andy_heffernan1

<em>8) Under Color Management, Selected "ICM" ... "no color adjustment" box is left unchecked</em>

<p>

Select "No color adjustment" and try again.

I think Peter has got it right, I bet it's a set up for a POV shot of the girl in a make-up mirror.

Kevin, I think you are referring to the Dell 2005FPW monitor, which is a 20" wide-screen (16:10) monitor reputedly using the same LCD panel as in the aluminum Apple Cinema 20" display. The electronics driving the panel are different, of course.

 

Anyone interested in buying this display ought to browse through the topics at First Adopter Forum, [H]ard|Forum, and Anandtech. This particular display has been plagued with bad backlighting, with some folks exchanging display after display with Dell until they got something acceptable.

 

The sample I received would show gray in the corners when the display was black (bad blacklight bleeding). Also, it was way too bright, even when turning brightness down to zero -- I had to skip the brightness calibration step with the G-MB Eye-one display. It went back to Dell and I'll stick with the CRT for a while more.

Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss will more approximate glossy Crystal Archive. For my images, gloss differential is unnoticeable.

Black and white looks terrible on this paper, though.

 

You can find profiles on Ilford's web site.

This is a well-known, particularly annoying bug in Internet Explorer.

 

More information here: <a href= "http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=260650&product=ie">http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=260650&product=ie</a>

The version of software that came with my Eye-One Display earlier this year had a bug where no matter how high you set the brightness, the triangles would never match up. After upgrading to the latest version of Eye-One Match (v2.03) this problem went away. The display is set very bright, however.

I think it's usually called a "zed card".

Use the crop tool -- enter the dimensions in the top boxes, as well as whatever DPI you want. Sweep out the crop to your heart's content and hit enter.

Yes, please create a new category and store these Q&A messages there!

Hal, looking at B&H's website, I can see around 340 reasons to keep on using sync cords. Are there cheaper alternatives to pocket wizards that folks can recommend?

I saved this link, since it's hard or impossible to find from the top of the site:

 

<a href=http://www.zuga.net/freelessons/zeltsman/jzch1.shtml>http://www.zuga.net/freelessons/zeltsman/jzch1.shtml</a>

Nice, the bright area in the upper left could stand to be burned in a bit to keep the eye from wandering over there and getting trapped.

I'm a purist, so I would just crop out the uninteresting sky to give focus to the more interesting balloon shapes and colors.

 

I mean, why not photoshop in a phalanx of jet aircraft?

<italic>...</italic><div></div>

Regarding the ease of using this thing relative to other methods of avoiding blank film, there's really only one answer: it fits the way I use the camera.

The elves have consented to release some information: the red thing is a Goody brand hair elastic (a small one), and the white thing is a piece of Brother P-touch labelling strip. Hmmph. I'm somewhat disappointed.

I love my Tom Abrahamsson soft release, but hate the lack of a shutter

release lock. I set my team of German elves upon the problem, and

they hand-crafted this device to keep me from wasting frames. Loop it

around underneath the soft release, twist and loop around again, and

no more shots of the inside of the back pack. Or whatever.

 

Ach du Lieber!<div></div>

Self-Portrait as Strobe Test

Understand that a light leak can be so slight that you can be shooting a sequence of images and have a length of film advance past the leak, but no or few photons will have a chance to hit that film. When you stop shooting, though, some part of the film will be next to the leak and will accumulate exposure the longer it sits there. This is why the marks vary from roll to roll.

It was a change to the style properties on all of photo.net's pages.

 

It was one of those style over substance changes done by fiat, but if you're not paying, it's hard to complain too vigorously.

 

I will certainly do less browsing around the site since I'll miss half the links, but maybe that's a good thing.

It's hard to argue with banner ads if they help pay the bills, but the removal of the underlining from the links is a terrible mistake, in my opinion, with no compelling rationale. It may look better, but it doesn't "use" better. To me, anyway.

<div></div>

My advice: Get the <a href="http://www.criscam.com/">Criscam</a> adapter and forget about it.

I want to pull away from the image whenever I look at it. I feel like I'm too close. Was this taken with a short focal length (<= 50mm) reasonably close to the subject? The image looks distorted to me.

f/2.8 will be too shallow. I would start with f/5.6 and work

between there and f/8 (really). Control the blurring of the background by keep the distance between the subjects and the background a large multiple of the distance between the subjects and the camera. In other words, try to keep the background far away. Ideally, the lighting will help separate the subjects from the background (via backlighting, for example), and good posing will direct the viewer's attention to the subjects.