wdgodwin

<p>I got the same error message with my trusty and heavily used workhorse EF-S 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM. When I got the error I would switch camera off, unlock lens and rotate lens back and forth in the mount to scrub contacts for electrical circuitry. I cleaned the contacts with Goo Gone, rubbing alcohol and lighter fluid - nothing worked long term. It's not a problem until you are photographing something that can't be repeated... that's when it will fail you (Murphy Moment). Just the aggravation of, oh maybe, relight the birthday candles, can you do that pose again, everybody smile..... hold the smile... keep holding... to the point of 'can we go to a commercial break'.<br>

Sent to Canon for repair. Replaced module in lens. Cost $143.00. Time shipped to Canon and returned to me under 2 weeks. Back in business, good as new. Cleaning contacts was not the problem. Cheaper than buying new lens.</p>

<p>I love my SF 150mm. Used it for a couple of frames for bridal close up images during each session. No need to retouch. Studio strobes were metered for f8.0. When doing close ups at f4.0 I dropped a 2 stop ND filter in the bellows filter holder. For mid and full length poses shot at f8.0 with no ND filter. A little difficult to focus since you are viewing through the lens with aperture wide open. The magnifyer was a great aid for focus.<br>

It's different from soft filters screwed in the front of the lens. The filter softens everything and all detail is softened, nothing is sharp. It was my understanding the SF lens is ground/polished for sharpness in center and not so much around the edges. When shooting at f4.0 (max softness), you actually use all the front element to get a slighly out of focus (outer element) image together with an in focus (center element) on the same frame that yields a soft image with detail. The only downside is you can't have both softness and DoF.<br>

I have the discs set and shot a test series with each discs at each lens aperture when I first got the lens. After that, never used them. I just used f4.0 for the max, f5.6 for a little effect and then f8.0 and 11 for a sharp image.<br>

Hope you enjoy yours.</p>

<p>The Epson software has a configuration setting. In there you can select 6x7, 6x6 or 6x4.5 for the format of your film.</p>

<p>This is a prime situation to call it ART. We have all seen the blown out highlights or hyper HDR that the uneducated thinks is wayyyyy cool. Throw some fancy borders around it do some funky B&W or cross color processing and you are now the leading photographer in your town. I don't recommend making a practice of this but once in a while you have to turn a negative into a positive. That's what makes you a professional - you know the difference.</p>

<p>David</p>

<p>PS sequence / Dupe layer twice / Dupe 1 fill with pure white / Dupe 2 add Adjustment Layer (curves) and adjust exposure + / Dupe 2 add layer mask and paint to reveal white of Dupe 1.<br>

</p><div></div>

<p>Dave, I have scanned over 22,000 (22k) images with my Epson V700 model. Add to that 2800 slides of my father's and other request. This includes the 35mm negative, 35mm slide, medium and large format holders and it is still going strong. I was concerned about the life of the scanner and burning out light source and motor but no more. I figure about $500.00 divided by 22,000 yields less than 3 cents per scan and with each scan that cost is reduced even more. I figure it has paid for itself many times over. Go ahead and put it through its paces.</p>

<p>For the record - here is the ACR screen shot with the Auto selections off.</p><div></div>

<p>I understand that altering/modifying the file will change the histogram but one would think software would process the UNALTERED straight out of the camera (source file) the same across the board.<br>

Seems to me, the result of demosaicing the sensor data for an image should yield "X" and not "A", "B" or "C" for the same file. The data did not change.<br>

So, viewing the DPP histograms searching for the properly exposed image is a challenge without the camera LCD. This is especially true if the image is no longer on a card to view in the camera and you are totally dependent on DPP. This just seems sooooooo wrong.</p>

<p>Please see attached ACR screen shot.</p><div></div>

<p>Please see attached DPP screen shot.</p><div></div>

<p>I thought there had to be a standard for histograms. The histogram on the camera (Canon 5D) LCD is nothing like the Digital Photo Professional (DPP) histogram for the same image file. When I expose the Ed Pierce Digital Calibration Target for a neutral exposure for the camera LCD, DPP produces a histogram of everything way to the right of center. In DPP the black (shadow) spike is even to the right of center, white (highlight) spike is shy of clipping and the gray is situated halfway between the shadow and highlight spikes. Furthermore, Adobe ACR shows that the image is underexposed. Seems to me the image file containing the color and exposue values is interpreted with no regards to any standard. With no standard, which one is the true histogram?</p>

<p>Reduce image to 7x10 (or something close) on an 8x10 white canvas. Shift image to top for a 1 inch white border across the bottom for caption info, add text - i.e Washington High School Class of 2002. Now it will appear as if done intentionally instead of mistake cover up. Hope this helps.<br>

David</p>

<p>In Photoshop, create a canvas the size of the print and add the 2x2 images to the canvas. With a 4x6 canvas you could get two images up and three across for a total of six images on one print.<br>

