matt_webber

hi all,

i'm just getting to know my way around photoshop cs, but am stumped with something.

i have an image taken on my nikon d70s in jpeg format. when i open it in iphoto, the

image looks fine. in photoshop cs, some of the finer details are pixelated! how is this

happening? i can't work it out. both using identical copies of the same file...

any thoughts?

thanks,

matt

thanks so much for all the responses. much food for thought.

while the d200 looks pretty darn flashy, the d70s has pretty much all the features i need as someone who likes to shoot a lot on holiday and occasionally in between (certainly not with weekly regularity, though increasing all the time!). I guess then that since the d70s is enough of a camera for my needs, where I am now is at the point of deciding whether to buy now or back-off until the price of the d70s drops a little. someone mentioned a d80 on its way. any idea when? that would presumably lead to a slight price-drop the d70s?....

i guess a year could make the difference of a �100 or so, but then thats less than 10 rolls of film to be developed....

any more thoughts to help me out with my argumentative inner monologues?!

i've just won a finepix s7000 in a local competition (with this:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/mwebber_82/Sydney/CIMG0666.jpg)

and have been able to cash it in for ﾣ300 at a local camera store

since it is of little use to me. However, this puts me in a position

to think about making the jump from my n80 to a d70s if i stump up

the other ﾣ400 for the kit...

my question is this. are prices of cameras like the d70s likely to

remain fairly stable, or is the technology still developing at such a

rate that 2 years down the line i'll kick myself for not waiting for

a better model or better prices? (since i have no urgent need for it

in the next year or so apart from general shots - saving for the next

big travelling experience!)....

any thoughts?<div></div>

hi all.

i have spent many hours trawling through previous posts and various reviews of the d70s,

but am yet to find anything which gives a direct comparison between the d70s and n80. i

presume this is because the digital equivalent of the n80 would be the d100...

however, the option with which i am faced is not to upgrade from the n80 to the d100, but

to upgrade (?) to the d70. now i appreciate that the d70s has been criticised for slow

autofocus. however, the n80 isn't quickest out of the trap either! any idea how they

compare?

similarly, without wishing to start a digital vs film debate (as a perpetual lurker on these

boards i appreciate how tiresome that particular debate can become!), will i notice any

significant drop in clarity and sharpness in moving from the n80 to the d70? since i'll be

using my old g lenses if i make the move, i would ideally test the 2 bodies side by side,

but this just isn't possible unfortunately...

are there any other features i will lose out on in terms of sensors, metering, build quality

etc....

if in my red-eyed bleariness i have overlooked a thread along the same lines as this n80 vs

d70s, then i offer my sincerest apologies! just point me in the right direction...

cheers one and all,

matt

thanks all. so is there anything i can do?!

reckon i'll just get enlargements done from the original negatives then... out of interest, if i print from these digital images at 5x7.5, will the result be noticably different from a print from the original negative, or is it only going to be larger sizes that give it away?

thanks again...

not sure of dimensions - will check...

film is kodak supra professional 400...

here's a couple of examples. some are better some are worse. the largest of these comes in under 300kb, the other is under 200!

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/mwebber_82/_15_0197.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/mwebber_82/_30_0139.jpg

hi guys n gals.

heres the deal:

just reached the end of my 3 months travelling and before leaving san

francisco for london, i decided to get all my 35mm negatives

developed and scanned. i used brooks on kearny on a recomendation...

i've never done this before, but thought it might be interesting to

use the digital images so i can manipulate and enhance where

appropriate to make the most of these trip-of-a-lifetime photos. the

guy in the shop assured me they would be scanned at 4800dpi - pretty

good for negatives from what i understand.

however, having now touched down in london and finally got chance to

check out the cd's, they are seriously grainy, and file size is only

about 500kb (jpeg). i'm guessing theres no way thats 4800dpi! any

suggestions what resolution it may have been done at? any suggestions

on what i can do about the fact that the images are unprintable?!

really quite dissapointed... :0(

thanks very much, matt.

Hi all

I am off around the world in June, with Hong Kong the first stop.

Having read that film is considerably cheaper than elsewhere (I'm in

UK) I am planning to stock up when I arrive from any of the places

recommended elsewhere on the boards (inc. Wing Shing Photo/Man Shing

Photo/colour6/photo scientific etc....).

However, I am also going to upgrade my digital camera memory from 256

SD card to the 1gig version. Where best to do this?

airport, aforementioned photo shops, or other electrical stores?

Many thanks in advance....

Matt

hi scott,

i was there for a few months over the summer. searched in every photo shop in bangkok (and elsewhere) and was unfortunately unable to locate any UC400. the better stores listed on earlier posts on this forum do indeed have a good selection of refrigerated slide and negative film, but no UC400.

i settled for NPH and some kodak professional something or other. (although i cleared several stores out of both!!)

good luck

the film was in my hand luggage the whole time so didn't go through the large scanners out back.

however, in some of the small thai airports, they scan all the luggage at the same time in a multipurpose (hand and hold luggage) out the front. I asked if they'd hand check the films, but they said it was ok (it did have the 'filmsafe' sticker on the x-ray machines).

I was curious to know how it could be ok when it is obviously high enough power to scan the hold luggage as well...

thanks for all the replies.

took them all back to the lab and kicked up a fuss about the fact that they call their 7x5 "standard" size, without telling the uneducated consumer that 7x5 will require cropping (indiscriminately it appears).

They did however agree that since they don't offer 7.5x5 (which would negate the need to crop), they would reprint them all at 9x6.

