ashtonsmith

I've never done it with my 3200, but several people have oil mounted film on the 3200.

There is a tutiorial somewhere on the internet. Oil mounting is the best way to avoid

Newton rings. A thin layer of oil goes between the glass and the film removing the air gap

that causes the rings. Just about all drum scans are oil mounted. Downside: You have to

clean the oil off of the film. There are several companies out on the net that make the

supplies for oil mounting.

Hey guys, calm down. I had two zooms that both zoomed to 24mm so I shot the same

object with it. Does that sound like the craziest thing I could do? I never in my wildest

imagination thought that the Tokina would equal or beat the Canon.

I should post the full screen shots, as the crop really doesn't show it, but the Tokina looks

like it is out of focus by comparison. There is some concrete that has some texture that is

just plain not there in the Tokina shot. I didn't think I would get the same level of detail as

the Canon, I just thought I would get some detail. I will post the full size here in a few

minutes on the same page.

<P>Well, I just bought a new Tokina 12-24mm based partially on the review on the main

page.</P>

<P>I must have gotten a dud. I really thought it would have performed a little better than

this.</P>

<url>http://homepage.mac.com/escaport/PhotoAlbum19.html</url>

John you wrote

"It's not easy to carry out a fair and rigorous comparison." That is my point exactly. I'm

not interested in fair. I want someone that is really good and familiar with C1 to go at it

with someone practiced and very good at ACR on say 5 photos. Fairness be damned...,

but it would definatly be rigorous. :)

Ashton

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm

He does use the newer versions of the software. My problem with these test is that they

try to make the tests even when they are not. They give the pluses and minuses to having

"curves, levels, noise reduction", and then they don't use it to evaluate the program. I

want to see a comparison with no holds barred, best quality possible on say five different

lighting conditions.

If I owned C1 and some others, I'd do it. Or if someone who has C1 would like to go in

with me we could do a test. It would be more illuminating than "here is what C1 and ACR

did with default settings." Who uses the default settings on all of their photos anyway.

Ashton

"Apparently this is not true? Having experienced the difference first hand in the film-

scanner-RAW-photoshop process, if manufacturers are once again introducing their

version of editting.......well, then these ARE NOT RAW file download programs.........they

are the equivalent to scanner software that manipulates the image to the manufacturers

preconcieved notion of what the output should be.

They should just stop this and get back to simply producing a RAW image, so photoshop

editting can take care of the rest."

You are misunderstanding RAW files in general. RAW files are not photos yet. Think of it

as an exposed negative that hasn't been developed yet. The different RAW coverting

programs would be like developers (i.e. D76, Pyro, Rodinal...).

With those developers you can push or pull your exposure or alter contrast and other

things, but you can't dodge and burn till the negative is developed. The film is still in a

changable format until the salts are converted to silver.

Same is true with RAW. These have to be interpreted. There are groups of four pixels

(Bayer (sp?) pattern) that contain two green pixels, one red, and one blue, that have to be

interprolated into the final colors that you see on your monitor. The RAW formats are

useless before that conversion. A RAW file doesn't know what pink, or yellow, or any other

color is. RAW contains no color. It doesn't even know what white is supposed to look like.

RAW files are basically a long list of voltages that the individual pixels recorded. ACR and

C1 and others look at the combinations of a pixel group and the ones beside it. They run

this through all kinds of formulas and that determines that that pixel will be the color that

you see on your monitor.

In the end you are left with the RAW vs. JPEG debate. Do you want to make the choices or

do you want you camera to. If you want to just "simply producing a RAW image, so

photoshop editting can take care of the rest", I suggest shooting with jpeg in Adobe 98

and minimal sharpening and let the camera do the conversion.

As to weather ACR or C1 is better, that is up to your own testing. If your serious you

probably have Photoshop CS or elements 3, so you have ACR. Then, you can download

and try C1. Convert the same images with both and pick what you like. Simple. Although

I have heard that C1 has some minimal sharpening that cannot be dissabled so it's not

quite apples to apples.

To each their own,

Ashton

You could also use something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/

homeO=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=348330&is=REG

Add 3 Tungsten/quartz lights and some cards to block light to ad shadow intrest and you

have a setup that would do well for a couple hundred bucks.

Ashton

You could also use something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/

homeO=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=348330&is=REG

Add 3 Tungsten/quartz lights and some cards to block light to ad shadow intrest and you

have a setup that would do well for a couple hundred bucks.

Having spent the last two years shooting the ads for several nationwide jewelry

companies, I will say a couple things.

1. Don't try and light the metal itself. Light what the metal sees.

2. I saw your question on the Digital Rebel, and think that it would serve you much better

that a point and shoot. One item that would really help is the Canon TS 45mm lens. It will

let you get your focus on a tilted ring and necklaces laying flat. One of the problems with

small jewelry is depth of field, the TS series lens really help on this point.

3. I see you have a ring on a ring stand. Instead get some foam core board. Spray glue

some smooth art paper or other background material onto the foam core. We use a size

of about 12" x 18" x 3/4". Then use art wax to keep the ring at an angle. This lets you

have a nice unbroken line around the whole ring or other item. For heavier items we use a

straight pin pressed into the foam core and used super glue in a hidden area to keep it in

place. Wax cleans off with Benzine and Super glue with Acetone. Nether of which hurt

most jewelry, just don't use on enamels or pearls.

