john y.k. lee

Thanks, Joshua. I ran the "clean cartridge" routine which identified the problem to be the 59 cartridge. I have two defective cartridges. The third cartridge works fine. I appreciate your input as I had never ran the clean cartridge routine.

I am getting lines across my prints when using HP premium plus photo

glossy or matte and the 59 inkjet cartridge. I replaced the

cartridge which helped for a while but then reappeared. I changed

the paper which has not helped. All the lines appear to follow the

ink cartridge path -- transverse across the paper.

 

I have read several people complaining about this problem. It seems

to be the "pizza" wheel mark problem, and people have returned the

printer and gotten the good printer. However, I have had my printer

for almost one year and had no problem until recently.

 

Is this a problem with the printer that has surfaced only recently?

Or can I just keep changing cartridges. This is frustrating.

 

Thanks for any help.

I would like to know what other people's experience is with Fuji

Reala 100. I have a Nikon Coolscan V that I have used to scan Fuji

Provia 100, Sensia 100, and Fuji Reala 100. There is a huge

difference in grain between the slide film and the negative film.

Is this normal? I had expected some degradation in quality between

the two films, but I did not realize how different the two could be!

 

Is there anyway to minimize the grain on negative film? Overexpose?

I never could get rid of the magenta cast. I have resorted to a physical solution. Whenever I want b/w prints, I simply pull out the 57 and 58 cartridge and only leave the 59 cartridge in. This forces it into "backup" mode. The only negative of this approach is that I have to print a test page everytime I put back the cartridges.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Dr. Lai. I have watched many different surgeons and residents in the operating room as they try to take pictures. The ones who are most interested in taking pictures tend to be the plastic surgeons and the facial surgeons (either oromaxillofacial surgoens or ENT surgeons). In any case, I have come to the following conclusions based on my own pictures and experience.

 

1. The bright OR lights are too bright for photographic needs. They are far too harsh. In fact, most of the plastic surgeons deliberately move the OR lights away from the wound before photographing the subject since it casts such harsh shadows.

 

2. A handheld point and shoot 2-4 megapixel camera is all you need. Although there is definitely an advantage to a digital SLR with a macro flash attachment, most of the surgeons find it too large and wieldy to carry to every OR case. And, as you have mentioned, many of the nurses would find it quite intimidating.

 

3. A swivel screen is a nice adjunct because you are not always able to get close since the circulating nurse may not be sterile or gowned.

 

4. Some of my plastic surgery friends have even begun to say that digital still pictures are not enough. One of the plastic surgery residents who won an award at the last meeting integrated multiple video clips in order to improve the presentation, and many of the plastic surgeons are moving in that direction as well.

 

With all this observation, I still shoot with my F100 and macro lens. I have used a point and shoot S200 (2 megapixel) but have been unimpressed with the results. I think the best option is something with a good macro mode (<10 inches), swivel screen, RAW capability. I wonder if a used Canon G2 would be good for this. It might have a ring flash attachment. Good luck.

I appreciate everybody's quick answers. I did try to apply Noise Ninja to my ISO 400 shots from my camera. Some survived, but some did not. I think there is a learning curve to Noise Ninja as well. Nevertheless, the responses seem to support my suspicion that film is still better than digital in this arena. Of course, the newer digital P&s with larger sensors will begin to help, but the price of those cameras are also higher. Of course, I would want to shoot with a Nikon D1X, but I am talking about point and shoot photography here -- a camera in my pocket at all times.

I have a contax T2 that I like as a point and shoot. If I load it

with ISO 400 or ISO 800 film, I can get very usable pictures to

8x10. However, my Canon S200 2 megapixel camera at ISO 400 is

almost completely unusable at ISO 400. Even if I get a 4 megapixel

version like the Canon S400, will that really help? Should I just

stick with film for low light point and shoot shots?

The median nerve goes through carpal tunnel and innervates the thumb, second, third and half of the fourth finger. The ulnar nerve does not travel through the carpal tunnel but rather through Guyon's canal and innervates the other half of the fourth finger and the pinky finger. Your symptoms are thus more consistent with ulnar nerve compression or a C8 radiculopathy which originates in the neck. In other words, feel free to seek professional help if necessary. Good luck.

Thanks. It seems that point and shoots are really limited because of small sensor size. One stop gain with a f2 is not really worth the money to me right now. I will continue with what I have. I appreciate the feedback.

I am an amateur hobbyist and mostly shoot with a film SLR. However,

I have recently been using my wife's 2 megapixel Canon S200 digital

elph for some indoor shooting at work. One major problem I am

having is that the S200 only has ISO 400 and maximum aperture of

2.8. This limits the amount of ambient light work that I can do.

Are most point and shoot digital cameras limited in this regard?