I have reassessed the photos after reading your responses, and think it may be a result of very high contrast in some of the shots. Since the majority of the pictures have fantastic colour rendition, i don't think that it could be related to insufficient agitation or time in the fixer, or presumably the effect would be noticable in more than a few odd shots... similarly, this would presumably rule out the possibility of depleted chemicals? or can this happen to certain sections of a roll and not others? (I have no idea how old the film was - it came from one of the more reputable shops in Bangkok, was refrigerated, and all looked quite pro - by the way, I cleared them out of supra and nph and didn't see much more about the city if any one else is heading out there!!)

again, thankyou all for your time.

i have re-assessed the photos.

though i am curious to know comments on the milkiness, i have decided that the cutting off of the edges of negatives is actually much more of a problem!! some of the negatives have lost up to 2mm off the sides! this means that lots of feet are missing, and important edges of monuments and architectural detail have been left off when i was EXTREMELY careful not to cut them off when taking the photo itself!!

is this just something i need to learn from and not crop my photos so tightly during the actual photographing stage, or should i hold the lab responsible?

thanks again. sorry for reposting, but damn i'm p****d off!! (rightly so me thinks!)

hi all

i have recently returned from a trip to southeast asia and just

this minute collected my snaps.

i was a little dissapointed to find that on each of the 7 rolls

there was at least a handful of the photos that have come back

markedly 'milky' (for want of a better description).

each roll (nph 400 through a nikon f80) contained a variety of

situations and environments (ie they weren't all of the beach, or

all of the sea, or all of people, but rather each roll includes a

broad range of lighting situations, subject matter etc)

does anyone have any thoughts as to what may be the cause of this?

- is it the nature of nph to be a little milky?

- is it the nature of not having each individual negative hand-

checked during processing (ie the range of environments etc has over-

challenged the automated process)?

- is it my fault with poor exposure?

- is it the fault of the brainless shop-assistant in the lab!!!

also, some of the prints have cut off the edges of the negative (ie

someones feet might be missing on the print but are clearly not cut

off on the negative). again, is this the nature of the enlargement

stage in the processing, or is the lab at fault?!

thanks a lot for reading and (hopefully) responding - partly because

i'm interested to know and learn, partly because i want to check

whether i'd be doing the right thing to kick up a fuss at the lab!!

cheers guys and gals,

matt

hi all

have read back through previous posts regarding good spots for

processing in Bangkok.

general consensus appears to be IQ Lab, fotofile, Pro Colour Lab are

all pretty hot.

however most seem to refer to slide or MF. Do these recomendations

hold for colour neg film too?

also, keen as i am, i'm certainly no pro! does this mean i should

avoid the 'pro' processing labs?! or will they generally be just as

happpy to process my films too...

while i'm on the topic, does anyone know the availability in bangkok

(or elsewhere in the kingdom) of Portra UC400 col neg film? also

provia 400? any other recomendations for which films would be well

suited for a trip in thailand?

thanks again all.

just curious, how do people make a decision regarding which metering

mode to use (centre/spot/matrix)...

as someone still finding there way, i have been sticking to spot

metering to ensure that whatever/whoever my subject is, is always

properly exposed...

this, i know, is a pretty uneducated/simplistic/foolish (delete as

appropriate) method.

so how do you make your choice?

thanks for the help. (sorry if this is sounds a little stupid and

time-wasting when placed amongst posts discussing far more technical

and stimulating topics, but your time is VERY VERY much appreciated!)

i have sat scouring older posts to save re-hashing old information

and asking the same old questions, but i want to be sure i get it

right, so i'm going to ask anyway!! (thanks in advance for your

patience!)

off to thailand in a few days for a couple of months (LOTS of

photo's!) and will be buying film when i arrive in bangkok. since

prices are lower than they are here in London, i figured i can go for

better film than my budget would normally allow (ie - not whatever is

in the bulk-sale!).

i am obviously keen to capture the vibrant colours that characterise

SE Asia, so i am looking for colour negative film that give good

saturation etc.

Since i will be taking photos of scenery, people, ruins, temples,

indoor, outdoor etc etc, I figured i'd go for 100ISO and 400ISO. but

which film do you suggest for my situation?

any other thoughts etc regarding film selection? (speed, brand,

colour/b&w, etc...)

thanks for all your help. the people on this forum rock!

wow. thanks for all the great advice.

sorry if my particular question isn't 100% nature - I felt that as I am trying to achieve shots that inevitebly integrate nature with the occasional person, you guys might be the best to ask ;o)

i'm shooting with a nikon f80/n80 normally in aperture or shutter priority, occasionally in fully manual, never in programme!

on my last trip i was switching between the various metering modes (centre, spot, matrix) to see how they affect things (although I lost my records as to which photo's used which settings, so i have no idea as to what effect they have on correctly exposing the areas I want without overexposing or blowing out others! typical!)........

thanks again guys and gals

I appreciate that there are several other posts relating to metering

when skiing or in the mountains so I'll try and keep this brief!!

Most of the posts I've come across suggest shooting at +1, +1.5, or

+2, but most of these deal with scenery shooting. How about when I'm

not just shooting the scenery and I have a person in the foreground

(or background for that matter) with snow and sky filling the rest of

the frame?

If I spot meter on the person, does this negate the need for the

exposure compensation because I'm telling the camera to expose that

persons face, or should I still compensate at +1or2 to ensure the

scene behind is not grey?

I just got back from a mountain trip where I compensated at +2 for

every shot I took and they all came out well (though some should have

had +1 instead - its all a learning curve!), but my next trip will

include people and not sure I can afford to bracket every shot I

take!! (processing costs are high for a student!)

Thanks in advance - sorry if I am rehashing old stuff here!