rhaytana__tim_adams_

Lex and Todd, I will consider my question answered -- and will hie off with my $2 in search of an 'electronics contact cleaner.' Thanks very much! Todd, thanks especially for nixing the sandpaper idea -- I didn't think of the corrosion factor.

Thanks for the responses. John, I suspect you may be on target -- but is an eraser the standard method of cleaning flash contacts? 'Sandpaper' is the first likely material that occurs to me, although I haven't tried it; might be a terrible idea.

 

Edward, these were crops of much larger images; I wasn't right on top of the subjects. I've got about 12 K shutter clicks on this set-up, and have taken hundreds that turned out well with roughly the same camera settings. Nonetheless, thanks for the feedback.

 

Gerard, I'm not sure I understand your response. Do you feel the shutter speed relates to the flash problem?

Last weekend and once about a month ago, my SB-80/F100 film set up

surprised me by blowing out the flash on several shots for no apparent

reason. I'm writing to see if any Nikon users can help me

troubleshoot the problem.

 

The attached photo tells the story. I use a photo secretary clone, so

the information provided re shutter speed and aperture is accurate.

The shots were taken within seconds of each other (obviously), with

the same camera and flash settings. There's no chance I inadvertently

slipped into a non-TTL mode, or had the shutter speed too high for

indoor use.

 

I use an F100, an SB-80, a flash bracket and an SC-17 cord.

 

Approximately four shots were ruined in this fashion, but the camera

then handled twenty more shots that day without a hitch. The next

day, the problem reappeared in one shot out of approximately 100 shots

taken.

 

For what it's worth, the four blown shots happened shortly after

turning the flash unit on. However, the SB-80 has never needed

warm-up time before.

 

My first guess, or hope: I didn't have the SC-17 cord screwed down

tight on the flash shoe. I have shot before without tightening it

properly. If it's not that, then I may have a more serious problem.

 

Has anyone experienced a problem of this type?<div></div>

Thanks to those who responded. These sites should get me started.

 

I guess there isn't a site specializing in high-end/professional use of Canon equipment exclusively, a la Thom Hogan and Moose Peterson for Nikon. Not that I necessarily need one, but I'm surprised. Hogan, for instance, writes valuable aftermarket manuals for Nikon cameras.

I'm thinking of switching to Canon EOS when I trade my Nikon F100 to

go digital, largely because the whole proprietary white balance issue

with the Nikon D2X concerns me. My likely choice is a 1D MK II.

However, I want to do more research first.

 

Favorite Nikon websites are bythom.com and Moose Peterson's site. But

where do serious Canon digital EOS shooters go for reviews, news,

advice, etc.?

The timeline of my Vuescan use was as follows, with my Canon FS4000:

 

1. Downloaded, registered, disliked, didn't use.

 

2. Heeded opinions of online users who preferred Vuescan to other products. "These folk know more than me, why not do it their way?"

 

3. Invested dozens of hours learning the intricacies of Vuescan settings. Spent lots of time browsing comp.periphs.scanners.

 

4. Used Vuescan exclusively for several months. Noticed grain, focus problems that never were an issue with Filmget. Grew weary of slower processing times vs Filmget.

 

5. Returned to Filmget, but with much more attention paid to Filmget settings.

 

Perhaps I have erred. Many knowledgeable users still swear by Vuescan. Perhaps there is one more Vuescan setting that I could tweak. But I have decided that further effort would be throwing away good time after time I already have lost.

It certainly sounds like one needs to spend far less than I'd thought to get great results from digital at large enlargement sizes.

 

The pre-purchase flow chart for me is:

 

a) Find out as much as I can online first.

 

b) Rent the camera-lens-flash combo that interests me most, at least for a weekend and preferably for a week.

 

c) Buy.

 

I have other questions about the differences between film and digital SLRs, but they would be off topic in this thread. Thanks once again for the valuable and thoughtful responses.

Thanks for the feedback, and I apologize for omitting important details. I use a Canon FS4000 to scan at 4000 ppi from the film. My work is of the PJ type and usually indoors, so I load Fuji 800 Press or occasionally 400 Press in my F100.

 

Of course, Bob, I regret that you found the question misguided and irrelevant. To me it's very important. If it would cost $8000 for a 1DS Mark II to get the kind of enlargements I can expect from film, then I have an $8000 argument for sticking with my F100. But Daniel notes that 16 x 20s from his 10D look better than equivalent size shots on ISO 400 and 100 film. A new 20D sells for about $1,300. For me, a $6,700 difference is not pocket change.

