stephen_schoof1

My only experience with a DSLR failing was when a D80's shutter opened and never closed again. This happened out of the blue. In 25+ years of using film bodies, I had an F100 and FM10 do something similar, but otherwise my cameras gave warning that they were getting worn out (occasional overlapping frames due to a slipping film advance, buttons sticking, etc). I had other problems come up, but nothing serious enough to prevent me from taking pictures until I could get repairs.

 

Since I'm now (finally) fully digital and I do some backpacking where carrying a backup body is undesirable due to weight, I'm curious how commonly DSLRs give up the ghost in a sudden, non-field-repairable way. Are there ever warning signs? I have checked my cameras' shutter counts and they are well below the supposed ~100K limit, but does that even mean anything?

 

I'm just looking for others' experiences. I know there's no substitute for carrying a backup, but how common are sudden, non-accidental failures, especially among the lighter DX bodies (D3xxx or D7xxx series) I use for hiking?

Thanks to everyone for answering.

Do you mean that you leave the NEF files on the flash drive? If so, that is a bad idea.

 

No. I import from the flash drive with Lightroom set to copy the images to an external drive, which is backed up by two other drives (one in a different location). The flash drive and laptop are used only as portable temporary shuttles. I like backing up onto a flash drive while traveling because I can carry it in my pocket in case the cameras (with cards) and laptop get stolen or lost. I realize Lightroom does not actually store the images, though it took me awhile to figure that out.

 

My only concern in all this was that by grabbing and copying only the NEFs I might be missing some sort of hidden files that also contain information, though everyone seems to agree that is not the case.

Apologies in advance for what is probably a silly question. I've photographed for almost thirty years but only moved to digital for my serious work this past summer. My workflow has been to shoot RAW-only files (Nikon D3200 and D7100 at the moment), then move the individual NEFs from the SD card to my laptop (which does not have Lightroom) using Windows Explorer. Then I copy those NEFs, also in Explorer, onto a flash drive for backup. When I return to my desktop computer, I usually just import (copy) the NEFs from the flash drive into Lightroom and then follow normal backup procedures (external drives, etc).

 

So my question is, is there anything wrong with this method of getting images into Lightroom (copying through Explorer rather than directly from the card)? The pictures look fine to me, the metadata seems to be there, and I can't imagine how any information would be lost. I have just an sRGB monitor and haven't made really large prints, though, and want to be sure I'm not losing anything. Again, a silly question, but some of my assumptions have been wrong before...

<p><a href="http://www.theslideprinter.com/services/e6-slide-developing/">The Slideprinter</a> (AKA Denver Digital Imaging) charges $8.95/roll plus $5.00 handling fee for the <em>total</em> order. Shipping with their mailers is free both ways and you can fit about 10 rolls comfortably in a mailer. So ((8.95*10)+5.00)/10=$9.45/roll for really high-quality processing and convenient ordering. Not the cheapest, but I recommend them.</p>

<p>From Adorama, I wouldn't worry. When I get less than 5 rolls from either them or B+H, the rolls are often in just the plastic canisters. Sometimes the expiration has been printed on a sticker on the canister, but I wouldn't worry if it's not.</p>

<p>Velvia 50 often has a much different (IMO, better) look than Velvia 100. Shoot it on a tripod in soft or golden light and be amazed.</p>

<p>Provia 100F has similar hues to Velvia, but with less saturation and contrast. Very fine grained and pushes excellently to 200.</p>

<p>First, I'm sorry your father is in ill health.</p>

<p>Second, I'm no expert on the specifics of all your questions, but I've shot slides for 25 years and recently digitized the majority of the good ones, so I'll offer my 2 cents:</p>

<p>One vital piece of information I didn't see addressed is what final product you want out of all this. If you are just scanning for viewing on a monitor you can greatly reduce your scan time and file sizes by saving the images as low-resolution JPEGs and it won't make any difference. If you want decent-sized prints down the line, you'll have to go with high resolution JPEGs or (preferably) TIFFs or some other lossless format.</p>

<p>Also, how many images are there? This kind of project can quickly become overwhelming and if you can weed out the less important images, it's good to do that from the beginning.</p>

<p>Regarding your questions:<br>

<br />1) Cleaning - what kind of shape are they in? The less unnecessary handling you give them the better. Dust should come off with a dry brush or blower and grease and other blemishes can be removed with <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/71147-REG/Photographic_Solutions_PEC.html">Pec-12.</a> You can also clean up the scans digitally of course, and ICE or some other software can make that easier.</p>

<p>2) Scanning - see above regarding resolution. It really depends on your end use. I can't comment on Vuescan or the Epson software.</p>

<p>3) Slides - just to be clear on the nomenclature, the piece of film is usually referred to as a negative (for negatives..) or slide (for positive film), and the paper or plastic holder is the mount. So to get the negative or slide out of your paper mounts, you would use a razor to make a slit down the wider outside edge of the mount, allowing it to be 'gently torn open' (see this <a href="/photo/18213354">picture</a>). One side of the mount is hinged, whereas the other is glued shut after the film is inserted, so it helps to cut the slit on the glued side. Then you can pull the film out with a tweezers, unless it has become stuck to the mount and then you'll have to do some more carving. As you guessed, this compromises the mount (though if it's done well the film can be reinserted and the mount taped closed). I would avoid doing all this if you can possibly figure out the order some other way, because at best it will really slow things down.</p>

