kng

<p>I have a Luna Six, even though I haven't used it in years (moved to a Minolta Auto Meter IV, then a Sekonic 558C). I have some diagrams that I saved from somewhere on the net, I don't remember where, but hopefully these will help. They're for a Luna Pro, which is the same design or at least very similar.</p>

Not all ballasts are rated for remote use (ie, what you're doing, having the ballast

located far from the fixture.) For example, Fulham, a ballast manufacturer, has the

Longhorse line for remote use, but the regular line, Workhorse, is meant to be wired

close to the fixture itself. Both are electronic solid state ballasts. I'm not familiar

enough with the specs for other brands like Osram/Sylvania, Advance, etc to know

which models are rated for which. If you can take a peek at your ballast and see if

there are any branding or labels on it (it should, even if it's OEM), google the model

number and hopefully that will get you to some spec sheets or whitepapers.

"Look for them to stop making motion picture film in 35mm in the next year or so."

A bit OT, but I think that's premature. Sales of MP film for Kodak are still strong; in fact,

orders for 16mm have doubled in the past few years. I've been told by a Kodak rep that they

will be releasing at least one new emulsion this fall; whether it's to expand their Vision2 line

or a new platform entirely is unknown. Even Fuji, whose MP film market share is much, much

smaller than Kodak, just introduced a new emulsion this month. Clearly R&D is still being

done on film.

When I first got the Sigma 30mm (used) I was getting severe backfocus with all sensors on

my D200. I sent the lens in for service and when I got it back I was getting much more

reliable autofocus performance, although I do sometimes have slightly different results

between the centre and other sensors. I do use the centre one about 75% of the time anyway

and as a cross type sensor it's more sensitive as well, so the fact that the other sensors can

sometimes backfocus very slightly doesn't really bother me too much. If i'm using a sensor

other than the centre one and the focus indicator says I'm in focus, usually a second half-tap

of the shutter will settle the lens into proper focus.

The expresscard/34 slot on the MacBook Pro is linked via both a one-lane PCIe link and a

USB 2.0 interface, as seen in the <a href="http://developer.apple.com/documentation/

HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/MacBookPro_0601/Articles/MacBookPro_0601.html#//

apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40004361-TPXREF101">developer note</a>.

In terms of memory, stick with 2GB for now. FB-DIMMs are very new technology and

massively expensive right now. Try the 2GB configuration for a few weeks and see if it really

is limiting you in any way...coming from a PB G4 with 1GB of RAM, the immediate speed

difference is going to be huge relief anyhow. If you find you need that extra 2GB of RAM right

away, you can just add it in, but if you hold off for several months you'll likely save some

money as those FB-DIMMs come down in price.

The photometrics don't show that at all.

At 5m, the Studio 1000 (with CP/71 bulb) puts out 4900 lux at full spot (11 deg) and 700

lux at full flood (62 deg.).

At the same distance, the Junior 650 puts out 2770 lux at full spot (12 deg) and 510 lux at

full flood (52 deg.)

However, the outputs vary considerably depending on what bulbs are in the housings. The

Studio 1000 accepts two or three different bulbs. If you check the specs on the Arri site,

you'll see that the CP/40 bulb in the Studio 1000 brings the numbers down to 2870 and

569.

Serge and Thomas, thanks for all your help! After all this experimentation, I've decided to

simply stick with the Spyder2express profile. Of all the hardware profiles, it's the easiest on

the eyes. Though the ColorEyes profiles seem to have more linearity in the blacks, the overall

luminance of the monitor is too dim, despite choosing 'maximum luminance.'

Now if all the UI elements in OS X were designed for gamma 2.2 instead of 1.8, I'd be a happy

camper!

Something funky is going on, because stuff appears fine in Preview now. Using Firefox,

however, (which I know is NOT colour-managed), 12,12,12 is the first visible swatch with

Spyder2Express profile, 10,10,10 with ColorEyes.

So what I'm leaning towards is using ColorEyes with a custom white point adjustment to

remove the magenta, and accepting the loss of detail below 10,10,10 in non colour-managed

apps.

