photom

<p>Charles Wood, above post, is the first I have read by someone that says the Imacon <strong><em>clearly</em></strong> has a better file output than the Nikon 9000. I am sure there are advantages to the more expensive Imacon including very high end resolution option. But for typical MF scans at 2,000 to 4,000 PPI, very little difference IMO. Wood says he relied on the dealer to do the test comparison demonstration. Perhaps the dealer was not taking the time to get the most out of the Nikon, or running a slide that was very challenging. OR, maybe the dealer preferred to make a sale of the equipment that was 5 times more money. The design of the Imacon is very good in that it gives a flat scan on the film without glass or other cover. The Imacon <em>should</em> give a much better scan than the Nikon but for some reason does not. To emphasis this, when the Imacon is compared to say a quality drum scan, then you can <strong><em>really</em></strong> see a difference between two scanners. Some folks use the Nikon for most of their work and then have a very few drum scans made for the special shots that they will have exhibited or prints sold from.</p>

<p>Not trying to criticize Wood, just emphasizing the facts that he mentioned that he made his opinion on - in case you want to make a decision in a different manner.</p>

<p>Quality of the film exposure, development, & grain of the film is more likely to be the limiting factor for 80% of your scans, not these very good scanners.</p>

<p>One strike against the Nikon is uncertain future support as I have read on dedicated scanning websites Nikon is not making this unit any longer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5233527">John Deerfield</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 29, 2009; 10:57 a.m.</p>

 

<p> ... A softbox, (a small softbox at that) from the distance it's being used offers no light softening whatsoever. The only thing it does is make the flash work harder. Soft lighting is achieved by creating a light source larger than your subject- hence bouncing a flash off a wall or ceiling. ...</p>

<p> </p>

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would disagree to some degree with this statement. A softbox is not going to weaken the flash power any more than bouncing off of a wall and ceiling corner 10 feet behind the camera. It will however loss the original intent of a softbox of having shaped light by being too far away. It will start to look more like a shoot through umbrella which might be OK.</p>

<p>Very interesting blog here. I also enjoyed the information passed on by Julie Harris.</p>

<p>She uses mostly JPEG but does not say which JPEG in camera setting she uses. Almost all pro or semi pro DSLRs have color saturation, color style, contrast, sharpness, NR, etc. options that you must select for the camera to process the JPEG file. She says she adds no saturation to the photos in post processing, however, the camera may be adding a lot to get to the JPEG depending on the options selected.</p>

<p>She then goes on to talk about the simple but important post processing that she does do in Lightroom to get the final look she wants.</p>

<p>A lot of skill (but still basic fundamental photography) that she applies by using narrow DOF, proper focus, balancing the backlighting, and of course careful attention to what is the emphasis of the shot.</p>

<p>Very nice job Julie and thanks for sharing.!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1094851">Rod Melotte</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 29, 2009; 09:44 a.m.</p>

 

<p>John - NOW you are confusing me. I shoot RAW and print on canvas (or someone else does actually) and sell them in the upper $200s so I'm pretty curious. From your above post I SHOULD(???) convert to sRGB before sending to a printer??? But work them in RGB? I was happy with Adobe RGB but your post is giving me a mixed message (or is it the lack of coffee).</p>

 

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends completely on your printing vendor. Some vendors say they can take Adobe RGB files and convert colors as needed before sending them to print and the colors are fine. Most other printing companies do not want to deal with this and request you send as sRGB because it is closer to their printer color space and so less changes to worry about. Or, you may want to convert in PS using a printer profile consistent with their printer and send the converted file to them with instructions of no color management. In any event, editing and saving the file for your inventory should probably be done in a color space of Adobe RGB or larger with only the final print file converted as mentioned above. If your photos all have a fairly small color gamut such as portraits, then a pure sRGB work flow is just fine.</p>

<p>It sounds like a lot of expert opinions above.</p>

<p>I happen to really like smart sharpen as follows:</p>

<p>Use lense blur and <em><strong>NOT</strong> </em> <em><strong>more accurate</strong> </em> mode for first pass. Play with settings. The larger the original file and more real info. the more the sharpening and the larger the pixel. Usually a bit less than 1 pixel and and near 100 as to amount.</p>

<p>Sometimes I like to do a second pass at half or more the pixel size and half the amount as the previous pass using <em><strong>more accurate</strong> </em> mode.</p>

