photom

December 28, 2016

I would recommend starting your editing with the Picture

Control parameters in NX-D. Then if you are unhappy or more

is needed, look at the other edit tools. This speeds

processing of the nef files. I have found that you can

crash NX-D with too many edits outside of PC.

Differences? Contrast in PC seems to be an adjustment of

the shape of an S curve and tends not to blow out highlights

or shadows as easily. Saturation - PC much more limited to

avoid crazy colors. For some reason I never use brightness

within PC. Sometimes I use small brightness adjustment

outside of PC to change shadows.

July 16, 2016

"Richard Williams , Jun 14, 2016; 09:32 a.m. Yes, you would be operating on a tiff file if you used Viveza instead of CNX2 for control point editing, but my assumption is that whatever program you use to host the Nik plugins (e.g. Photoshop) won't care about the Nikon metadata and will be directly compatible with NX-D tiffs. CNX2, on the other hand, seems to be unusually fussy about its input tiffs."

</blockquote>

Fussy yes. In particular, regarding metadata fields not the image data itself.

June 13, 2016

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 12, 2016; 05:57 p.m.

The labeling in the 'i' versions is using side car files, whereas in the ViewNX2/CaptureNX2 it is stored in a separate directory away from the image files, as far as I know. Maybe there is some glitch related to handling of the labels across the two.

</blockquote>

I believe the original View and Capture NX2 store all metadata in the files. It seems that the creation of the tif file and putting label data in the tif file by ViewNX-i is the problem. It is my impression that how label data is handled is not particularly industry standardized, however, you would think that Nikon would be able to create a tif file that would not be a problem for other Nikon software. As a side note, I have seen instances where other raw processing software was used to create tif files with metadata added to the tif that caused problems for ONLY Nikon software. In particular, Rawtherapee and Photoninja.

December 13, 2015

Kari: "NX-d: in the preview mode, Ctrl+Alt+5 takes me to the 50% view, but Ctrl+Alt+1 does nothing. I am able to save this and go to the 100% view by Ctrl++ key shortcut. Not sure if some other program is intercepting the Ctrl+Alt+1."

Ctrl+Alt+1 works as it should for me. Does anyone know the difference between "Fit to screen" (Ctrl+Alt+0) and "Fit" with shortcut letter E ?? Both show as options when right clicking. They seem to do the same thing. Also, NX-D manual claims that shortcut E is a toggle between fitting the preview and zooming to 100%. It does no zooming for me. Strange little over-sites and quirks.

Also, in the new ViewNX-i at the bottom of the Edit Palette there is a Save icon. However, as far as I can see, all modifications as to image adjustments or metadata, automatically save to the sidecar file when the image is closed. It seems a hang-over from View NX-2 that was left by mistake.

December 4, 2015

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">lkka Nissila</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 03, 2015; 04:09 a.m.

If you have preview mode as default in options then, there is no problem opening image right away.

Ok, this works for me. I will start using it and see what happens. ;-)

</blockquote>

Actually, it is called Image Viewer mode vs. Full Screen. The latter has the problem (at least for USA English version).

December 1, 2015

<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dbbj" rel="nofollow">First</a> <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dbbj?start=0" rel="nofollow">Prev</a> <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dbbj?start=0">1</a> | 2

</center>

<a name="00dbnW"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6237006">Kari Oinonen</a> , Nov 29, 2015; 05:05 p.m.

Re bugs when clicking thumbnail. What I notice is that if you have full screen as default, the full screen mode opens but the image is blank. If you quickly click another thumbnail on the side and back, then it opens up.

If you have preview mode as default in options then, there is no problem opening image right away.

October 31, 2015

From original Q:

The only way out appears to be manual mode-when shutter/aperture both can be set. But then proper exposure would be trial/error exercise. I would like to know- which mode and settings to use when the flash is in FP mode.

</blockquote>

In M mode on camera, the flash becomes the primary light and proper exposure is automatically adjusted by flash power (assuming xTTL or Auto setting on flash). Just make sure M mode camera settings are set to under expose.

October 31, 2015

Adding to William Porter ideas:

"There are lots of ways to do this. I think I've done every one of them.

<ol>

<li>Set white balance to a fixed temp (usually 5000K) and leave it there, on theory that you at least know where you started. Got that tip from one very famous photographer (who by now is probably doing something different).</li>

<li>Set custom white balance in camera for the shooting scene.</li>

<li>Shoot a WhiBal or similar card for reference and adjust later.</li>

<li>Put it on Auto White Balance and forget about it. Correct in post if necessary."</li>

</ol>

Suggest doing 3. along with 1. Do not do 3. with 4. because it will confuse you and the camera. Found this out the hard way.