David</p>

<p>Nathan, according to my pinnacle Studio 11 software, 35 minutes of AVCHD equals 4.23 GB. Hope this helps.<br>

David</p>

<p>Nathan, according to my pinnacle Studio 11 software, 35 minutes of AVCHD equals 4.23 GB. Hope this helps.<br>

David</p>

<p>James,<br>

Do you know the name or actual nomenclature of the product? What does the package contents indentify itself as?<br>

Thanx, David</p>

<p>How about - Magazine Year-month YYYYMM / Magazine Name / Page then enter keyword and description info in metadata. ie - Sports Illustrated July 2006 Page 34 would have file name 200607_SportsIllus_034.tif and metadata description - Interview of Matt Ryan Quarterback for Atlanta Falcons and keywords - Football, Matt Ryan, Quarterback, Atlanta Falcons.</p>

<p>With the camera filmless, set the aperture to wide open, Set shutter to 1 full second and open the back plate so you can view the camera making an exposure. Actuate the shutter and see if the opens completely and closes. You can see what is actually happening inside the camera what the film would see or not see. Run through different sutter speeds and view the results. This will give you a direct visual if the shutter sticks - perhaps only on certain speeds if not all. Good luck!</p>

<p>Chris,<br>

I have had this problem a lot in the south with a lot of A/C in the wedding reception hall (cool equipment) and then move to the humid outside for rice line and drive off. The cure is to go outside and let the equipment warm just enough not to fog - step back indoors to the A/C "dry" air only long enough to clear the lens. Once the lens is clear proceed outdoors to complete the job. You can use the A/C to your advantage after the lens temp is above the condensation point. Only takes a few moments and no other equipment than what you have on hand. Works for me. The opposite happens in winter when coming from the cold outside to a warm sancutary. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>During TIFF to JPEG conversion using Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP), some images lose the metadata assigned in Bridge. Some of the images the metadata carried over and some did not. Any ideas where to begin solving for the error? What would cause DPP to fail metadata during conversion?</p>

<p>I am appraoching 20,000 images scanned film. Film size - mostly 35mm with some 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5. Film type - mostly color negative with some B&W and unmounted chrome/positive. Step 1, I set up a work station for this project in our seldom used dining room and began scan one on May 24, 2008. I worked on this steadily on available evenings and weekends. I decided early on to scan everything to a dedicated 1TB external HD (Seagate) at 2400 dpi. This would alleviate ever having to repeat a scan. Plus when you consider how inexpensive digital storage space is, it just didn't make sense to skimp with LowRes scans and shoot myself in the foot. Step 2, write scans to two sets of DVDs. One set stored off site (parents home in a closet, 250 miles away) and a set for myself. Images are now preserved in the event of flood, fire, tornando, earthquake. Essentially I have three digital sets plus the source. Yeah, it took a year but it's nearly done and I am glad I did it and only had to do it once. Step 3, I would like to catalog and label all of them but that is a major under taking and can be done anytime. I did notice at the start, my film of the mid to late 1970's really was deterioating and was in need of preserving before it could advance. Word to the wise - Start scanning NOW. Better to have a bad digital file than NO file.</p>

<p>Recovered over 1200 lost images with Image Rescue 3. Software recovered images but with .tif extension. By manually changing extension to .cr2, images are editable with DPP and raw data is recovered as shot. That's great. DPP will rename the file name but not change extension to .cr2. Not so great. Any ideas how to auto rename file extensions without manually "Fat Fingering" this massive quantity?<br>

Thanx,<br>

Sore Finger David</p>

<p><a href="http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm">http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm</a> list and rates the quality of DVD makes and <a href="http://dvd.identifier.cdfreaks.com/">http://dvd.identifier.cdfreaks.com/</a> will read the embedded ID of DVD disc. I'm planning to move to Verbatim DVD+R disc.<br>

David</p>

Mark, Here is an excerpt from the North Amercian Photo web site - I could't say any better my self and I quote "Most camera's RAW formats capture at least 12 bits of data for each of the three colors. This calculates out to 4096 tonal values, which equates to greater than 68.7 Billion colors. JPEGS, on the other hand, use only 8 bits per color which equals 256 tonal values. This is equivalent to a little more than 16.7 Million colors. So, when you save a JPEG in your camera, you are leaving it up to your camera's built in RAW converter to throw away a substantial amount of the original data. Theoretically this can be more than 90% of all tonal values. Hopefully what is left is what you saw when you took the picture. Additionally, camera vendors apply a rather steep contrast curve to the data in order to produce a snappier more pleasing image. This eliminates about a stop of available dynamic range. Again, you have given over control of what data is deleted to the camera, not you!"

 

Plus the changes done to the raw file are NONDESTRUCTIVE. I vote for RAW.

 

David

Mark,

See http://www.whibalhost.com/products/DVD/index_new_sample.html for a graphic illustration of the camera operation of raw and jpeg processing.

 

David