 

Is there a small discrete p&S that has a faster lens and higher ISO

ratings? I have read about the higher ISO ratings with DSLR, and I

have also read how impressed people are with the lack of noise/grain

at these higher ISO. I am wondering how to optimize my pictures.

I definitely did find the book useful David. I still keep it beside me when I work in Photoshop. However, I definitely needed to supplement.

Young and innocent

I was a total novice when I bought this book one year ago upon the recommendation of many photo.netters. I started by reading this book from cover to cover. Then, I tried to work in photoshop. I found myself frequently supplementing my learning by going to Barnes and Noble and looking at other less comprehensive, but more basic photoshop books. Some of the basic books were better at simply describing step by step what to do. However, Blatner and Fraser are definitely better at providing the intellectual and conceptual framework for the program.

 

An important caveat, however, is that I am an amateur and have no financial interest in making quality prints. I simply like to know how to manipulate pictures and make nice prints on my HP 7960.

 

The best analogy that I can come up with has to do with my science classes in college. Real World Photoshop is like reading a hardcore biochemistry textbook (eg. Stryer). Sometimes you have to supplement the difficult reading with dumbed down versions like (Champe and Harvey for Biochemistry).

Taken with 24-85/AFS<div></div>

I just got back from Peru two weeks ago. I flew into Lima, slept two hours in a hotel in Miraflores (I took Paul Sharratt's advice). I then flew from Lima to Cusco early in the morning. I had all my camera gear in a Lowepro MiniTrekker. I had no problem bringing that with me as a carry-on.

 

In Cusco, simply use common sense. Be careful with your equipment. Keep it wrapped around your leg or arms if you set it down. I tried not to leave equipment in the hotel, but I invariably did so. I stayed at Hotel Los Ninos in Cusco and had no problems.

 

I hiked the Inca trail and carried my F100, 24-85 zoom, 90 macro, flash, and Gitzo tripod. I had the porters carry everything else. I carried the equipment in a lumbar fanny pack, and I carried the tripod in a Kinesis gear setup as a backpack. I sometimes wished I had my 80-200/2.8, but the weight of that lens would have been difficult to carry on the trail.

 

Have fun. I have been reviewing my slides for the last two days. I got some great shots of Machu Picchu. I wish I had taken more pictures of the people. One of the best places for great people shots was Pisaq market.

Wow, what an answer. I guess it is jitter then. Should I return the scanner? What can I do to improve this.

So then, it is probably moire. I guess it isn't noise, because there are no different colors there, just vertical patterns. Right now, I simply gaussian blurred it. Maybe I'll try the Phase One product. Obviously, it is not critical to me, because for any critical work, I will use the Nikon Coolscan 4000, but any bit helps.

Here is an example<div></div>

I am placing them in the enclosed holder. Also, the slide is in its mount. hence, the actual film is off of the glass plate. If it is newton's rings, how do I get rid of it?

I have a flatbed Epson 1670 scanner. When I scan transparencies at

1600dpi, I get a moire pattern or a banding pattern in the

dark/black areas of the slide. I don't have this problem when I use

the Nikon LS-4000 at the school library. What is the source of this

problem?

 

1. Lack of bit depth

2. Inability to multisample

 

Anything else you might think of? Would Vuescan help since it

allows for multisampling?

Other people have suggested that the HP7660 does not do as well as the HP 7960. I bought the HP 7960 and am happy with it. The only unusual thing about my prints is that in order to get the beautiful metamerism-free black and white that everyone talks about, I have to physically remove the #57 and #58 color cartridges. This forces the printer into "back-up" mode and uses only the #59 cartridge. If I leave the color cartridges in, even if I choose the "print in greyscale" option, I get a magenta cast. This slight inconvenience, however, is worth the prints that you get from the HP7960.

I just got my lens back from Nikon in New York. They fixed it for free under the five year USA warranty. Everything is back to working order. They didn't tell me why or what broke, but it is working well now. Thanks for the help.

I am using a F100 body, and the problem is definitely in the lens. It catches at 28mm, and I have to force it to get to 24mm. Unfortunately, I'm going on a trip soon and can't afford to leave without this lens. It is quite frustrating. I'm going to have to look into whether I bought it USA or Imported.

I have been using the new 24-85 AFS-G lens pretty heavily for over

one year. I have noticed recently that the zoom gets stuck at 28mm.

It takes some extra work to get it past the "catch" to get it to 24mm.

 

Is this simply the end result of using a consumer zoom?