The reason I started this thread was because I was concerned about whether I had a

hardware problem with my colorimeter or not, because the profiling results I got from it

were so far off from visual calibration. I just tried the visual calibrator SuperCal (with

gamma 2.2), and so far I've had the most neutral grays and whites with this. As I said, the

Spyder2express profile is green, and the ColorEyes profiles are magenta. Now, with

ColorEyes, I can fine-tune the white-point afterwards to match what I "see" as white, but

I'm still doubtful as to whether the blacks for any of the hardware-calibrated profiles are

as truthful as they're supposed to be.

To further illustrate the disparity between the hardware and visual calibrations, this is

what I did: I made a photoshop file with a black background, and made swatches ranging

from 2,2,2 to 26,26,26. Serge, you're saying that the visual calibrations change the

videocard LUTs so it affects all applications, whether they're colour-managed or not?

Because this appears to be the case: with the SuperCal profile, the image looks identical in

Photoshop and Preview, and I can see down to 4,4,4 with both.

However, with either the Spyder2express or ColorEyes profiles, the first swatch I can see in

Preview is 24,24,24, where it is mapped to 5,5,5 (according to DigitalColor Meter).

Everything below 24,24,24 is pure black. Accordingly, the rest of the OS and UI is darker

than I'm used to.

So why can't I get a hardware calibration that has the uniformity of the visual calibrations,

where I don't have this huge disparity between colour-managed and non-colour managed

applications?

Thomas, although Photoshop accuracy is important, to me it's not the only one that

matters. If I'm posting images to the web for a client to review, and if everything below

24,24,24 is pure black with a hardware profile, but I can see down to 4,4,4 with a visual

profile, then I really have no clue what the client is going to see.

I appreciate everyone's help on this so far. Much appreciated!

Okay the upper right hand image, with the ledge: I don't see essentially no detail

underneath it, but I do see some above the ledge. Between the ColorEyes 2.2 and L*

profiles, the 2.2 reveals more in that regard. The Spyder2Express profile is similar to the

L* in terms of black rendition, but it's overall brighter in the highlights and warmer.

Now, subjectively, the profile that I get after using the visual Apple Display Calibrator is

easier on the eyes in that it's brighter and the blacks have opened up. I can see rock detail

above the ledge, rather than vague patterns.

Now, if the display appears too dark overall but anything I work with in Photoshop will be

adjusted so that I can see those shadows, I can live with that. But outside of Photoshop,

even 10,10,10 is identical to pure black (sRGB PNG viewed in Firefox, for example.) Safari

is fine since it's colour managed (4,4,4 is visible), but in Preview, not even 12,12,12 is

visible. This inconsistency is really bothersome.

Serge: By "too dark" I mean the blacks have been crushed. Perhaps I'm simply not used to

having my blacks so dark.

I've spent the last few hours trying out the free demo of ColorEyes which you

recommended, and it seems to be quite the software. Much more thorough and quite

powerful. I've tried many different combinations of settings, and all yield slightly different

results. I've calibrated to 6500K (instead of D65), maximum luminance, and gamma 2.2.

I've also tried L*, which provides a slightly different rendering of the blacks.

Now, how is one supposed to choose between these slightly different results anyway? I

can't just choose the profile that looks the 'best'...isn't calibration supposed to be an

objective process? The profile from the spyder software is perhaps slightly warm and

green. The ColorEyes profile with gamma 2.2 is cooler, perhaps on the verge of magenta.

The ColorEyes profile using L* (which the program recommends) is similar, save for the

different black rendering (almost like it's extending the toe, if you will.)

Thomas: I've downloaded that test file you linked to and opened it in photoshop. Profiled, I

see that the blacks in the top right small image have been crushed; there's very little detail

visible. That prompted me to just make a new image in photoshop and make some test

swatches. I can just begin to see the difference between 6,6,6 and 0,0,0. How does this

compare to what you guys can see, or what I should expect?

I've noticed some interesting behaviour with photoshop, however. Let's say I've got a

photoshop document open with my swatches of 3,3,3 4,4,4, etc up to 9,9,9 on a 0,0,0

background. When I'm in the displays control panel with the profile I've made with

ColorEyes (gamma 2.2) selected, I can't see any of the swatches in the photoshop

document. However, when I click into the document, some sort of adjustment occurs and I

can see some of the swatches. This change isn't as visible with the L* profile. Does

photoshop do some sort of internal gamma management?

Ambient light is low. Desk lamp off, blinds closed. Just for the heck of it, I also tried turning

the lamp on and opening the curtains, but that didn't change the results...