<p>4) Software - I can't say much about what all is available, except that I have really liked Lightroom for my purposes. It has all the controls I need to get the best out of a scan, and has plenty of keywording and organizational options. As with most things, there's a learning curve. If you are not particularly obsessed with photography there are probably simpler options that would do what you want. Hopefully someone else can chime in with one.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The extremely lightweight FM10 has its place - I like it for simple outings such as trail running or as a backup on backpacking trips. However I agree with the previous posters in that it is almost certainly not what you want. I had no idea they were over $500 these days - the quality just isn't there. Get any of the used models that have been mentioned instead. I can vouch for KEH's grading system and customer service.</p>

<p>No prepaid mailers, but<a href="http://www.theslideprinter.com/services/e6-slide-developing/"> Denver Digital Imaging (AKA The Slideprinter)</a> does free shipping both ways and great E6 processing.</p>

<p>50-speed Velvia has always been my favorite for color slides. I only dabble in color negative and B+W, so no favorites there, but they're all fun to try.</p>

<p>A couple summers ago I did a little test of slide film and high daytime temperatures and posted the results <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/123178-velvia-50-heat.html">here</a>. Basically, after more than 100 hours of 100+ F temperatures, I couldn't see any meaningful detrimental effects on fresh slide film. If you keep the film out of direct sun and buried in your duffel or whatever when you're not using it for the day, you should stay considerably below those temperatures.</p>

<p>Don't forget that you can push-process those films as well. I once shot a roll of Velvia 50 at 100 and compared it side-by-side with Velvia 100F, Velvia 100, and E100VS (all rated at 100) and found that I preferred it over all the ISO 100 films in many (not all) situations. Definitely a different look than actual Velvia 100.</p>

<p>Sometimes Velvia 100 looks good at 200, but contrast and saturation can be a bit extreme unless the light is really even. Provia 100F is much easier to control at ISO 200 and a I remember that a lot of people made it their standard ISO 200 film. And of course Provia looks great shot at its normal ISO.</p>

<p>It's probably best to contact Fuji directly to get an accurate answer.</p>

<p>For slides, I'd recommend pushing Fuji Provia 100F to 200. Your options are extremely limited but fortunately Provia is a great film. (Velvia 50 is great as well, and it's my favorite film, and Velvia 100 has its uses, but they are not really suited to your stated purposes.) I personally prefer slides because I like the format, but if you are going to work from scans anyway, you might be best off just shooting negatives. The Portras are all good.</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice. I've tried it on the D80 and it seems undetectable except in the most extreme rare circumstances (slight glare if the scratch is positioned on the boundary of a dark shadow and bright light source shot at f16 or 22, with the bright light several stops overexposed - it'll still produce a nice clean silhouette in normal shooting). This is actually my own most-used lens - I just noticed the scratch and wanted to make sure it wouldn't be an issue on an upcoming trip. It's possible it's been there for years...</p>

<p>I think I know the answer to this, but...I basically want to use a D80 to test the image quality of a 24mm f2.8D that has a slight scratch dead center on the front element. However, I will be mainly using this lens on a 35mm film body - I just want an immediate answer as to whether the scratch is going to be a problem, and a crop-sensor body is all I have available for digital.</p>

<p>At first I thought testing on the D80 would be invalid, because it's one of those tiny scratches that I know would be inconsequential on a telephoto but will probably show up in certain situations at wider focal lengths. I was afraid the 36mm equivalent on the D80 would not give an accurate idea of the severity of the scratch when the lens 'goes back to being' a 24mm on a film body. Then it dawned on me that the crop-sensor is really just eliminating the edges of the image area, and the D80 will see exactly what a full-frame would see in the center of the image. So my question boils down to, am I correct in thinking this way, and if my 24mm looks fine in the center on a D80 I won't have a more obvious defect appearing in the center of my full-frame film?</p>

<p>I like Portra 400 for general family pictures and portraits but I personally prefer slides "on the lightbox" for my landscapes and wildlife. These days of course the options are limited. Unless the light is really flat I would forget the 2-stop push of Velvia 100 or Provia 100F to 400 and just push either of them one stop to 200 (using Velvia in dull, flat situations and Provia when the light is relatively good). Provia 100F especially looks good pushed one stop to 200.</p>

<p>When I shoot digital I get spoiled by the high ISOs but in truth there were some pretty amazing wildlife images made back when the fastest quality color options were in the sub-ISO 200 range.</p>

<p>One other reason, to be honest - I like the challenge of producing a good slide image. There's a lot less room for error, and the situations transparency film can handle are more limited than a RAW file. But when everything works and you get a sharp, well-exposed slide, it's a lot more satisfying to me, kind of like the difference between hiking up a mountain and driving to the top (even if the view's the same).</p>

