neil_swanson

Rawshooters is windows only. I just checked. Oh well

I'm on a MAC so the "hack" won't work for me. I'm going to try pulling all otther RC;s out of my CS plug-ins and see if I can get back to teh real RAW menus.

 

 

Or..... Get Nikon Capture or go to CS2 which as has been said doesn't say D70s in the covered cameras.

 

I'll also look into the free convertor mentioned.

Well Nikon Capture trial version won't load. It stops before it finishes.

 

A trail version of CS2 has ACR 3.0, not the latest 3.1 so I'll get that if I can use it with the trial.

 

I downloaded Nikon View and I can open NEFs now but I don't get the same window and options I did with my friends D2H RAWs when I tried that camera. I have a choice of Camera RAW and NikonPP RAW and both take me to a really feeble window with very little control. Photoshop RAW takes me to a regular CS image and pulldowns. At least I can open NEF now.

 

I'll need to try the latest ACR 3.1

It is a D70s. I have ACR 2.4 in my CS and no good for these NEFs. I haven't loaded Picture Project yet but if I do can I make TIFF copy I can open in CS? No other convertors anyone can think of for D70s NEFs?

My new to me (today) D70s won't open RAW/NEF unless I load the Picture

Project CD or buy the Nikon software. Just a few months ago I

borrowed a D2H and opened RAW files right up in CS. So this is new?

Maybe I need to go to Adobe and see if the D70s is a on a new CR list?

 

Or do I just use the included software or get something from a 3rd

party for RAW conversions?

 

Welcome ideas and opinions. Thanks

I was just poking around the Olympus site and find it odd that the 8080, seemingly the top of the line camera doesn't shoot RAW files. The lower priced 7070 wide zoom does. Odd isn't it. No mention of being able to lock or set manual focus as an option either.

I've read of his work with PS cameras before and some of my questions were answered in the article, like prefocus to cut shutter lag. I didn't know the Olympus cameras did that. I guess others do it to and it makes sense. I love the idea that he is using PS cameras for "real" work.

I followed the steps in that post about the square plastic hood made to fit a 40 C lens but instead applied it to a vented 35 'cron hood. Works fine, stays on well but it is a little close to the apeture ring. Works though.<div></div>

B&H offers a USA F6 for example with a 3 year warranty, but I've seen also 1 year USA cameras. Do a search for an F6 on eBay and you'll all kinds of warranties

Just because I/m not clear on this and Nikons' website isn't either......

 

Is the USA Nikon warranty on camera bodies 3 years? or 1 year? Is it

different on film or digital bodies? I've been lurking on some eBay

items and I wonder how many of the USA cameras really are. Thanks.

75 1.4 @1.4 TMZ @3200<div></div>

So where can I read more about this QTR? Web site? Thanks

OK so I got some questions asked of me and/or comments. I've got the 2 prints next to me. The first shot of Tom is a little light on screen. There is detail and tone in his ear.

 

The shot of John is much more like my print. There aren't any blocked highlights in either print. I wouldn't judge on screen JPGs to seriously but hey. it's all we have here. But as someone said sometimes things block up in pushed images and sometime there is no way you can have shodow detail.

 

The shadow detail you can get with TX at 3200 is less than you'll get with TMZ at 3200. TMZ is what, a true ISO 1000? So it will did into shadows that much more than TX which at 3200 is 3-4 stops under exposed at 3200.

 

So far I've only used the TX at 3200 for these shots and at a basketball game. I haven't scanned any B'ball frames yet but they look good. Nice sharp images.

 

The edge effect of Rodinal was mentioned and yes I like it very much. You get great sharp separations between tones. Makes things POP! and it really brings out details.

 

I've never tried the QTR printing and really can't see any reason to. I really like the BO printing look and the UT7 set is a great cheap alternative to alter print tone.

 

The 100% crop I may have done qrong or not like is sometimes done here. I blew the image up to 100% on screen and cropped out a piece. What the hell you see the grain pattern so it works right?

 

Vic, I will send you a CD of a RAW scan. You're address?

Hi guys. Just checking in. I can't really do much e-mail at work so I'll chime in at @6pm EST. Keep the thread going!

Vic, how do I send a really big file? Yahoo lets me send 20 or is it 10 meg files. I have to look.

 

Do you think the grain in mine looks to good? or sharp? Have you used rodinal before? It has nothing/zero/zip in it to alter the sizes and shape and edges of the silver as laid out by the maker of the film. Microdal softens grain alot, D-76 a little and HC-100 a little less. Dilute them all and they do it less. Rodinal grain is very very sharp grain. Many people don't like it.

 

I've used Rodinal on and off for decades. I've had regular old TX at 400 look grainier than this. Rodinal hasn't changed its formula, Kodak has. I now think that TX ought to be shot at @ISO800 for Rodinal as its normal speed. That is just my feeling based on how I've been seeing the tones above middle grey seeming to be too compressed.

 

Anyway how could I send a really big file to you.

Oh and no sharpening or cleaning or any such stuff in Vuescan. And no multpass scanning either. This is one pass.

I use a 5400, and save as TIFF files. I use Vuescan. There is some USM here as I cropped from the file that made a 6x9 print.

 

My USM settings were probably 100, .5, 1. That is a guess but close. I did a very slight bump in contrast also and that is about it.

 

Surprised by the way the grain looks for Rodinal and TX? So am I. And for 3200? Really surprised. Gotta be the stand developement. Think how little I agitated over half an hour development. Total of 7 times I agitated for 5 seconds. My usual D-76 1:1 looks more grainy than these. Try it!

