aidjoy

<p>Wanted to chime in here. The 24-70 G is actually prone to breaking at the mount. If you do a google search you can see for yourself. Mine snapped while traveling in carry-on luggage. I replaced it with a 50mm prime and called it good. I can't have lenses that snap in half- period. Sorry I can't address the OP question about what zoom would be a good alternative. Just wanted to clear things up for the respondents that addressed the actual breakage of the lens.</p>

<p>Don't get rid of it- learn how to use it- then use it. http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>I used to think it was better to shoot all natural light so I bought fast glass and good low-light cameras. Then I realized I was missing the point and started learning how to light.</p>

<p>Best of both words...</p>

<p>I've used both Canons and Nikons professionally. Learned years ago on canons, then minolta, and settled on nikon. I bought a 5d, some pro glass, etc to compliment my d2x. Couldn't stand the thing, honestly. The ergos and controls didn't work for me. I worked with it long enough to get fluid with the controls but the camera always felt soulless in my hands. I truly believe that Nikon makes a more well thought out product. I'm shooting with a d3 these days and had a d300s as a back up. Sold the d300s and looking to get another fx when the d700 successor comes out. Not a fan of the crop sensors and their smaller viewfinders. Your reasoning is interesting but just remember that dx sensor doesn't change your focal length, just your angle of view and you really can get to the same point by cropping your image off the full frame sensor.</p>

<p>My vote would be to pick up two d700's, a 35 and an 85 and be happy. Trust me, you can crop the 85 down to be similar to a 200mm or narrower angle of view and still have plenty to work with to make awesome prints. While I try to avoid this I regularly find myself seriously cropping my images to change their use and I'm always amazed at how well they hold up. (all D3 files)</p>

<p>All this being said you better make sure you like the Nikon ergonomics and controls before you buy in. They are different from canon and plenty of people truly prefer one or the other. Good luck!</p>

<p>Use whatever you want to clean it short of gasoline, kerosene, turpentine or the like. It's a D3. I've got one that's been to hell and back with me and it still looks like it's brand new. If it's dirty I wipe it with my shirt, If it's really dirty I wet my shirt before wiping it. Every now and then I clean the sensor and give it a going over with q-tips to get in the nooks n crannies. No worries.</p>

<p>Heck, you might try a pressure washer from about 10 feet back or so.. :P</p>

<p>A serious answer to your question would be to use some diluted rubbing alcohol on a clean cloth. Good luck!</p>

<p>Yes- easily! But the person doing the sharpening, up-rezzing, and printing needs to know what they're doing.</p>

<p>Andrea-</p>

<p>I often suffer from pre-trip lusting after certain pieces of gear that I think I need before heading off to some far corner of the World and have, indeed, bought plenty of stuff within a week of departure. :)</p>

<p>However, I would have to recommend that you stick with the lens you have now which has reasonable reach on the d300 crop sensor and just use the extra money on your trip. I think the money will go further toward getting you fantastic photographs if you spend it on hiring local fixers (guides) that can show you things you would not have found or experienced on your own.</p>

<p>I have shot in both Cambodia and Myanmar and if I were to go back, and were in your shoes concerning a possible gear purchase, I would save the money and invest it in getting good shots once on the ground.</p>

<p>On another note, extra lenses are most useful when attached to extra camera bodies. I've found that one body and a multitude of lenses doesn't mean I get lots better photographs, just that I carry more weight.</p>

<p>Best-<br>

Mike Bergen<br>

http://www.aidjoy.org/</p>

<p>Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but as far as a test print is concerned just do some math and give them a crop of the frame to print on an 8x10. Get your math right (just division) and this works perfectly. Example (rough): you want to see what a 2000px x 3000px image would look like at 50" wide. just give them a 600px wide crop of the frame and tell them to print on an 8"x10" landscape format.</p>

<p>Also, I have had images off my d3 printed by <a href="http://www.pictureframes.com">Graphik Dimensions</a> up to 48" wide on canvas and they look perfect. Their website is a little hokie looking but I've toured their facilities and they do first class work! Their guy working the computers has an impressive display of degrees on the wall and really knows his stuff.</p>

<p>If I were you I would send them a crop (explain to them what you're doing) and see what kind of final product they can come up with. Only cost ya a couple of bucks to see. From my experience all the people that say you can't enlarge to such n such size for whatever reason are full of it. I have really high standards and I've seen some awesome large prints come from some small files.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Just wondering who out there has solved this riddle 9 months later? I'm guessing that<br>

"O N E . . . . M O R E . . . . . T I M E . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-24/2.8 you . . . can't use any filters, tricks, PERIOD."<br>

is a bunch of baloney.</p>

<p>I need neutral density on this lens to shoot daytime time lapse, FX.</p>

 

<p>Daniel,<br /> I can recommend Graphik Dimensions for your printing needs. They are a professional outfit that does very good work for reasonable prices. They'll do up to 6ft wide by whatever length. I have no affiliation with them other than being a satisfied client. Their website is www.pictureframes.com. They have a printing and framing interface on their website so you can see what it will cost you. I'd guess around 300 for a 4x6 print or around 600 for a gallery-wrapped canvas in a floater frame (These are slick!) I'd triple the cost for your sale price.<br>

<br /> (just saw your last post- If that's what will make the sale and you're happy with the price I'd say go for it)<br>

<br /> Good luck,</p>

<p>Mike Bergen<br /> www.aidjoy.org</p>

<p>I'm a co-founder of a non-profit organization: www.aidjoy.org. We provide journalism, web development, and marketing for other non-profits: www.projectamazonas.org. I'm the chief photographer for AidJoy and a salaried employee. We've been working on infrastructure and fundraising for our clients and have neglected, to this point, putting together any paperwork having to do with copyright and ownership of images.</p>