 

I should mention that I haven't shot digital, yet, and am not familiar with digital performance at high ISO settings. In some ways, I'm a tyro. I do know that the 18 x 12s from Fuji 800 look better than I'd hoped.

What kind of print sizes can be expected from high end digital bodies,

with or without the help of aftermarket Photoshop tools?

 

I recently printed 18 x 12 enlargements of 35mm shots on an Epson

2200, and was pleasantly surprised by the results. The scans were at

4000 ppi. I can see the grain, but in other respects the shots are

about as sharp as 8 x 10s. For a full frame shot with a bigger

printer, I gather I could go as high as 24 x 16 and still produce a

240 dpi print, with as much or nearly as much sharpness.

 

What kind of prints could I expect with a Canon 20D or a Mark II, or a

D2H or D2X? I realize that these are very different cameras, but I

would be shopping in the high end if I were ever to replace my film

body, and thus would be choosing between one of these products.

 

One reason I'm asking: friends often bring photo questions to me,

although I'm hardly an expert. I have said that one remaining

advantage of film is that it offers potentially greater reproduction

size, unless compared with a digital body like the $8,000 1DS Mark II.

I want to stop saying this if it isn't true! I have read that Moose

Peterson has coaxed very large blow-ups from D100 files massaged with

an aftermarket plug-in, but don't know if this is more fact than hype

or more hype than fact.

 

I have no emotional attachment to a brand name or to film or digital,

and earnestly hope that I don't prompt film vs. digital sparring.

Chris and Jim, thanks to both of you. Jim, your web page is a valuable reference. I see your figure for a 12 x 18 is $4.92, so I guess I was on target when I figured a little under $5 a page for a print on a Super B.

 

1.4 cents per square inch is easy to remember, too, all the better. <g>

Thanks, Joseph. I missed the note about 5% coverage on the Epson site. Your figure sounds much more credible.

 

It sounds like my total cost per page for an 18 x 12 on premium luster is just under $5.00 per page, if I buy the paper from a discount supplier.

Can anyone refer me to reliable figures for the cost per page in ink

of printing with the Epson 2200, using Epson inks?

 

I recently printed some 18 x 12 prints on Super B paper, and am

inclined to do more ... but thought it couldn't hurt to have some

notion of how much this is costing, in terms of ink.

 

I used the stats from the Epson product information page and came up

with a figure of about 50 cents per page in ink, for an 18 x 12 print,

but something tells me that's wishful thinking, that it's more than

that.

Recommendation seconded for Co-Du-Co. Consistently good experiences with 'em.

I posted a query about a related issue in January, and received some great feedback that might interest you, too. Here's the link to the thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Asxe

XP shouldn't be the problem. If you go here:

 

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=121&modelid=7460

 

and click 'Windows XP Compatability,' on the right side of the screen, you can read Canon's take on the matter.

 

Good luck.

Thank you, Ellis Vener, for your thoughtful response. I have read and read about color management and have scratched my head for an overview that I, at least, can understand, and now I think I have one. I'm grateful.

If I can ask a follow-up, specifically to Andrew Rodney, one of the more obviously knowledgeable folks to be found here:

 

My rough impressions are:

 

1. You calibrate the monitor, but the monitor's ICC profile isn't usually assigned to anything. It just corrects what's seen onscreen.

 

2. The film scanner or other acquisition device has or can have an ICC profile.

 

3. The image is tagged with a broad gamut profile (such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto) as it is brought into Photoshop.

 

4. It is converted to the printer ICC profile before printing (or printed to the printer's profile, if that's a more appropriate terminology.)

 

Does that eighty word overview convey the essentials, or have I missed something crucial? (And if I'm wandering off topic here, please forgive me.)

Agreed, Kelby: Photoshop CS book for Digital Photographers has a 'body sculpting' section. (Thumbing through the pages, lessee ... ) "Removing Love Handles." "Slimming Thighs and Buttocks" "Digital Tummy Tucks"

 

I can't vouch for these tricks, as they're way out of my line, but this sounds what you're interested in. ISBN 0-7357-1411-8

I second the recommendation for B&H.

Thank you for the new input.

 

Adobe gamma is definitely out of there now; I knew that much. However, I did not know Mel Resnick's tip about setting proof colors. I feel foolish; that must have been in one of my Photoshop books, but I overlooked it.

 

Choosing the Epson profile I use for the print and setting paper white made a difference. I then followed Matt Holmes' advice and stopped looking at the print next to the bright LCD. I had remembered the importance of ambient light from the Photoshop tomes -- one includes a RHEM light indicator, after all, for gauging ambient light -- but had underestimated the impact that ambient light has on my impression of the print.