<p>I would contact the client via phone first and tell them in a friendly way how much you enjoyed doing work for them and would like to have them refer you business, BUT offering to sell prints is against the contract agreement. Tell them to please, take down the offer to order prints and that you do not really want to get your attorney involved but this, again, is a very important contract infringement. Follow this up with an email of the same basic communication. Do not waste your time with Smug Mug. If this does not work, just forget about it and make sure you have more control of the photos next time if you need profit from the prints by giving only very low resolution files or water mark, or printed proof book.</p>

<p>I would be surprised if the client is actually making a profit selling the prints, more likely they are asking for money just to cover the costs of the printing. Unfortunately, in todays digital world wedding clients are getting used to wedding packages being priced where the photographer makes their required profit without selling prints and people know this. So, they do not feel guilty for not ordering prints through the photographer.</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2380957">Peter Zack</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 19, 2009; 06:23 a.m.<br>

I'm sure by now you'll ignore replying to my comments so this is just in case someone stumbles across this thread a year from now. A couple of statements require clarifications.<br />Sorry but that's not the case. I had an FA50mm f1.4 that BF'd on 3 different bodies. The replacement (and any of my current lenses at the time) did not have this issue. It was not the body (or bodies) but the lens. <strong><em>I do not understand the physics and algorithms involved in focus decisions by the camera but clearly it uses contrast adjustments to make a decision on the distance to the sensor plane. </em></strong>Somehow the lens that is defective, tricks the AF sensors into thinking the shot is in focus. I've seen my DA*16-50mm do this on dark cloudy days when the light is flat and the scene very monotone. Users of other brands report (As with Pentax, only rarely) the same thing. So a lens has lots if not everything to do with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, you sound like an experienced photog so my comment is really for others.</p>

</p>

<p>The micro adjust feature has two modes. One mode makes an adjustment for the sensor itself which of course affects all lenses equally, and the other makes an adjustment for individual lens problems. The latter is needed because individual lenses can have AF problems. In theory, when the lens is attached there may be a problem with how it sits on the camera if it is not exactly the correct expected registration distance (this is probably less common). Also, there is data sent to the camera from the lens chip about the nature of the lens AF gearing and behavior that is suppose to help the camera to decide precisely when it should shut down the AF motor action so the final stopping point is the desired in-focus point. If this data is not correct for that lens there will be focusing errors. The micro focusing feature can in most cases compensate for this problem if it exists.</p>

<p>I have read about comments from pro Nikon or Canon photographers that just send in the camera and all their lenses to the repair center as soon as they buy new equipment to have it all calibrated correctly from the get go. Bottom line, AF technology is not perfect.</p>

 

<p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3841768">Gary Demuelenare</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 20, 2009; 08:04 a.m.</p>

 

<p>... who looks for focus confirmation? i never do. the dslr focusses all by itself and does not need my help in looking for confirmation. i simply do not. i also do not have any problem whatsoever in achieving a accurate focus. the dslr does it all for me. as for AF distracting me it does not happen i am simply not payimng any attention to the AF part at all. since by the time i have decided what i want to shoot the dslr and AF has long since been done focusing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

</p>

<p>Gary, most cameras do not allow the shutter to go off until AF confirmation has been achieved. So, whether you realized it or not you have been waiting for AF confirmation. The new twist these days is waiting for image stabilization to finish doing its thing. This again is the case for all brands. There is often some lag for this to occur and the shutter will go off even if you do not wait. By the way, are you looking closely at all of your photos? Even the most experienced and skillful pro with the best camera will tell you they have about 10% of their shots that are not focussed properly using AF. Do you shoot everything at 5.6 or smaller from over 15 feet?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=998840">Vasilis Apostolopoulos</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 18, 2009; 11:14 a.m.</p>

<p><br />I do not really care if other companies have the same problem, fine focus adjustment solves the problem for the focusing in the auto focus sensors <strong><em>but not in the manual focusing case.</em></strong> If you believe that a camera that does not manual focus properly is acceptable and you would have kept it, then probably we have different expectations from cameras. The reason though that I wrote the post is to see if other people had a similar experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry if someone else already corrected this errant statement. The micro adjustment <strong><em>DOES</em></strong> also fix a problem with MF lenses. (if it is a mirror problem or something similar this is also can be easily fixed). If your lack of understanding about how the micro adjustment works caused you to trade back the brand new K7, that is unfortunate.</p>

