mattb1

Frank, people experiencing issues with Epson printers is not solely caused by "abuse". I agree with you that using non-

oem ink is not a good idea. But, saying non-oem ink and papers is the sole source of the issues is missleaading at best.

I'am one of the unfortunate ones who experience clogging with Epson printers, several printers and I only use OEM inks

and papers. With other printers, HP and Canon, I have a lot fewer clogs. To the point of not getting them on some

printers. It is to bad for those of us who have issues, because otherwise they do produce good prints.

 

Most people, actually a very large maority of them, will not have any issues with Epson printers. But, people living in very low humidity locations or dusty places, may want to look at another line of printers. Or at least know that they may have a higher maintenance with an

Epson.

 

I would suggest looking at the Canon line up, they have always done a good job on their printers. For me they have been

lower maintenance as well as great output.

I'm sure it will be a huge help, but a snap? Don't think so. Still, I can't wait for it, I think it can help a lot in situations

where you can't make an optimal capture and for the auto mode snap shots. It will save a lot of images, or at least

make them usable.

 

Does anyone have an opinion on focus magic? I might be tempted to try that in the interim, but it does not support 64

bit yet.

<p>IMO, if not for professional uses, forget scanning, use a good macro lens on a DSLR or a great point and shoot and take a photo of the prints. Once you have the lighting issues resolved and perspective control, then it will be pretty quick. From what you stated a scanner could be over kill, at least borrow a good digital camera and give it a try before buying a scanner.</p>

<p>There are people that love their epson scanners, but I did not like my experience with them. IMO, if you have not scanned before, don't consider it. It has a steep learning curve and take a LOT of time, and a LOT of trial and error if you don't have someone experienced actually looking over your shoulder. I do not have a single MF scan from my epson that I kept, a few 35mm scans but no MF.</p>

<p>You could probably find a better scanning service, but if you like their quality then stick with it. $13 a roll is cheap compared to the time you will loose scanning yourself. No matter how good of a scanner you have, it will be a substantial investment of time. If you were someone who lamented the loss of detail, then ts a different matter and maybe a good scanner is worth the time.</p>

Sounds fine, but your question indicates a lack of experience with scanning in general. I would suggest going to the

website marginal software.com and find their write up on film scanning. Basically, their approach is to scan by

histogram, try and get a flat as possible histogram and use as much of the scale as possible for a given photo. That

will give you the widest range of colors and contrast for you photo. Then in your image editor you can adjust the

colors and contrast to suit This is of course the theory of scanning a photo once. Most pros scan a photo for their

current need, it is faster and arguably might be better.

Well, there is a possibility for fraud in this type of case. I had one recently on a non-photo item. I had the high bid, no

reserve. Left it knowing that I could be out bid. But, was surprised the next day when I was not only out bid, but

outbid by almost twice what the item should sell for. And I'm not talking a few hundred dollars, but rather like $10,000

more than the item was worth. The bids came in less than a minute apart, and the bidders had not made a bid in

lthat category of items in over 30 days. So, I reported to eBay, will most likely never know if anything was done about

it.

 

The point is that, while not ripped off, the OP may have a fraud case against the seller if the seller employed friends

to run the price up to avoid selling at too low of a price. In this case, maybe not what happened. But, it does happen.

I agree with just about eveyones comments so far. Yes, you can get more detail than 4000 ppi. But, your original

photo technique needs to have been very good to get that kind of detail. I found that a very high percentage of my

photos were covered by 4000. And, that the quality of the Nikon 9000's lens, light source and film holders was

sufficient. More routine photos could go to print with almost no post processing. Of course I have no illusion that the

higher dollar systems could get more detail, more ppi, more local contrast, have better lenses and so on. But,

unfortunately my technique, film choice, and cameras of the film era were not up to the task most of the time to

require much more than 4000ppi. I used a minolta 5400 II and it did get more detail, but the files needed more work

than the ones from the Nikon and the difference was kind of small in the final print.

 

It is a compromise. Some are ok with Epson flat beds, some are good with the Nikons, and some can't do less than

drum scans. It is up to your personal standards and budget.

 

Me, I'm really looking at MF digital in the hopefully not too distance future. I'm personally over trying to use film, I may even send out what is left of my film library to a lo cost scan service.

Try checking Vimeo and cinema5d there will be a much larger base of experience at those web sites.

Actually, for DSLRs and point and shoots you should be doing some light capture sharpening not just out put

sharpening.

 

Lightroom does not alter any of the files directly, it keeps all actions on file and applies them when you use the file.

So, yes even for jpg it does nota mess up the image.