<p>For my personal work - landscapes, backpacking, and travel, mainly - I still like the look of Velvia 50 (sometimes Velvia 100 and Provia) and still enjoy the process of getting straight-out-of-the-camera results. Sometimes I wonder why, especially when I'm on a tripod trying to photograph wildlife at ISO 50 (or 200, tops), wasting $0.60 frames where the animal blinks, ducks, or moves, while everybody else is happily clicking away for free with handheld DSLRs. Those situations are a minority for me, though, and even though I'm now able to get results I really like with digital (family shots and photos for the entomology lab I work in), I still like having something tangible and 'old-school'.</p>

<p>I'll probably give up slides eventually (and may not have a choice in too many more years), but I'd like to at least make it through 2015 - that would be 25 years of solid slide-shooting for me, and maybe a good opportunity to reconsider how I do things.</p>

<p>If you don't want to do it yourself and you don't need it tomorrow, just accept that mail order is getting to be the only option. I am in Asheville NC and have been using <a href="http://www.theslideprinter.com">The Slideprinter</a> in Denver for years with no problems. Mailers and return shipping are free, turnaround time (from putting the film in the mailbox to getting slides back) is usually a week (sometimes two), they do good work, and they are knowledgeable and communicative if you need to call them with a question or issue.</p>

<p>I don't know exactly the look you're going for, but you might try Velvia 50. One reason I prefer it over 100 is that it has better shadow detail, up to a point, and then it drops off quickly into a nice clean black. Velvia 100's shadows are noticeably harsher in many situations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now if I could just figure out a safe way to carry it mountain biking....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you mentioned it....I use the pouch/waist strap/camera strap method for that too, but I swivel the pouch around so the camera is on my lower back instead of abdomen. Instead of a tripod I use a small ballhead screwed to a homemade bracket that attaches to the bike frame, and I don't carry anything that won't cram into the pouch. That system is pretty unobtrusive for biking, keeps everything reasonably safe, and lets me get a lot of the pictures I would otherwise miss. Admittedly it's a pain to wrestle the bike into position as a "tripod," plus you have to have a kickstand, which I suppose is pretty uncool...</p>

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>My solution that has served me well for many years is similar to your last post. I have a <a href="http://www.tamrac.com/products/digitalzoom4/">Tamrac pouch</a> for a camera with my most-used lens(es) and basic filters. This rides in front, supported by a waist belt on the pouch and the strap on the camera (I've removed the pouch's shoulder strap to keep from hanging myself with too many straps, as the waist belt is sufficient to support the pouch when I take the camera out). If I need it, another 'long-lens' pouch carries my telephoto zoom attached to the waist strap. Then I carry any additional lenses, filters, film, batteries, etc in a simple unpadded fanny pack carried inside my backpack, and a tripod strapped to my backpack.</p>

<p>This system keeps the camera handy and well-balanced for the type of quick action/documentary shots I usually make while walking, and it keeps my hands free without limiting my mobility. It allows me to take only the camera equipment (in pouch and fanny pack, with tripod in hand) while wandering away from camp in the mornings/evenings. The only weakness is when I come across a bunch of macro or cloudy forest shots that require the tripod during the hike and I have to take my whole pack off to get to it. I usually get around this by just carrying the tripod in my hand when the conditions are ripe for frequent photo stops.</p>

<p>I use Velvia 50 for about 95% of my work and rarely polarize it. Occasionally a polarizer is useful for adding color and contrast to telephoto shots of hazy scenes, adding saturation in dull midday light, or cutting reflections on streams or windows. I agree that it is easy to overdo it. (I think that a lot of people's objections to Velvia come partly from seeing all the published images that were not only shot on Velvia but augmented further by warming polarizers and color enhancers.) I also agree with David that ND grads are in general much more useful. If you want to darken blue skies a 1-stop hard edged ND filter will often do the job without increasing contrast and saturation in every other part of the image.</p>

<p>I sometimes use an 81A to warm up shadowed scenes, but lately only rarely. I've found I like the cool, "twilighty" look of unfiltered Velvia in the shade. I've never tried warming a sunset.</p>

<p>Obviously you'll have to experiment to find out what you like, but my advice is to always shoot a "safe" unfiltered shot of important scenes until you get the hang of it, since Velvia can be pretty unforgiving.</p>

<p>I go through this myself every time I order film (mostly Velvia 50) these days. I've also been using a DSLR and Lightroom more this year for my work (agricultural research), which has made me more appreciative of all the capabilities of digital. But even though a well-done digital image looks great on the monitor and makes a fantastic print, there's nothing to look forward to in the mail, nothing to look at on the lightbox, and no feeling of satisfaction that comes from getting a fine image straight out of the camera. So I've stuck with film for my personal work. I figure that soon enough it won't even be an option, so as long as costs are merely unpleasant and not truly prohibitive, and material is available, I might as well shoot it.</p>

<p>Knowing the current cost of each image has made me more selective and less likely to bracket straightforward exposures 'just to be sure,' though.</p>