Jump to content

curt wiler

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    1,024
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by curt wiler

  1. <p>I use a PhotoShop plugin called 'Focus Magic' in cases like this. Running it on your jpeg as a test, it automatically detected a blur width of 2 pixels and applying the correction for that, it significantly improved the sharpness of the hairpiece. However, it also alerted to the jpeg artifacts which were also sharpened. So, the advice to run it on something closer to a RAW image is well taken. This plugin works (separately) on both soft focus and motion blurs. The noise is something I wouldn't worry about in this case. Softening the noise will also soften the appearance of the image.</p>
  2. <p>I'm with Edward on his points, the only difference being that I prefer Ektar 100 for landscapes. That said, the camera and lens combination should be able to handle full daylight exposures on ISO 100 film with no problem IF the exposure controls are working properly. I would exercise the full range of apertures while watching the opening to see that it closes down properly; and then the shutter with the lens wide open. This will be a bit subjective but it has identified a problem for me in the past. Then think about using Hasselblad's relatively inexpensive "Check to Spec" service since this appears to be used equipment.</p>
  3. <p>The above are important clues, particularly the use of AWB which I consider potentially misleading (but then I come from film days where you had either daylight film or tungsten); but I am trouble by the statement</p> <blockquote> <p>when I took pictures of the sky with the filter on, I got gray skies</p> </blockquote> <p>If you metered mostly sky, of course it produced a middle-gray tone because that is what the meter is supposed to do. You need to meter for an average tone on the ground, or a substitute like a gray card or your hand with an appropriate adjustment. </p>
  4. <p>Don't confuse file size for transmittal with image size opened in a program like Photoshop. Some agencies request transmittal as compressed JPEGs, but the underlying image size requirement is for the full-size TIFF, often at least 50 MB, which isn't difficult to far exceed with today's cameras shooting RAW and converting to TIFF.</p>
  5. <p>Some 3rd party plates such as RRS are perhaps even better, in that the body and lens plates are tailored for specific models to prevent any rotation. The issue can come with quick-release clamps. You are better off staying in one system, because there can be some variability between systems in the width of the plate that will cause looseness, or in my experience, too tight a fit to close the clamp. Thus I use exclusively RRS plates and clamps. If you are using the original screw-set clamps, this is not a problem because you just tighten the screw until the clamp is tight. (RRS = Really Right Stuff. Best to search their website).</p>
  6. <p>A company by the name of Clearsight makes an ARCA-style plate that replaces the Hasselblad plate between the rails:<br> http://clearsightusa.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=66<br> This worked quite well for me until I switched to quick-release clamps from RRS and, as the website warns might happen, the rails interfere with the jaws on the clamp. I had to go back to the regular Hasselblad plate with a straight body plate from RRS mounted on it using the tripod screw. As the OP pointed out, this makes the camera "tippy" when set down on a flat surface because the RRS plate extends below the rails; but it is tolerable for what I wanted to do and absolutely stable on a tripod.</p>
  7. <p>I had no problem when I replaced the original shoe with one made by Clearsight to mate with Arca-style clamps. Unfortunately the Clearsight shoe didn't provide enough clearance when I later switched to Really Right Stuff Arca-style quick-release clamps, and I had to revert to the original Hasselblad shoe plus RRS adapter plate. So, no problem with the screws both times.</p>
  8. <p>IIRC, I had the same problem around 1990 (the body was purchased new about 10 years earlier). It turned out to be a problem that required replacing the shutter mechanism at the cost of about $200 at the time. Hopefully you can find a less expensive solution, but I got the impression that it was not unusual, just unpredictable. This was my favorite camera for a good many years. The repaired body still works perfectly, but mostly it just sits idle in the digital age.</p>
  9. <p>Be careful (or avoid) the original Nikon FE diopter lenses. They have metal rims that will scratch plastic eyeglass lenses badly. I found this out the hard way when I put a 40-year old one on my X-Pro1. Never had the problem back in the FE days because my eyeglasses were hard glass. After this damage, I found that Fuji brought out a line for the X-Pro1 and they have soft rubber covers on the rims.</p>
  10. <p>PK13 is "matched" to the 55mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor in the sense that it exactly gives you 1:1; and PN-11 works but is more useful with longer lenses. I normally carry at least the shorter 2 of the 3 tubes from the latest Kenko kit to provide closer capability with newer lenses, especially the telephotos. These provide full automation which the Nikon tubes do not. However, the Nikon tubes, while old, are built very substantially by comparison. The Kenko set isn't much more expensive than just the PK13 if you are buying new.</p>
  11. <p>According to my notes, that is normal behavior for the D300 and earlier bodies. It was changed in the D300S and later; the ISO can vary but will be calculated during the pre-flash so whatever is displayed in the viewfinder may not be accurate. As a result, I never use auto ISO when using flash, even as just fill. I was burned too many times by this inconsistency using D300 and D300S bodies interchangeably. A fixed ISO is a better way to go anyway with flash so it is one of the principal differences along with minimum shutter speed in my stored "Flash" memory bank.</p>
