jimdesu

I'm running on a quad-pentium windows2000 machine with 2GB of RAM (although windows is too stupid to see two of the processors -- typical microsoft innovation), so system memory is not going to be the cause of it. You were correct that I think it's driver-related, but at the same time, they seem to be saying that it's not capable of what I'm trying to do anyway (aka it isn't really capable of 2880 dpi _that you can specify_, but that most of the dots are for printer dithering use only) and that I shouldn't bother with more than 360ppi anyway.

Thanks,

James

(As you saw per my question)I've only been testing papers visually, so I'm not too sure about the durability, but from handling my own printouts, I'd weigh against it. The paper seems to be retaining a slight curve to it even though my last print has been sitting flat for a week and on the whole feels a wee bit thin for something that's supposed to last long enough to show the grandkids. It would be fine to frame, but.... With interleaves I might consider it, but without them I definitely wouldn't.

hope that helps,

James

To answer Bill, I'm talking about the resolution of the image at the printer. Taking a 5760dpi scan of a 35mm negative, cropping it, then changing the resolution in photoshop to 8x10, resulting in (often) greater than 700 dpi.

thanks,

James

(pardon if this is a duplicate -- I'm getting a '"queryString"

required but not supplied' error searching)

I've recently acquired an Epson 2200 printer, and have been playing

around with different papers to see what produces better tones, and

in doing so I've run across a problem: when I print a picture with a

dpi of (if I recall correctly) 700 dpi, it chokes and only prints

part of the picture (on 2880dpi setting). Rez'ing down to 360 dpi

makes the print come out fine, but what's the point of 2880 dpi if

you can't use it, right?

Has anyone else discovered this, and if so, is there a driver fix

somewhere or is there some kind of fine-print difference between

output dpi and addressable dpi?

Thanks in advance,

James

I don't have any particular lens in mind, but was just wondering at the nature of process lenses and the fact that the lens is designed for work at a finite distance. From what I've read online, some people seem to feel that the nature of these lenses are radically different, but others say that you can use process lenses on cameras with no problem (as well as saying that they're pretty sharp, too).

With all the process lenses out there going for a relatively cheap, I've been wondering about how to put these on an apples to apples basis with "regular" infinite-conjugate lenses, besides the obvious lack of shutter.

Hi there,

I know this's probably asked all the time, but if you have a process

lens that's designed for 1:1 imaging (a finite-finite conjugate),

does anyone know how to calculate what that lens's infinite-finite

equivalent focal length is, given that one knows the focal length of

the lens in question?

This's probably an optics 101 question, but I can't seem to find

anything on it.

Thanks!

Jim

Thanks Brian; that's what I'm getting at.

If the light cone for a given lens is configured for a negative of a given size, then in addition to the vignetting possibility that you point out, is the incoming light for a smaller negative too "spread out" to be the equivalent of the same f/ ratio light intensity from a 35mm lens? This's gotta be a standard "academic" question, but I haven't seen anything that addresses the topic except some astrophotography stuff that's dealing with equipment comparisons rather than the fundamental optics question.

Hi there,

Sorry to not find the answer to this in the archive (I have to assume

it's there, I just can't find it). I've been wandering back & forth

mentally about what should be a simple question: is f/-ratio

invariant across media types? Or, in other words, is an f/5.6 lens

meant for 6x6 an f/5.6 lens if used with 35mm?

Thanks in advance,

James

Hi there,

I've got a question that's over my head and I'm hoping that there might be some gurus here that can help me out. I've managed to acquire a lens that I want to play with that's 65mm f/0.75, but it comes with a catch -- even thought the screw-mounting appears to be t-mount (42x.75mm), the actual output of the lens is as if it were a c-mount lens. I can mount the lens just fine on my old pentax with an adapter that I have, but there's no way for me to get infinity focus on the lens.

I'm ok with close-up stuff so far as it goes, but given that the lens has no focussing adjustment (nor diaphram!), it would be really handy to mount it at infinity. Is there some manner of corrective optic that I could interpose between the lens and my camera that would allow such focus? If so, what would the affect on the effective focal-length and f/-ratio of the lens be?

Thanks in advance,

James

Hi there,

I've recently acquired an old ZeissJena Pancolar 55/1.8 which has a

yellow cast both to the lens as well as to the image in my

viewfinder -- is this a result of age or fungus, or some kind

of "corrective" coating that I'm not aware of?

Thanks in advance,

James

Hi there,

I'm on the warpath for a (small)lightmeter that will clip onto the

flash-shoe of my camera, and specifically, one that will present its

information *facing the user* so I don't have to look at the top of

the camera to see the metering results.

Does anyone know of a such a product?

Thanks,

Jim

Hi there,

I've recently purchased some Efke 25 film, and am confused by posts I see that say to use an e.i. of 50. Does this mean that I should shoot it at 50 but have it developed at 25? Or shoot at 50 and develop at 50? Or shoot at 25 and have them develop at 50?

If anyone can shed some light on this I'd appreciate it; everything I've found in prior articles seems to assume familarity with development particulars that I don't have.

Thanks,

James

Hi there,

I've seen posts on various places croon over 50mm lenses with

length/aperture ratios of 1.2 and 1.4 (calling F2.0 slow), yet in the

same breath state that F2.8 is fast for a 180mm lens. I'm wondering

why so. Is it considered fast because it's hard to manufacture a

quality telephoto lens with smaller ratios, or is there some other

mathematical relationship at work?

Thanks,

James

Hi there,

I'm finding that I'm taking a lot of candid photos in low light

situations where a tripod would be inappropriate, using a Pentax

K1000. Would the larger sizes of 6x7 lenses present any advantages

in terms of pulling in more light? For my purposes I can't move to

infra-red and I'm already pushing ISO1000 -- I drastically need to

increase my shutter speed. I know the question is kinda simple-

minded, but if anyone has any experience in this area I'd love to

hear it.

Thanks,

James