 

Well, I won't underestimate it anymore. After setting proof colors and after looking at the print under a good light, I finally have a much closer match between what's onscreen and what's on the paper. Not an exact match. I'm sure a viewing booth would help, and profiling both the LCD and the Epson. But a much closer match.

 

Thanks once again to all who contributed here.

Thanks to those who responded. I'm not a pro and don't have design shop type experience to go by, but after reading Fraser's _Real World Color Management_ I had hoped -- and still hope, I suppose -- that I could calibrate my equipment so that what's on the monitor comes ver-ree close to what comes out of the Epson.

 

Maybe I'll have to spend more money to get what I want, if I want it badly enough. Gretag Macbeth has several different Eye One products; Eye One Design calibrates monitors and printers, and sells for around $1,000. Colorvision sells the PrintFIX suite, which calibrates the monitor and the printer, for a much more affordable $400.

 

Does anyone have experience with either of those two products? Does it sound like I'm sniffing around the right tree this time, in terms of a WYSIWYG solution?

What can I do or buy to make what I see on my NEC 1960NXi LCD match

what I get out of my Epson 2200?

 

I print ProPhoto, Adobe RGB and sRGB tagged files to the Epson, using

the Epson ICC printer profiles I downloaded from the Epson web site.

 

Before buying the NEC, I used Adobe gamma with an elderly CRT. The

2200 prints always looked darker than what was onscreen.

 

I bought the NEC LCD and then the ColorVision ColorPlus calibrator.

No help at all from the ColorPlus, plus several compatability

problems. With the ColorPlus monitor ICC profiles, the 2200 prints

are still darker than what's onscreen.

 

An unpleasant temporary workaround: doing final edits on the photo

with the monitor brightness turned waaay down, to 15 or 10%. The

prints still aren't dead on, but they're closer to what's on screen

than with any other set up I've tried.

 

Suggestions? Did I err in getting an LCD? (I know that some have

written that they still don't cut the mustard for precise color work.)

Do I need to spend more money for profiling equipment, so I can

calibrate both the monitor and the printer, and dump the Epson profiles?

 

Or am I expecting too much in wanting what's onscreen to be an almost

exact match with the print?

I've had good experiences with this company:

 

http://www.co-du-co.com/

 

They charged me something like $20, maybe $30 for a customer fit dust cover for the film scanner. Might've been cheaper ... I've forgotten.

One of many ways, and perhaps not the best one, would be:

 

1) Add a curves adjustment layer

 

2) Change the blending mode of the adjustment layer to darken or multiply. Adjust opacity of the blending mode to taste. This will darken the whole picture.

 

3) Ctrl-I to change the mask over the adjustment layer to black. The black mask will remove, "mask," all darkening.

 

4) Now use the paintbrush tool to paint white over the black mask, thus painting in the darkening effect on the parts of the image you want to be thus affected -- in this case, the sky. You can adjust the opacity of the paintbrush tool, too -- and probably should, where the sky meets other objects in the image.

 

5) Once satisfied, you can flatten the whole image and save with a different file name.

As others have noted, Photoshop is for image manipulation, while Vuescan and the software that came with your scanner are for bringing the image off the film and into your computer.

 

I now usually (but not always) fire up Vuescan for the scans I care about. What I didn't understand as a frustrated newbie user of this sometimes idiosyncratic product is that it doesn't strive to pull a print-ready image off the film. Filmget, the software that came with my Canon FS4000 scanner, seems to try to do that -- but Filmget sometimes gets the color wrong, sharpens whether I want it to or not, and makes decisions for me that I'd prefer it hadn't made. Vuescan delivers a flat scan with as much as possible of the information that's on the film -- but the scan pretty much has to be manipulated in Photoshop or another image editor afterward, with adjustments layers to tweak levels, contrast and so forth. If in a hurry, I would print straight from a Filmget scan, but would never print from a Vuescan scan.

 

Sometimes, though, I prefer what I get from Filmget. I don't know why. Others know far more about scanning than I do, and probably could tell me why. As it is, I've come to think of Vuescan as an important tool in the arsenal, but that's all.

 

Ed Hamrick is an obviously enthusiastic software writer who posts regular updates and answers questions personally in the comp.periphs.scanners newsgroup. However, he seems to respond when it strikes his fancy, and perhaps not mine, or yours.

 

No experience with Silverfast.

 

If any of the real experts who frequent this forum disagree with any of what I've written, please do chime in. This is one intermediate user's take on things, after regular use of the products mentioned.