 

I do the RAW + jpg and fallback to the RAW when I need to. But for most shots the jpgs are great.

 

And, by the way I find this true for a XTI as well as a 5D II.

One thing to think about is that a Canon DSLR can use Nikon lenses with an inexpensive mounting ring. But I do not

believe the Nikon cameras can use Canon lenses. But, the difference between the film and digital camera generation

may make some combos unworkable.

 

I like Nikon a lot, and now the differences are not as large as a few years ago. If I did not already have a substantial

Canon lens line up (or substantial to me) I would definitely take a long look at Nikon. But, IMO, It is going to be hard

to beat the image quality of your 5D.

For the adventueious, I'm pretty happy with my file server. Made from an old PC, some new drives and Ubuntu. You

can setup a RAID 10 array or two. Use the desk top version of Ubuntu and install the file shareing ontop. Stray from

that approach and it does get hard. Mine has been running for months without me touching it. It will be as fast or at

least competitive as any other networked storage. It will not be as fast as a direct connection like USB 3. You can

also install web servers and mail servers if you are a super geek.

IMO, you can get more than 5000 dpI of info from film and it will indeed be noticeable. The question becomes if the

technique used for the photo was good enough to record that much info. 2000 dpi from MF or LF? IMO, that is not

why I would shoot a larger format.

 

The imacons were well regarded, I have never used one though. I'm sure their attention to quality would make their

lower res scans look better than the higher res scans. A lot more goes into a good scanner than a high pixel count.

Great glass and light source and image chip, not to mention how the film is handled. I would be concerned about

support, and repair.

IMO, you really have to see what digital printing has to offer. There is a larger selection of papers, and there are

printers that can produce darker blacks than wet printing could ever do. I was blown away at what could be done, with

my last printer.

OK, great trip plan. Long distance from Moab to yellowstone, but what the heck. The 5D II would be epic there, and

the 24-105 is more than enough for the trip I have taken my 5D II to Yellowstone, but not to Moab yet. At Yellwstone

I used the 24-105 almost exclusively. Having a zoom on the overlooks allowed me to frame shoots. I tried using

some primes but I could not get good positions to frame shoots as much. Next, I had a 100-400 and did get some

good shots with it, so taking a long zoom will allow you to take some good wild life photos.

 

It you do barrow the 5D II, take a few days to get use to it. It is different than your camera and less forgiving. But,

you will get some epic photos. Look into insurance and keep a good grip on it! It is a study camera, but even the

best can get damaged.

Any idea on the subject you may specialize in? Like portraits or fine art? That will effect the camera you select,

digital is not a one size fits all thing right now ( or ever before).

 

The 5D II is a great camera, but so is the equivalent Nikon or Sony. And, within the next year a new model will be

out with some great features, perhaps even so ground breaking ones.

 

Lens on the other hand evolve at a much slower pace. And a decent camera with a great lens will take great photos.

Or if you have vision you can take great photos with just about any camera.

 

The 5D II would not be a bad investment, you could sell it if you end up not liking it. You may loose a little money,

but not a great deal. If you want to shoot sports or birds I would look at the 7D or 50D.

 

Lens though are a great investment, if you know what you want. The 24-105 L is a good all around lens, I would start

off with that one and then see what you want after that.

 

Good luck!

If you hand hold your video the 24-105 l with IS will be a great choice, I find IS helps a lot more with video. The

videos with primes are most likely done with a great tripod. IMO stability and camera movement are huge issues,

maybe more than the difference between the 24-105 and a prime.

 

There are some really inexpensive shoulder rigs that help. I have never used a Merlin or such they, cost too much to

experiment with for me. The one I use most often for hand holding, looks like a rifle stock. It does ok.

 

I tried last weekend using a fluid head on a tripod and found I can still really screw up video with that setup. The

moral of the much too long story is: you have to practice a LOT with each method you want to use. If you do not you

will get a lot of unusable video or miss or mess up events. A sub-second jostle is very visible on video and hard to get rid of...

 

Good luck! Video is surprisingly different from stills.

IMO, if you get an Epson make sure it can do what you want. Personally I feel that I wasted a lot of time trying to

make an Epson do what I wanted, but in the end I had to accept that it could not do what I only have a very small

number of 35mm scans and no MF scans to show for my efforts. I have thousands of scans from my Nikon and from

my minolta, both work faster and give much better image quality which means little to no post processing. I can print

those easily and get results that I like. The Epson scans are hard for me to print as well.

 

Yes, some people like the Epsons because they are cheap. Which is fine. Just want to warn people that they may

not be for everyone.