<p>

 

<p>EDITED: As you probably know, all photo files that have been converted from raw (whether in the camera or on your computer) HAVE white balance done on the them. The important question is, do you want the camera and/or the raw converter to guess what the white balance should be, or do you want to have control of the white balance based on what you saw at the scene and how YOU or the CLIENT would like the output to appear? It is up to you to decide if the software did a good enough job guessing. If you manually set the WB for the scene in the camera, the results should be very close if you convert using "as shot" option.</p>

<p>By the way, one of the easiest and most effective ways to fine tune color balance in PS is to drag the individual R,G,B white points up or down in a curves layer. Even better, make 3 separate labeled layers for each color then move the opacity slider to taste for each layer at the end.</p>

 

</p>

<p>As you probably know, all photo files that have been converted from raw (whether in the camera or on your computer) HAVE white balance done on the them. The important question is, do you want the camera and/or the raw converter to guess what the white balance should be, or do you want to have control of the white balance based on what you saw at the scene and how YOU or the CLIENT would like the output to appear? It is up to you to decide if the software did an okay job.</p>

<p>Does anyone know what film models that it would work fine with? That is aperture priority auto exposure.</p>

<p>Geoff there are some assumptons you are making in your post. A few questions to clarify your point.</p>

<p>Are you saying that Canon and Nikon sports photojournalists and wildlife shooters are using Canon and Nikon because of the dust and water resistant construction? If you would agree that this is not likely the primary, secondary or even tertiary reason that these lenses are being used by these people then what is your point? </p>

<p>If some of these individuals had a few moisture related problems do you think they would switch to Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina? Would they switch to Pentax?</p>

<p>After these problems occurred do you think they would then think about posting details of the problem to this website or just get it fixed and maybe use some plastic next time it gets really wet?</p>

<p>I have never seen one post on this website complaining about water/weather problems for any lens. Does that mean it never happens?</p>

<p>I do appreciate that fast AF is a nice thing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just saw this on another brand site. I guess Canon has to wait too for IS to kick in.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1487620">Xavier HENRI</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 09, 2009; 04:07 p.m.</p>

 

<p>IS caused me some troubles, I am now more happy with fast primes:</p>

<ul>

<li>it does not stabilize people (and especially children)</li>

<li>when using focus recompose, it gives you a "double image" if you shoot too fast without waiting for about 1 stable second.</li>

</ul>

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well you could get one of these and put it on a monopod and avoid most problems without IS.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/CBDPSV.html?searchinfo=custom+brackets">http://www.adorama.com/CBDPSV.html?searchinfo=custom+brackets</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p >Alan Green <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 13, 2009; 10:39 a.m.<br>

to me, nikon glass always produced higher contrast and deeper color -- was especially noticeable when shooting (and underexposing) kodachrome (especially k25). canon has always been more neutral contrast/color.<br>

 <br>

What is neutral contrast?   Haven't  lenses changed some, coatings, etc.  since Kodachrome days? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get a D700 and a 24-70. There is 80% of your shots. Add a lower priced 85 fast prime or Tamron 90 and a Sigma zoom until you can afford the Nikon 70-200.</p>

<p>About $5,500 total to start out with all new and USA warranties.</p>

<p>Also, what is the point of Pentax offering blazing fast AF when the in body IS they have usually takes some time to lock in and settle down.</p>

<p>From the descriptions here and other places, it always sounded to me like variance in weather seals, or seals that get twisted somehow.</p>

<p>There is probably a reason that over the years there have not been that many fully weather sealed AF zoom lenses. AND, I believe that Pentax is still new at this. I guess Canon and Nikon make this claim but do we really know how sealed they really are? Maybe Pentax tried a little too hard and this is why we are now seeing WR lenses instead.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Neil Ambrose <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 12, 2009; 06:49 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I'm interested in your observations, Tom.</p>

 

<p>Do you have examples of websites you feel should be in the top 20%? It would help explain the benchmark that you're describing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Neil, I would be foolish to hold myself out to setting a benchmark and did not intend this. I was communicating an impression, an approximation, relative to the original topic. I think I better end my comments on this here. You have some excellent samples of wedding shots and am sure you have been told so. Thanks for letting us all see your website.</p>