4. Cleaning is everything.

5. A good strategy is to give a general diffused wash of light from behind and above.

Then give shadow and highlights from the sides and front with less diffused light sources.

6. Buy 10-15 sheets of metalic silver coated poster board. Try to find is fairly large. We

use Silver card that is 30" x 40". Cut it into smooth shapes, i.e. triangles with slightly

rounded corners. My favorite shape to use looks like a tadpole on its side or some kind of

whale. Use the washed light to light these cards. Change the angles of the card to change

how much the metal shows the tone. Experiment.

7. Do this in a darkened room. The dark room gives you the dark tones.

E-mail me if you want some more tips.

Ashton

NeatImage has released an OS X plug-in for Photoshop 6, 7, and CS, along with Elements.

It also has a limited time price.

By the way, I have no connection to Neatimage.

What you will get out of it Patrick depends on how far down the "rabbit hole" your willing

to go. I have used ImagePrint, and I like it. It works well for me because I'm on a Mac. If I

were a PC user and had an Eye-One I would get Ergosoft's Studioprint before I would get

IP. The main reason is that StudioPrint lets you do linarizations and ink limits. I have

done color on a 2200 with StudiopPrint that I could only dream about with Epson's drivers.

Just about spot on color match with the monitor, minus the reflective-transmissive

differences.

I've also used StudioPrint on a 7600 with Cone Piezography inks. One nice feature is that

you can use the museum black with a set of cool inks and warm inks, mid and high tones

and switch between each in the software.

To your question "Does it give you significantly improved print quality and consistancy?"

The answer is definatly yes if taken all the way. If you just load IP or SP and then try and

get a good print, you won't.

If you have taken your prints to the highest level with Epson's drivers, and are prepared to

start you learning curve over for the most part to get to the next level. Then the answer is

yes.

Oh, to let you know Gary, the previews will be different, but they are just the setting that

the camera would have used if you were shooting jpeg when the picture was taken. They

can all be changed/updated without damage to the original file. Those settings are stored

as part of the Exif data.

There is no change to the file. RAW is exactly that, raw dump of info from the chip to your

card with maybe a little compression. The only setting that affects a RAW capture is ISO.

The WB, tint, saturation, contrast, white point (exposure), black point (shadow), and

sharpen are all variable until they are converted from RAW.

Have you tried setting the WB to where it should be for the shot and then using the tint

adjustment to make the colors right. WB only sets the neutral grey for the shot. While

most of the time the rest of the colors fall in line, that doesn't always happen. Sometimes

it takes user interpritation of the RAW data to make a good color balanced photo.

Hope that helps,

Ash

I'm pretty sure that lets you focus on infinity with infra-red film. That or maybe heat/cold

tolerances. I'm almost positive on the infra-red thing though.

You might try looking at this article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/selling.shtml

I just did the same thing in December. I bought a 300D. I loved it. Sold most of my Nikon

gear (N90, 2 N80s, F3, multiple lenses), and put it all into glass. So far I bought the 70

-200mm 2.8L IS and a 24-70mm 2.8L. I'm waiting on a Sigma 12-24mm right now. But

that is more that you said you wanted to spend.

As to your question, if I had $1000-$1500 to spend I would get the following. 70-200mm

f/4($579), 28-135mm IS($399), and a 17-40mm f/4($699). That get you close to the

upper range of your budget, and gives you great coverage. The 28-135mm is a great

workhorse wedding lens. 17-40mm takes care of the scenics and architecture. The 70

-200mm get your wildlife. The bottom end of the 70-200mm also works great for head

shots/portraits. All in all this equals about 27-320mm with the crop factor.

I went thru one of these scams two years ago for a pair of D1x's. (I was a Nikon user at

the time) The scam went something like this. Send a Wester Union MO in a different name

so that he could not pick it up, but he could confirm that it was there. Then he would

send me the cameras. Once recieve I would change the recievers name on the MO and he

would collect.

I thought a little about it, and I bit.

I sent the money under the name like "xxxzzt sdfds". All consonants so that it could never

be an actual name. He was not happy. He told me that he didn't "trust" me now that I did

something like that. He told me to change the name to a real name and just to follow his

instructions. I asked him "What's the difference?". He said ok, he would send the cameras.

Never to be seen to heard from again.

If you see 5 people yelling about this problem, there are probably 50,000 that don't have

the problem. I have the DRebel and haven't had a single problem.

Don't let the few rule your choices.

On extreamly difficult clogs, I have had luck with filling the ink blotter area with ethel

alcohol and then turning off the printer to park the head in the alcohol. Let is sit for 24

hours and then run a cleaning cycle or two. I almost always gets rid of even most

stubborn clogs. Best defence to begin with is to turn off the printer though.

In particular the White Balance cannot truly be duplicated in PS. Things that ACR makes

easier are the cromatic aberation adjustment, the exposure adjustment, and the color and

luminace noise reduction.

Most of the other tools are just duplicates of what you can do in PS, and probably best left

to PS since you can selectivly do the operations.