Elaine<div></div>

I haven't done anything but matt prints. I haven't tried the other surfaces as I think that the matt papers have a longer life. The MIS Ebony is a very long life ink/dye or whatever it is and I don't thik it can be used on glossy paper at all, but maybe for luster or semi matt it would be OK.

 

Shadow detail I don't know but I think you can get a deeper black on glossy paper.

 

Maybe I should get one of those sample packs of papers other than matt. I'd just rather print than test.

I just read Jims' page. FWIW I haven't had any clogs or problems in over a year of 2200 BO prints with MIS Ebony ink. I did have early problems with some, not all of the UT7 ink cartridges. I bought others and they've been fine. The problesm weren't clogs, the printer just never thought they were full.

 

You can also make great BO prints with just plain old matt black Epson inks. The OE Epson Ultra-chrome inks are fool proof in case you get worried and you can buy it anywhere, Staples, CompUSA etc.

 

If you go to the www.Luminous-landscape.com site and go to Michael Johnstones pages way back in his archives is a 2 part interview with a BO printer. A good read.

Shadow detail can be tough. You have one ink, black to cover all the bases so you've got to have good detail in those shadows in the first place. That was one reson I tried the UT7 ink set. It doesn't however use all 7 inks all the time for all tone options. It does use light black often, it only uses the yellow postion when printing sepia. Uses alot of the cyan position inks for warm and carbon. But it should and maybe actually does offer smoother transitions into shadow areas.

 

Shadow detail is dependent on exposure and not so much on film development. Shadows develope first and highlights later on in the process.

 

People expose film so many ways and meter so many ways too that one must be consistant in how they expose their film. I suggest to use one film and get to know it. Get to know why an exposure didn't give you what you needed.

 

When I tried that D2H for the first time in the store I stepped outside and set the camera w/o using the 1000+ point full color analitical (anal?) multi-matrix system. It was a bright blue sky sunny 16 day and the exposure was 1/500 at F8 at ISO 200. It just is/was. If I had used the in camera meter it would have been wrong for what I shot. Consider an incident meter instead of in camera reflective meters.

 

So if you aren't getting enough shadow detail you may need to expose more. DUH, didn't mean that that way. It may not mean you need to rate the film at a different speed but just aim the meter to a different area. Aim and meter for middle greys. If that doesn't get the detail you want then set a different ISO.

 

You should also ask yourself if shadow detail is a problem with "wet" or silver prints also. Maybe it isn't the BO printing or maybe it is the scanning.

 

Didn't mean to start a photo 101 class here. Hope I wasn't too basic.<div></div>

All the times I posted are for 1:50 dilution. For 16 0z tank I use 10cc of Rodinal and for a 32 0z tank I use 20cc of Rodinal. All at 68F.

 

For printing with the 2200 I do it 2 ways. Most of the time I use only the black ink, we call it the BO method. Do a search for Clayton Jones. His site can direct you with the few changes you need to make to your current printer settings.

 

The nice thing about BO prints is the printer is still a color printer also. BO prints are very very nice. There are no color shifts in the print under different viewing areas. They have a nice "film" look to them. You can get very clean whites, prints that pop.

 

I've also tried the UT7 ink set from MIS (www.ink-supplies.com). No RIP, no software changes. Just $78 bucks worth of ink. For this you remove all the color inks and install the UT7 inks. This is the least expensive way to make BW prints w/o color shifting, meteramism (sp).

 

With UT7 you can make cool, warm, neutral, carbon (platinum looking) and 3 shades of sepia.

 

What you do is download free curves from a link from the MIS site. You get the print already to go and then add the curve for the print tone you want. On screen it goes all crazy colors but those colors represent what you'd get if you had color ink in the printer. NEVER save a print with the curves, clear the curves before saving.

 

Print like normal but check the "No color management" box in the printer menu. Let the curves set the color.

 

It's really easy and as I said no $$$ RIP. I read alot about the QTR, (quad tone rip) on the yahoo digital BW printing forum. It seems those guys spend WAY too much time fiddling with settings and just generally having problems.

 

So far the UT7 has been just working. I'm printing a Barmitsvah (sp) now for a friend. I was goping to do BO but the carbon print tone matches their album better.

 

 

BO printing is really easy, cheap and there is no special inks that may clog or give you problems. And no software to buy.

I hope I did this right. I took it up to 100% and cropped out a piece.<div></div>

Now just to mess with you this was shot on the same day with a friends Nikon D2h. You know that "only 4meg can't be any good" DSLR. I was curious to try it. I have no digtal camera at all yet I have 7 Nikon lenses and one body. I think it does pretty well but, Rodinal gives certain films a real "zing" that other developers don't, even RAW ones. Believe ot or not a 6x9 print from TX3200 and D2H @400 is so close it is silly. The D2H is very smooth and very sharp, the Rodinal print has that film/grain zing I like.

 

I made a 12x17 BW print on my 2200 with UT7 inks from MIS. It is a killer print. I took one to a local store that sells DSLRs etc and showed it to them along with the some shots from scanned film done the same way. I don't think they had ever seen good BW from a DSLR. Funny thing was I showed them a 12x17 from TMZ @3200 and they commented on the filter I must have used to make the digital shot look like film.

 

Anyway good thing I'm broke or I might just have one of them there DSLRs. I've tried Canons and Nikons and whether it is good or bad, for me anyway they can't match film for high ISOs. Grain is better than noise IMO. All that is for another forum though. I like film and I like rangefinders.<div></div>

Hey, don't we all wish we were selling prints for $2700? I know I do and I don't begrudge anyone who is. It doesn't matter if it is Summers or someone else.