<p>I do look at photographers that have been nominated for national or local awards as a starting point, then I look at random websites of the hundreds of photographers that are registered as professionals in my metro area. Then I look at photographers from blogs like this and others that sound like they know what they are doing.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=749786">Ray -</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 06, 2009; 05:44 p.m.</p>

Response to Response to Problem - Xrite Colorchecker Passport system

 

<p>I understand now.<br>

In LR there is a Camera Calibration panel under DEVELOP. I have never used that section ever before, I tried it with my images as above, but they didn't work for me, you can use some of the profiles that LR installs by default but they didn't work for me. Over there you can also change the shadows and RGB primary hue and saturation sliders - I didn't.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah I tend to use HSL and Tone Curve under LR. Maybe some brightness and saturation, exposure, fill light etc.... when required.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ray, the profiles that LR or ACR uses are special profiles developed by Adobe or made by you using the Adobe DNG profiler software. They are not standard camera icm or icc type profiles. Does the software you have make a standard profile or and Adobe type profile? The Adobe type profiles need to be put in a special folder for LR or ACR to find them and for them to show up in the camera profile choices.</p>

<p>First, do you want the subject to actually be perfectly neutral? </p>

<p>Whether the answer to my question is yes or no, I would use the white color balance dropper in PS from curves or levels AND increase the sample pixel area quite a bit, then try to sample from exactly the same spot on each photo. I prefer to use curves rather than levels so I can easily see graphically what changes were made. You can set the parameters of the eyedropper to any RGB numbers you need to avoid blowing out the scene. 220, 230, whatever. If you wish to maintain a particular color that is not perfectly neutral you can do that as well by changing one or two of the RGB numbers very slightly. In essence the white color balance dropper can be used instead of the middle tone dropper because it is actually better (except that you have to manually adjust the numbers in almost all cases).</p>

<p>In more extreme problem cases, you can then go back and use the mid tone color balance dropper after the white dropper and see if it helps improve things. In your case, it should not be needed.</p>

<p>Nadine said, </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tom--you are also assuming your opinion is the standard by which all should be judged.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nadine, everyone make judgments of other photographers including yourself. That is how we get better. I am really making more of a general observation but of course it is just one persons observation. I have looked at a lot of websites and compared - mostly to learn and get ideas. My point relative to the topic is that in my single person opinion, what is displayed by a large percentage of photographers appears to weekend type photographers to be a level of quality that can be matched with some care and effort to detail. However, sometimes it looks easier than it really is as equipment seems to cooperate better for a person with the experience.</p>

<p>By the way, I enjoy your wedding samples a lot.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK, an edit to my above comment.</p>

<p>About 20% of websites I see show very good to excellent wedding work. 60% show boring work with a lot of minor problems. This is the product that many weekend photographers could easily match with <em>some effort and care. </em> 20% of sites I see are just bad photos throughout. Sounds like some kind of 80/20 rule. I think a lot of part-time photographers look at the lower 80% and say, "I could do work as good or better than that!". In the good old days of film, the fear of screwing up the exposure, exposing the film during loading, all the stuff where you do not have a second chance with film scared this type off. Now they do not have this fear because of instant feedback. AND, a good DSLR kit is right up there with medium format film for smaller shots that go into a picture book album and the color is probably more consistent.</p>

<p>Of course this is just the photographers that I checkout that have websites. It could be that 90% of the photogs that do not have websites are fantastic or I happen to run into lower quality websites (the photos not the websitee itself). Not sure. Maybe I am just too critical but I do not think so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I am tired however of hearing "professional"photographers whining about the "so called professional photographers" with the $400 DSLR with $200 blah hlah and etc...and complain that they give a bad name to the field of photography. Get real. The only difference between a "professional" wedding photographer and say a "weekend photographer" is that the weekend photographer has another job during the week.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also, disagree in general to this comment by Tom Adamczyk. There is a difference.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, I have to say I am always amazed at the sample wedding shots on websites I see from what appear to be experienced pro photographers and how many are really boring and technically weak photos. There appear to be a minority of pro photographers that do very good work and then a large bunch that seem to make a living with producing product that indeed some weekend photographers could probably match fairly easily. BUT, the pros have all the right lists of duplicate equipment, proper lighting equipment, etc. to add reliability and professionalism to the equation. It is just too bad that more of these professionals do not have much of an artistic eye or attention to detail.</p>

<p>Ok, there I said it.</p>