Thanks guys.

 

David, the files are RAW. I usually shoot both, and may actually have both on the laptop hard drive, but on the

external right now I only have RAW. I do not have the auto sync on.

 

Patric, yes I'm due for a back up, isn't everyone LOL On my home PC I have a RAID 10 array and I have a home

server running a RAID 10 as back up. The I also have a external drive for a second back up. This does not always

feel like enough though :)

 

The laptop is going to be retired, this is the last thing I need to get off of it. The screen stopped working and it never

was a good laptop, so not worth it to try and fix.

Ya, I have the older 80-200 2.8 l. Optically a great lens, I used it on an old XTI as well. I love the lens. The AF is

fast enough for me, but then I prefocus a lot. The 2.8 will allow the body to focus a little better than an f4. I like the

look of a 2.8 portrait though, and have some great ones with that lens. But, to be honest using that size of a lens is

not always easy to work with.

 

IS is nice, but it won't help a moving subject. It is real helpful for video though. A 2.8 lens can help you get more

actions shots in lower light. But, for video I switch to a IS lens.

 

I'm a little surprised that the 80-200 would cost more though. I thought they should be pretty similar in price or that

80-200 be a little less. The main reason being that if something should happen a more recent lens would be easier to

get repaired. You might be out of luck on an older lens, or it would at least be harder to find someone who could fix it.

I would suggest researching the prices a little more just to make sure.

Hi,

 

Hopefully this is an easy question, but can't seem to find the answer.

 

I have lightroom on both the home PC and a laptop. The catalogs were created independently, but the photos in them have the

same names and file structure. Now, what I have done is for some of the event type photos I used the laptop to record in the meta

data who was in each of the photos. No my issue, how do I transfer those metadata changes to the analogous images on my home

PC? I nay have maybe four or five folders of photos that need this handling, and I have an external disk to use.

 

What actions or process do I need to do in lightroom to accomplish this task? The research I have done has not given me much

confidence that the procedures would accomplish what I need. Any good ideas or good explanations?

 

Thanks,

Matt

IMO your are far better off investing in a high quality RIP. Sorry, but I do not know the RIPs for the Epson printers.

 

Also, IMO forget genuine fractals or any up-rezing software. They can not add detail, they can not fix focus errors,

they can however make noise worse or create errors. A good RIP will give better results, and most likely be what you

need.

 

When you print very large the necessary resolution per inch drops off dramatically. Once you get above 16x20 viewers

will not give the print close examination. No rules of thumb available really. Clean, well executed photos can be

printed much larger than most would guess. Ones with flaws though will not print well, no matter how many pixels you

create for it.

 

Have fun with that printer, 24inch wide is great fun!

Stating which printer you have will really help people so they can give advice. I do not have any Epson printers, but

they have a large community of users.

 

Epson papers will be about the best, the printer manufactures develop their ink sets to work with specific types of

papers. Beyond Epson papers you will have to wait for someone to shar their experiences with you or find the info

with google.

 

One way to tell if a paper will be good is if there are ICC profiles available for that paper and printer combination.

Otherwise you will not get the best image on you print. The profiles tell the print driver how to put the ink on the

paper, basically what combos of inks are needed for standard colors. Without this info your colors will Be off, and the

print could have other issues.

That looks like someone edited the file. I can not think of anything that would make a line so irregular, but yet

repeated.

I think the OP may be starting to understand that there is no perfect way of handling files.

 

I like the idea of using dates in the folder structures. I think it has helped me, because when I try to use subjects in

the folder names I change my mind the following year and it just becomes a big mess.

 

I would like to think key words or tags are the way to go and use them in lightroom, but when I import a batch of

images I rarely add key words or tags. Mainly because the batch will have more than one set of images, that is they

will not all share all key words/tags. So I do end up with some what of a mess still. But, having them in a date order

will allow me to find specific events.

 

I like the idea of facial recognition and having that add key words/tags automatically. However, to be realy helpful it

would need to recognize things besides faces. And, Adobe would have to include the support in it's "Pro" products and

not just the consumer ones.

Hate to tell you but adobe has the copyright for tiff. But it has not changed in almost 2 decades.

 

Interesting to read that the US Library of congress and the American Society of Media Photographers both prefer DNG.

So, it has some good backing.

 

I'am a little hesitant to use DNG as well, for the same reason: how longs will it be supported. I kind of hope that a

new format (or an extension of DNG) will support the delta type approach of lightroom. That is a non-destructive

editing format. Maybe it is already there and I have not kept up...

 

Overall I would suggest a god back up system instead of relying on a format choice.