August 20, 2013

IMHO, the sample contract is kind of goofy in regard to the loss of income with the schedule. The general idea is fine, but usually when a detailed schedule such as the one shown is included, it would be applied to a larger amount pre-paid such as 100% of the fee so that the photographer, refunds back according to the schedule. Attempting to collect relatively small "extra" amounts is silly unless you have a lot of cooperative clients that are scared of you. I think the idea of clarifying/defining the deposit amounts retained as "loss of income" is probably a good idea so that it is understood that the photographer has given up potential business to hold the date.

July 7, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1947909">Scott Frindel Cole</a> , Jun 24, 2013; 09:55 a.m.

For many people displaying square photos, the square is somewhat of a schtick. In fact, I'd almost say that many (not all!) go to very great lengths to prove to the world that they shoot a Hasselblad by including the those two little notches. Maybe Bronica would still be alive if they had a their own little recognizable doodad on the frame....? Anyway, including extra area on an image that will ultimately be cropped by the vast majority does have cost in terms of processing speed (the files are that much bigger) and storage capacity. What's ironic is that exactly the same argument goes for the modern 3:2 ratio of every DSLR: I'll be the vast majority end up cropping something off the end, so why are they so stubborn about retaining that ratio? The files are bigger, and more processing power and storage space is needed.

</blockquote>

+ 1 ! !

July 7, 2013

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1947909">Scott Frindel Cole</a> , Jun 24, 2013; 09:55 a.m.

For many people displaying square photos, the square is somewhat of a schtick. In fact, I'd almost say that many (not all!) go to very great lengths to prove to the world that they shoot a Hasselblad by including the those two little notches. Maybe Bronica would still be alive if they had a their own little recognizable doodad on the frame....? Anyway, including extra area on an image that will ultimately be cropped by the vast majority does have cost in terms of processing speed (the files are that much bigger) and storage capacity. What's ironic is that exactly the same argument goes for the modern 3:2 ratio of every DSLR: I'll be the vast majority end up cropping something off the end, so why are they so stubborn about retaining that ratio? The files are bigger, and more processing power and storage space is needed.

</blockquote>

+ 1 ! !

May 22, 2013

I do not own either of these flashes but have other Metz hammerhead style flashes. The sync cords I have seen have either a total of 12 or 16 contact pins. The newer units have the 12 pins. Obviously, not all of these contacts are used for each cord.

I am not sure if this helps, but since a simple PC cord only has two wires, it would be easy to find out which is the ground and which is the "fire" wires. Then splice a standard mono 3.5 mm plug or PC cord on.

Here are some notes I made for Metz 60 CT-4 if it helps. The voltage may be higher for your sync cord, so be careful while testing.

"Beginning with plug on its side, prongs pointed to the right. Top must contact is 1 (GROUND), last and bottom contact is 6.

Turning plug over and prongs facing to the left, top most contact is 7. Last and bottom contact is 12.

Plug Pointing to Right 1 - 6

1 GROUND unshielded alum. strand 2 ? yellow 3 Nothing 4 ? green 5 ? brown 6 Nothing

Plug Pointing to Left 7 - 12

7 ? gray 8 ? white 9 ? red 10 FIRE blue 11 Nothing 12 Nothing"

May 22, 2013

This is a very old thread but may still be useful to some as information. I have read many posts on this issue and there is probably some inaccurate information here.

It appears that the operating system of the 45 series flash was designed around the voltage of the 6 NiCad battery pack which is about 7.2 volts nominal. However, to accommodate the use of 1.5 x 6 = 9 volt alkaline batteries, a second initial circuit is provided with a dc voltage converter to reduce the voltage to 7.2 volts. This also allows the use of the Quantum Battery 2 which puts out about 9 volts, however was probably not a thought in the original design. It is possible that a higher current, but lower voltage, battery pack could damage this converter, however, I have never read of one confirmed case of the lower voltage NiMH batteries damaging the 9 volt circuit.

All modern flashes have no problem handling alkaline or NiMH batteries in the same battery holder (but not mixed), despite the different voltage profile. I am not sure why Metz could not have designed similar flexibility. Even the newest digital version still only offers sealed battery packs if rechargeable batteries are used. How many sales of flashes were missed because Metz did no offer the option of using individual, less expensive NiMH batteries like they do for their shoe mount models?

November 27, 2012

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=400184">Bob Blakley</a> , Nov 16, 2012; 12:05 p.m.

In 1990, if you wanted to take a picture, you shot film. Not because film was "best", or even "cheapest" - but just because it was the only way to get the job done. Huge volumes of film were sold because everyone who wanted to take pictures HAD to use film.

In 2010, if you want to take a picture, you use your (digital) <a id="itxthook3" href="../film-and-processing-forum/00azlQ?start=50" rel="nofollow">phone<img id="itxthook3icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>. You only buy film if you want to take a FILM picture.

The question, for film manufacturers, is "how many people want to take FILM pictures" - how many people want to work in the medium of film.