I decided on the Spyder2express because a) it was affordable and b) I read that the hardware

part (i.e. the actual spyder) was the same as the higher end models; it's just that the software

is more elaborate and has more capabilities in the more expensive packages.

I just calibrated my Viewsonic VX2025wm LCD monitor with a Spyder2express on OS X 10.4.6 (and

GeForce FX 5200) with the following monitor settings:<p>

factory default of 6500K<br>

factory default of brightness 100<br>

factory default of contrast 70<p>

The monitor does not have a selectable 'native' white point, so I left it at 6500K. The other options are

sRGB, 9300K, 5400K, and User Color (selectable RGB values). Not like the latter would be useful anyway,

since this Spyder version doesn't do RGB tuning.<p>

All four shadow patches are visible in the wizard, as are all four highlight patches.<p>

After calibration with the Spyder2express, which calibrates to a Gamma 2.2 and 6500K (this is the lowest-

end Spyder2 so this is the only gamma it will profile to), I find that the monitor is too dark. Not excessively

dark, but enough for me to question whether I have a properly working colorimeter.<p>

Viewing gamma patterns <a href="http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm#menu">here</a>, I find

that the pattern for gamma 2.4 looks much more neutral than the gamma pattern for 2.2, which is what

<i>should</i> appear neutral (but doesn't.) After looking at the gamma applet <a href="http://

www.tsi.enst.fr/~brettel/TESTS/Gamma/Gamma.html">here</a>, it seems it might even be somewhere

around 2.7.<p>

Any ideas as to what's the problem here?

These are also clear jewel cases, but higher quality, sturdier, and more professional-looking.

www.jewelboxing.com

Oh dear. Yes, you start from the centre, hooking the perfs onto the two prongs. Then work

your way out from there, keeping the film bowed so it slips into the coil. With practice, you

can reel it on in less than 30 seconds. The Hewes reels are a joy!

I think there are a few threads here on photo.net about this.

I've tried XTOL 1:1 with a squirt of about 5mL of rodinal a while ago, when I used to shoot

film. I dev'd tri-x with it, and results were essentially characteristic of XTOL 1:1 with a bit

more contrast and acutance. Looked a bit like HC110 in terms of tonality, but with the better

grain of XTOL.

"Being able to control one aspect with one hand, and another with the other makes more

sense to me IMHO; it's easier to twist one dial with one hand and another with the other

hand, than to change two dials simultaneously with two digits of one hand."

I absolutely agree, and this is the ergonomic/design aspect I was referring to. With AF

already taking care of one of the controls for the left hand, only zoom is left as the 'task'

for the left hand. This leaves my right hand (on my D70) responsible for shutter release,

aperture control, and exposure compensation (I shoot aperture priority). Redelegating

aperture control over to the left hand means an even two controls for each hand.

What makes even less sense for me is that on the D70, by default the aperture control in

aperture priority is designated for the front body dial, which means that your right index

finger can either be adjusting aperture, or on the shutter release, but not both!

Fortunately, you can swap the aperture control to the rear dial. Still, I'd take a real aperture

ring any day, even if you can't adjust it in thirds of a stop throughout the whole range.

I had to adjust to this too, going from Pentax film SLR to a Nikon D70. You're not being

paranoid; I absolutely hate not having an aperture ring, and the future of new lenses

seems to be going in the ring-less direction. I find using an aperture ring to be much

faster than turning a dial; it's more tactile, more intuitive, and, to me, more efficient. With

an aperture ring, just by the position of my fingers, I can tell what aperture I'm at without

having to look in the viewfinder's numbers. The aperture ring has a natural start and stop.

Whereas with a dial on the body, since the dial turns continuously either way, I can't

determine aperture purely on a tactile level; I rely on the aperture readout in the finder.

I'm really looking forward to the arrival of my D200, which has a mechanical linkage for

aperture so I can actually use the aperture ring once again on the lenses that have them,

anyway.

Jerry, PremierArt makes Luster Rag. MK is Matte Black, PK is Photo Black ink.

Thanks for the report, Jason. I was actually really looking forward to trying the Luster Rag

with an R1800 since I've tried looking for reports on the yahoo forum and on the web; since

it's new not much has been written about it in terms of reviews. After reading your post, I

might hold off on it.