seen

it blink once! The manual only states that the led will blink

when "launching the DiMAGE scan utility" but am I correct in assuming

that it should light up initially when power is applied, prior to

launching the utility?

 

Thanks

 

Step

Lens design is always a compromise. If the image circle can be reduced, the quality of the image within this circle can be increased for the same cost (to you and me). Nikon appear to be investing effort in the production of a full frame lens instead of optimising the area covered by the smaller digital sensors. This implies (to me) that they must have a very good reason for doing so. Maybe they�re attempting to support Kodak!!!!!

What are Nikon trying to tell us? If this lens is primarily a 300-600 f4.0 for digital bodies why didn�t they make it a DX type which are, according to Nikon, optimized for Nikon digital SLR camera sensors. The smaller image field reduces the compromises necessary in order to cover the larger 35mm format. Is this a new development specifically for 35mm film (unlikely I would suggest) or are Nikon planning to go full frame digital in the near future?

It depends what you want to do with the final image. I don�t publish but make occasional Ilfochrome prints and like to project my transparencies. You can scan a transparency and with the right equipment an technique arguably make presentable prints. However, I have yet to see a digital projection system even approach the quality of a conventional slide projector.

The other reason I haven�t yet made the move is that it simply isn�t practical for me. I have enough problems with my analogue system when I take a trip of several weeks into regions where the electricity supply is not guaranteed. The last thing I want is to be unable to photograph because I couldn't recharge. I therefore take backups of everything including chargers and cameras of course. This means I�d need to buy 2 EOS 1Ds �s to replace my current outfit and then I wouldn�t be able to afford the trip in the first place. Then what should I do with the data? If I assume I�ll be taking approximately 100 rolls of film on a normal trip (I�m not a pro) this would be equivalent to 36GB. O.K. so I�d need to take my laptop with me (which also means I�d need to by a lighter one) and it must be equipped with a CD burner because I won�t want to risk dropping it on the return journey and causing a disk crash!

If you don�t have such problems then why not go digital. If you�ve solved these problems then PLEASE POST YOUR SOLUTIONS (I�m particularly interested in the solutions for the financial hurdles :-)