</blockquote>

The more important question that the consumer asks is: "What choices do I have to view the final result?". For many photo-junkies on this and other websites, it seems it is more about taking the picture than viewing the final image. For the average consumer today, film has too many steps to see the outcome, and is way to expensive to get to a nice viewable (and shareable) image. If there was a machine they could stick their film camera into which produced a free 8 x 10 print 30 seconds later, maybe some would consider buying such a machine and using their film camera (actually, this would not even be enough because of the hassle/cost of buying and developing the film). Currently, the investment in digital imaging devices and LCD-viewing-systems is well worth it to the consumer in terms of short turnaround, convenience, and per image incremental cost - for the final image this system can produce - when compared to any other options available.

By the way, the viewing device is almost free because it is already being purchased for all the other things it does. Ipad type devices will be another huge dagger. Oh, yea, for many people the camera is free too if they only use their phone. So the choice the average consumer sees is: free and instant vs. expensive and slow.

Sadly, every year there is a new generation of consumers with money to spend that has never looked closely at a good photographic print and does not even really understand what it is or how it is made. For them, the only choice is which digital brand, not film vs. digital.

= tommy

November 1, 2012

I downloaded a clean install using trial version with no problems.

September 29, 2012

In general, when you do a backlit photo you want to see the effect of the backlight but not the light source itself.

The reason is that it will be too bright to end up with a nice shot as is shown by the two examples you gave.

= tommy

August 30, 2012

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2344388">Matt Laur</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 06, 2011; 06:08 p.m.

I guess my point, Chris, is that this is by design. It's that way for the same reason that MS Word or many other big mainstream pieces of software work exactly the same way. I guess I'm exactly in the opposite camp ... I like that when I happen to do a Save As, that it defaults to where I last did it. You only have to change it once, obviously - and if you could change the default location, you'd have to change that every time you switched projects anyway... so, it's a wash, really.

</blockquote>

This is an older post but still an issue if anyone as an idea. It is NOT a wash if your preference is to usually save a derivative file to the source folder. I am in this same camp as the OP. LR gives this as an option and offers the ability to create "save as" templates. At the least, CNX2 needs to offer a default "save as" location to be the source folder. This way you have a JPEG right next to the raw nef. There are various reasons this is an advantage. The editing options from CNX2 are strong. The work flow and browser capability of CNX2 are, unfortunately, very "under-engineered".

= tommy

August 17, 2012

It is great for smaller jobs but it does have its limitations as you have found out.

August 17, 2012

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1541404">Cory Ammerman</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 04, 2012; 10:38 a.m.

I use NX2 for 99.9% of my edits. One of the things I like best about it are that it doesn't overwrite your original file when you save your edits. No matter how many edits you make and how many times you save the image, you always have the option to go back to the original file, without having to save a separate copy.

</blockquote>

LR also does not mess with the original file. It save the edits separately. I use CNX2 a lot and really like it but the new LR4 might now be easier to get to the final image. LR4 has finally gotten the portrait camera profile very good which is the one I use the most. There are some features that CNX2 has that are much better than LR4 but some how it is much less efficient in how it handles data which translates to slower. This is even with the new version for 64 bit. I hate to say it, but I may start using LR4 more.

= tommy

August 16, 2012

Based on your comments as to how you use your camera I would highly recommend that you use manual program mode. This give you complete control over any exposure adjustment relative to the meter that you may wish to use and as to which control provides the adjustment.

August 8, 2012

If you are using Nikon AWL compatible flashes, $230 or so for a used SU-800 is not expensive because you do not need any receivers. The question with the SU-800 is if the short distance and line of site limitations will be a problem for your needs. You may give the Pixel Kings version for Nikon a try. Does iTTL only. No remote manual power control.

= tommy

Sorry, I guess this was an old post.

August 8, 2012

In our area they used to use Fuji commercial development service which was pretty good. Not sure who does it for them now.

August 3, 2012

I am not sure if you solved your problem. One thing to be careful of is, when you go through the menus, do not accidentally change the channel number that you are using. Obviously, this would make the flashes not fire. AND, if you accidentally select channel P, you will be really confused. Just one of many possible problems most of which are human error. Also, I am not sure what receiver you are using as you did not say. If you are using JrX receivers, a glitchy stereo sync cable can confuse things a lot.

Good luck,

= tommy

June 22, 2012

It looks a little like scanned negative film to me with and he let the colors come out however they come out. Color negative film can give similar looks sometimes. Does the photographer provide any information about the type of camera she uses?

June 22, 2012

"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3841058">Zameen o Aasman</a> , Apr 29, 2012; 08:56 p.m.

Peter

In the Youtube video you referred, they appear to be using small reflectors for fill. Of course, better DR also help as you can pull up shadows just by move of a slider."

</blockquote>

The small reflectors are being used to protect the camera lens from flare. Since no reflectors or flash, some post editing is likely done. What specific editing? Not sure, but I could come close in Nikon NX2 pretty quick I believe.

If you look closely at the photo with the lady model crouched down, part of the tree behind her hair is blown out more than the other half. It appears as though a layer brush was done with exposure.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by photom