mike_mahoney

just ran both the small switch and the AF / MF clutch back and forth a few times and it finally disengaged the AF.

so problem solved.

BTW Dick it is Canon mount.

cheers,

Mike

I'm wondering if any users of this lens can offer me some help ..

when I switch to MF it seems that the lens still has the AF

mechanism on .. the MF ring is noisey and grinds and is heavy to

turn just like it would if you moved it with the AF on.

so is this normal?

many thanks,

Mike

the play is there with most all lenses but more noticable with larger, heavier glass.

just take your smaller lenses and give them a little twist .. they will move as well.

cheers,

Mike

ADVISORY �.. Anyone owning or considering a Canon G2 should be aware

of firmware problems which render the camera inoperative. This is a

well documented issue. See following links:

http://dpgallery.com/resource/g2minority/index_e.asp

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?TopicID=3051

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=2822244

There are other forums containing threads on this issue. Contact me

off list for more information.

Robert White has long enjoyed a sterling reputation for friendly and

effective service, one that is well deserved.

<p>

The low prices are a bonus .... the customer service and knowledge

alone are reason enough to buy there. Robert is very frank about

shipping and other charges, so ask them directly.

I was in a situation similar to yours some months ago and posted much

the same question, and received similar advice.

<p>

As to my remedy, I simply sent the offender an invoice at my regular

rate, which much to my surprise was paid promptly. I have since

gotten considerable follow on work from this client.

<p>

So, until you're shown otherwise, assume your 'client' has simply

made a mistake and give them a chance to pay. If you don't receive

payment within a reasonable period, follow up with a letter or phone

call stating your case, and if you still see no payment, proceed with

a lawyer or small claims court.

My exact printer varies on the particular output, but there are

suitable offerings at a price point below my indicated price. Good

old H20 is not likely to do any print any good !! With consideration

to those who view digital threads a waste of bandwidth on a LF

digest, the following link profiles the Epson 2000, and Michael R.

has reviewed many other printers as well.

<p>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/2000p.htm

<p>

Luminous Landscape is an excellent source of impartial information on

many digital / traditional comparisions. Check the subject index for

articles.

Paul, could you be more specific if possible in the processes used in

some of the prints you're evaluating ??

<p>

Although you probably won't find this opinion in common currency on

this forum, a high quality digital print from a high quality digital

capture is difficult to distinguish from a high quality traditional

print in sizes up to 11X14, and in many cases 16X20 using Genuine

Fractals. Many experienced photographers would argue the digital to

be superior.

<p>

So there would seem to be some bias here against digital in the face

of strong evidence otherwise. This is understandable given the nature

of this forum, and the enjoyment many of us, myself included, get

from our traditional processes.

<p>

But that does not warrant a blind prejudice against digital, nor does

it warrant quoting artifically high prices for digital equipment. A

6mp digital SLR is now under $2,000 U.S., a sufficient computer is

$1,000 U.S., and Photoshop with a printer is another $2,000. So for

$5,000 you can acquire a very good digital kit.

<p>

This kit would produce 11X14's that most would find the equal of

traditional prints.

<p>

As both a LF and digital photographer, I'm finding LF to be more of a

process than a result. I enjoy setting up a LF camera, I enjoy all

the little frustrations such as loading film, pulling darkslides,

squinting around under the darkcloth, metering, remembering to put

the white side back in, etc., etc., ....it's an enjoyable way to

spend an afternoon in the field.

<p>

As for digital equipment becoming obselete quickly, the tool is still

there .... We're still using a 2.1 mp consumer digicam to shoot 360

degree panoramas, mostly because it offers small file sizes with good

quality. Although you will find this hard to believe, this camera has

taken over 16,000 frames in the past three and a half years. If it

evaporated tomorrow morning I'd be more than happy to call it

obselete. It cost $499 Canadian.

<p>

Digital enables me to shoot with instant exposure feedback, and I've

seen little in the way of color correction that cannot be acheived in

PhotoShop. Perspective control with software now lets me tell the

computer how much vertical or horizontal perspective to apply or

remove. It's less fun than than using rise or shift, but the results

are the same. Clients are happy with one or two day turnaround, and

their printers or webmasters ask for digital files anyway.

<p>

I'm sure somewhere there is a digital back being offered for $20,000,

and somewhere there is a computer for $5,000, and a $5,000 printer as

well. There are also Linhof and Ebony cameras offered at prices well

above workhorse LF cameras that can take the same image. For every

one of those $20,000 backs sold, there are a hundred $2,000 Canon

D60's being sold, and for most applications the results are the same.

<p>

Shame on View Camera magazine for not offering its readers a more

realistic assessment of digital ... but the source is not impartial.

Brians' reply is the answer .... content, content, content. Of all

the movies I've seen recently, I cared less, or even knew if they

were done digitally or not.

There have been quite a number of posts related to center filter

requirements, and there is much valuable info in them. Opinions vary

as may be expected, but a search of the archives should give you a

fair sample.

<p>

You can measure the light falloff of your particular lens by shooting

an evenly lit white wall at various apertures and measuring in PS.

Then create a circular grad layer in PS to compensate.

<p>

This is fairly simple, and Photoshop Elements can do it, and it's an

older version, but is not expensive, in fact about a third of the

cost of most center filters. In fact, PS LE is a free bundle with

many scanners and digital cameras.

Try this:

<p>

http://www.thenocturnes.com/layers.htm

<p>

Any method that worked for you in 35mm should work in LF as well ...

film is film. The above link is specific to night photography. Hope

this helps.