<p>What's a realistic way to structure this relationship? I would like to retain the right to use, distribute, and sell the work I produce while shooting AidJoy projects if at all possible. I would also like to use photographs I've produced outside of AidJoy projects for the benefit of AidJoy and our clients. I realize this is a question best addressed by an attorney but I'd like some feedback from the photo.net community first. </p>

<p>Thank you for your consideration</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>I looked into this pretty extensively about a year ago. The best system with the best support that I found was real tour vision. They're pretty heavy-handed when it comes to sales but I'd still recommend looking them up.</p>

<p>The opposite tack being that, with one of these rigs, you can shoot video and just swipe frames for still images. Here are some images that the shooter claims were captured in this manner:</p>

<p>(from an alert post on lightstalkers.org)<br>

http://pa.photoshelter.com/c/danfung/gallery/Afghan-Korengal-Fighting/G0000ghdf6pcgOB8/</p>

<p>Works incredibly well for journalistic purposes! (in my opinion)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alright! Thanks Jeff- that was exactly the information I needed. Time to tackle the problem!</p>

<p>:)<br>

Mike</p>

<p>I just got a brand new to me F3 in 9+ condition. Clean as a whistle. Went to put film in it and when I pulled up the rewind knob to open the back the rewind knob came off in my hand. I now have a tiny washer, a rewind knob, the cylindrical spool that goes down in the camera body, and an F3 with some parts rattling around inside of it. GRRRRRR!!!</p>

<p>Any suggestions? Is there a trick to opening the back of one of these things without a rewind knob attached? Anyone know a good repair facility that could put humpty dumpty together again?</p>

<p>I thought the F3 was supposed to be a tank... but so far it's just making me appreciate my D3 more and more! :)</p>

<p>Thanks guys!<br>

Mike</p>

<p>I'll try both of those suggestions: scanning in color and converting and Vuescan software. I have to say though, I'm quite pleased with what I've got right now (the 92k jpg I uploaded doesn't do the 44 meg tiff master justice.) The white point is spot on as only the tiniest portion of the girl's collar lacks any density. As far as gradation is concerned- this shot was taken in direct sunlight with fill light coming from sand and the wall. Some of my other trial scans of shots taken under kinder lighting conditions are quite a bit better in this area.</p>

<p>It's quite interesting to see the grain structure of the film come through in the scan. It's nothing like the images my D3 produces. Not sure which one I prefer- though I have a feeling I'll like the scanned images better after I've gotten a bit more used to them. I've been looking at files that originated from digital devices for so long now they just look normal to me...</p>

<p>Best-<br>

Mike</p>

<p>Just put the finishing touches on it (re-framed the negative to get as much as the hands as possible), adjusted black and white points, cropped. Ready to go to PS for a final cleanup.</p>

<p>For the record this is a portrait of the director of the Cambodian Light Children's Orphanage and one of his charges. The orphanage is located on the edge of a slum by the Mekong river in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and is home to some 250 children and a few mothers with no where else to go. The orphanage supports itself through traditional Khmer performances including Apsara dancing and theatre. All of their elaborate costumes are made in-house and stored in a locked trunk next to the directors hammock.</p>

<p>Thanks again guys and have a great day!</p><div></div>

<p>Ok- makes sense to adjust the white and black points pre-scan to get the largest dynamic range and the most info before going to PS.<br>

Thanks again for the help (I'm new to scanning.) If there's any other pointers you guys have for me then please let me know, otherwise I'm about to start knocking out the couple hundred slides and negatives I need to digitize.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick replies guys. I turned off everything and rescanned- actually looks like a photograph now. Any recommendations as to where to go from here- Can I improve this scan or is it time to go to photoshop for tweaking?</p><div></div>

<p>How do you get a decent scan from a B/W negative on the coolscan 5000? This is the junk I'm currently getting.</p><div></div>

<p>Canon pixma pro 9500</p>

<p>Hi there guys n gals- been having a problem with marks on my prints (see thread here: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00TDeq )</p>

<p>Did a little research and found that I'm not the only one (see this thread from dpreview's forum: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=31260152 )</p>

<p>So what's the answer? Anyone figure out how to prevent these little bastard dotted lines?</p>

<p>....I'm starting to get a bit perturbed.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mike</p>

<p>Gary- </p>

<p>I checked old prints made on different paper and couldn't find any evidence of this issue. but now, after printing on the fine art pearl, when I print on a regular flimsy canon printer I'm getting evidence of the same issue- just not as noticeable as on the fine art pearl.</p>

<p>Also... I've noticed two new characteristics. The marks are in the same place on every print, and in line with the white marks on the print are similar tiny ink marks on the unprinted border of the print.</p>

<p>Is all this still pointing toward the platen gap idea?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help guys!</p>

<p>M</p>

<p>Gary- </p>

<p>I checked old prints made on different paper and couldn't find any evidence of this issue. but now, after printing on the fine art pearl, when I print on a regular flimsy canon printer I'm getting evidence of the same issue- just not as noticeable as on the fine art pearl.</p>

<p>Also... I've noticed two new characteristics. The marks are in the same place on every print, and in line with the white marks on the print are similar tiny ink marks on the unprinted border of the print.</p>

<p>Is all this still pointing toward the platen gap idea?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help guys!</p>

<p>M</p>

<p>yes- it is- but I seriously doubt it's paper related. dots are perfectly uniform in their march across the print.</p>

<p>Just ran those utilities- heads good. No problems there.</p>

<p>What else could cause this?</p>