  12. <p>Perhaps the problem is terminology. "Tilt" and "swing" are the same thing, just that one is defined vertically and the other horizontally but in any case this can only be done on one axis, which can be rotated to the desired orientation. As Shun says, you can definitely tilt/swing and shift at the same time; however the second movement is constrained to a parallel or orthogonal axis that cannot be readily changed in the field. Thus a landscape photographer will typically have it set up one way, and an architectural photographer perhaps the other. For instance, I will usually tilt for depth of field and then shift sideways for a limited panorama. This sideways shift makes for very easy stitching to make the final image.</p>
  13. <p>I have had two of these replaced on different size lenses by Nikon under extended warranty at no charge, and another by Authorized Photo Service which was due to physical abuse (motor only). That ran in excess of $500 last year for a 28-70 model, which likely takes a smaller motor.</p>
  14. <p>Hasselblad made a number of different screens for these bodies. They are easily exchanged by the user, but maybe not easy to find at a reasonable price now days. Perhaps on one of the auction sites. Personally, I use the horizontal split screen with grid lines. The Hasselblad-made screen you want will be an Acute Matte screen, which is a newer model that is much brighter. B&H has a line of screens that appear to be made by a 3rd party and are very high priced, but at least you can get an idea of what to look for. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=hasselblad+500+focusing+screens&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=</p>
  15. <p>In the United States, it would be a violation of copyright law to reprint the pictures without a specific license to do so. The clause in the contract appears to be an attempt to put the client on notice that (s)he does NOT have a license and theoretically could be sued for doing so. Many legitimate photo houses will ask to see the license before they will reprint pictures that appear to be professional.</p>
  16. <p>At the moment I use a Lenovo T410 notebook which gives me flexibility in making simultaneous backups when I download; but is heavier than I want to deal with on vacation so I have been watching the reviews for the new Microsoft Surface 3 (not the Pro model). I think it would give me almost everything I use now on the notebook, similar to what you described. It comes out early next month.</p>
  17. <p>The video recorded by the woman was released last night (it survived having the phone smashed). According to the recording, there were actually three marshals involved, two blocking her view and the third grabbing the phone. On the one hand this looks like assault and a violation of her rights, but she is also guilty of failing to follow an officer's direction to move back, and arguing with him about it. All of this took three marshals away from the original problem which could have had disastrous consequences. A very poor way to handle the situation on everyone's part.</p>
  18. <p>+1 for Ellis's comments, except that I think David was referring to the situation in Great Britain, particularly Heathrow. Heathrow only lifted their restriction on cabin baggage a year or so ago; for that reason, and the sorry state of delays and pilferage of checked bags in that airport, I avoided flying thorough there. Now the problem that I have run into in many places is the extreme weight limit that many non-US carriers like Qantas have for cabin baggage - approximately 15 lbs including your "personal item".</p>
  19. <blockquote> <p>it feels pretty shady to me</p> </blockquote> <p>Right. Copyright issues aside, you need to have an understanding with the person who paid you on this. Even if you can prove the pictures are yours to sell, you run the risk of losing the long-term business.</p>
  20. <p>I agree about the quality of the 18-55. It is remarkable.<br> "optics themselves cannot be first rate one minute, and not the next?" --- yes, they can because it is not just optics we are observing here. It is also an electro-mechanical system that is measuring the motion and reacting to it. It is not a steady-state process. If it gets an erroneous measurement at just the wrong instant, it may make an improper adjustment. If by chance everything is optimum, you may not see an effect. My observation of the effect in real-world use stems from the 70-200 and longer Nikkors, and the 18-55 Fuji. I find it is better to leave stabilization off unless I know I need it.</p>
  21. <p>Image stabilization can cause image softness at higher shutter speeds because of the sampling frequency mis-match. With the Fuji sensor I make sure OIS is off when shutter speed is above 1/250. With Nikon FX the speed is higher, about 1/500.</p>
  22. <p>I would not rule out the software - that needs to be checked, but it looks very much like a problem I had with a Fuji S2 back in the early days. It developed the problem suddenly after months of good service. Fuji replaced the sensor under warranty.</p>
  23. <blockquote> <p>is there ever any reason .... to take the camera out of AF-C mode</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, to set up trap focus on Nikons, although this was crippled on the early D800/D800e models and belatedly fixed with a firmware revision.</p>
  24. <p>This definitely appears to be a sensor or electronics problem. If the warranty has that little time left, I would want to have a written record that there is still a problem. Maybe dated correspondence or emails will suffice, but a work order from the store would be better. Having said that, I will add that I got very good service from Fuji when they had problems with the S2 sensor and mine went bad after the warranty period. They replaced it without question. That support is one of the reasons I jumped into the XF system when the reviews started looking extremely good.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...