You could ask them why they want the negs, then you're in a better

position to negotiate. You say magazines, promos and album cover, all

those will be final digital products ... perhaps they are simply

trying to have your creative input on the shoot, and remove you from

the output production.

<p>

There are no good reasons to give a client the negs, and many good

reasons for you to hold them, both for the client and yourself. You

need to talk again with your client to see whats going on.

Ilfochromes are not cheap, and it's not easy to find a good printer.

Looking at your e-mail, I'm assuming you're on the east coast of

Canada - I'm in Nfld., and I've sent work to the Silver Shack in

Ontario, and the work is very good, I'd recommend them for sure.

<p>

But really if you only need a high quality 11X14, digital would do a

very good job for you .. just have a high quality scan done, and

there should be a fair number of outlets in NS for high quality

digital printing.

Why use the LF for portraits ? It's somewhat overkill, expensive, and

not required unless your friends require huge enlargements.

<p>

Do you and your friends a favour and use 35mm with Portra NC 160 or

400 in the shade, or in brighter light with a little fill flash. For

the price of five developed sheets you could easily shoot a full roll

of Portra, and have room for more poses and misses.

<p>

Don't want to discourage you, but sheet film and experimentation can

become tiresome and expensive - and 35mm can do the job quite well.

As sites go, this one has minimal software and server requirements.

There have been a number of offers of help to host the site, so any

fears of it's disappearance are probably premature.

<p>

Like others, I'd like to know of our backup plan should we one day

find ourselves without our current server.

I had a similar setup as yours, mine being the Discovery and the

Phototrekker. I simply swung both standards full to one side and laid

the camera flat in the bag. This of course after moving the

compartment dividers around slightly to the correct size.

<p>

With a bigger bag or smaller camera, don't swing the standards as

much ... the idea is to have them about snug with the top of the bag.

I didn't do anything to protect the groundglass. The WA bellows could

stay on during the above procedure, the satndard bellows had to be

removed.

I forgot to add this link from Luminous Landscape

<p>

http://luminous-landscape.com/hd-back.htm

I'd second the Iomega suggestion ... an innovative company with high

quality products, plus you'd need only three or four of the portable

drives.

<p>

The CD/DVD solution is inexpensive, and probably not too time

consuming once you've brought things up to date. I'm using CD's now,

but I'll soon be looking at the portable drive solution.

Use CD's. Quicker, cheaper, and certainly presents your work in a

size large enough evaluate. They can always ask for larger prints if

they need them.

<p>

You could probably put together a website for the price of a nice

portfolio, and ask yourself which really gives you more exposure.

CD's run about a buck each ... great promotional value.

<p>

I wouldn't worry too much about "industry standards" ... the main

thing is to get your work in front of as many prospective clients as

possible in an effective manner.

<p>

Finally, ask your prospects which format they would prefer to see a

presentation in .... I'll wager the word " CD " comes up a lot.

Dick R. had a point about stitching ... there are many good, cheap,

and some freeware programs which do a very good job of stitching. "

Pano Tools " by Helmut Dersch (sp?) is a very good start, and it

works as a PS plug in. Also is the " Panorama Factory " by Smokey

City Design. But I'd also like to see a panorama facility contained

within PS written by Adobe.

The Adobe site itself is quite informative, and has tutorials etc.,

as well as links to forums if you have a specific question.

<p>

There are almost too many PS books in print to mention, your best bet

is to go to a local bookstore and browse to see which instructional

style suits you.

<p>

The Adobe " Classroom in a book " series is good, and comes with a CD

containing the files necessary for the lessons.

<p>

The initial learning curve is steep, but after a while becomes second

nature. Try to do a little PS work every day to keep your acquired

skills sharp.

<p>

PS is overkill for anyone like yourself just wanting to size files

and e-mail them. But for the majority of commercial photographers, PS

is the indispensible gold standard.

The 995 enjoys a reputation as one of the best macro digital cameras

available, as did the 990 before it. Check your manual on how to do

macro shots.

I was going to suggest the Photoshop solution to you - simply scan a

transparency of an evenly illuminated solid color, and check the

various K values in PS. This would give you an accurate reading on

the existing light falloff, then do the same check with the filter in

place.

Richard has the idea, although a little theory can save some time and

trouble in the field.

<p>

My understanding of hyperfocal distance is that it relates only to

film and lens planes that are parallel. Once tilt is applied to

either standard, HF DOF goes out the window.

Many years ago before I was really serious about photography, a

seasoned professional photographer who was also a friend of mine

asked could he use the landing on the back of a building I worked in

as a vantage point for some photography he was doing for a client.

<p>

He came in over a period of two days with a Hassleblad and film, but

no meter. Before each shot he would look around at the sky and set

the camera. I always remembered that as a skill worth learning.

<p>

There was a time when I considered a spot meter indispensible, but

not any more. With practice, I've learned to estimate the correct

reading using an ambient meter reading and then judging the various

parts of the scene. This includes difficult situations such as

sunsets/sunrises. Before all you ultra accurate zone system devotees

start laughing too hard, my exposures are now quicker and at least as

accurate as they were when I used a spot meter, and I use Velvia and

RDP, two unforgiving films.

<p>

For anyone interested, I'd suggest starting by taking an ambient

reading at the start of your day, and guess the exposure values for

various scenes as the day progresses. You don't need your camera for

this. Check your guesses with a spot meter. Most photographers who

take exposure notes would surprise themselves at their accuracy.

<p>

This has become a situation where we have allowed spot meters to take

control of a task which, with a little practice and patience we could

easily do ourselves.