steven_clark

<p>It's worth noting that water is a nearly perfect IR emitter so those "laser" IR thermometers you can get at the local Harbor Freight or otherwise are as accurate for these purposes as they will ever be. Also makes them good for cooking.</p>

<p>Unfortunately the "good" brands of dedicated film scanners are no longer produced. The lesser brands have gotten better, as have the Epson flatbed scanners, to help fill the gap.</p>

<p>I think you're running into a combination of the professional markup endemic to the camera industry, and the brutal math of semiconductor yields. The short is a full frame sensor doesn't cost 2.25 times as much as a 1.5 crop factor sensor, but 2.25*(1/yield)^2.25 times as much. So if say half the crop sensors on a wafer have a defect and are bad, then there are more than 3 bad full frame sensors for each good one AND they take up 2.25x the space on wafer so good and mistake each cost that much more to make. My wildly inaccurate napkin math says the cost of a full frame sensor ranges anywhere from one to a few thousand dollars just for that core part.</p>

<p>I did forget that you can't adapt FD without extra optics: Like EF FD had a very short film-to-flange distance so it could adapt other lenses without trouble, but as a result there's no room to adapt it's lenses to other cameras an even on an EOS camera it still needs an adapter less than zero mm in thickness to keep infinity focus. A cheap glassless one would work just fine for macro though. It doesn't come up with my mirrorless EOS-M.</p>

<p>You might as well pick up adapters for OM, FD, and M42 mounts while you're at it. Those are the ones with no forward compatibility to a digital system so the lenses can be had cheaply if you're fine stopping down manually.</p>

<p>Cameras are only collectible in the way that comic books are: Sure there are a few items that are legitimately valuable but most items are only worth owning because you want to own them for yourself.</p>

<p>On some models there's a tube with a tiny vacuum pump on it involved with the cleaning process. If dried ink plugs that tube it can give some interesting problems. It may also just be that air has leaked into the ink lines and just re-seating the remaining cartridges (thereby recharging the ink lines) will fix your problems.</p>

<p>I'll differ on that. Replacement with another works for newly manufactured things, but when most cameras have the same wear and tear it should probably just be factored in. Ebay is too much of a lemon market to assume it's even possible to find a camera in perfect repair.</p>

Was it squealing after you took a shot? The A series has a mirror return bearing that dries out and needs to be re lubed relatively deep inside the camera. Sometimes you can apply some oil to it with the right kind of needle without a full disassembly if you're lucky. They're are of course much simpler causes for problems, like a weak battery. Or decomposed mirror bumper acting as glue. Honestly there is probably no cameras this age that doesn't need 3 times it's market value in maintenance from dusty shelf to use.

<p>Most however lack high bit-depth editting, color profiles, or the Curves tool which I'd consider essential for film scan work. Have you looked at Picture Window Pro ever?</p>

<p>You can get a comparison from the manufacturer website easily enough. And only you know what features you need. Some highlights from their website:<br> It has some of the obstacle avoidance features of the Inspire.<br> The lens and sensor are better.<br> The camera mount looks like it's better integrated maybe it's more ridgid.<br> The flight time is longer<br> The antenna system is better for less interference. (They advertise a 3 mile range which should never be used for safety and legal reasons.)<br> It has a sport mode for faster movement, if you needed that (to follow a vehicle for example.</p>

<p>The meter pegs at the widest aperture available for the lens mounted, blinking because the exposure that would be correct is beyond what the lens can be set to. In this case nominally the correct exposure for 1/60th of a second would be an f/0.9 and 2 stops underexposure on that takes it down to f/1.8 which is something your lens can actually be set to (in shutter priority at least, it's probably between clicks on manual) so your meter stops blinking.</p>

<p>Wait! There are guides?!</p>

<p>Similarly for long term storage Amazon Glacier is dirt cheap. There are a few backup clients that you can feed some Amazon API keys and they'll backup files to Glacier. The big caveat is that this is offline backup, retrieval is only at request and becomes available several hours after the request (and if you retrieve everything it costs more than a month's storage, less than 5% is free). Storage costs 7/10ths of a cent per gigabyte per month, so your current library would be about $4.27 per month to store.</p>

<p>For distributing files to people it's hard to beat storing to Amazon S3. It's not as convenient as something like DropBox, but the link you get out of it just downloads, even embeds in img tags, no opening up the hosting service website or a skeevy download page with fake malware-installing buttons. I'm a big fan of knowing who's paying, especially when it's cheap enough to be me.</p>

<p>Leave the calibrated view on for a while. Sometimes it's a matter of adjusting to the color changes. Alternatively sometimes it's recommended to calibrate to the native whitepoint of the screen, and often the calibration software gives you that option. I don't know about the Spyder 5 in particular.</p>

<p>I doubt you'll ever see a wifi camera that doesn't at least store photos locally at first, mostly for practical reasons. It still would make sense to have something like an Eye-Fi designed for a security or similar environment where it only kept images a limited time or number. Now ensuring the files transferred correctly seems unfortunately to be missing from most file transfer systems. Rsync could do it, but a custom protocol that sent back a checksum after transfer would work just as well.</p>

<p>Density is base-10 logarithmic. 1 density is a division of light by 10, exactly 10. 0.3 density is about a halving of light, approximately 2. I hope that clears some things up.</p> <p>Also, film compresses the light range. A scene shot 1 shot brighter will not be 0.3 density darker on film. The contrast is retrieved during the printing process. Only slide film works approximately linearly, which is why it has enormous contrast if cross-processed and used as a negative film.</p>

<p>Coatings are applied with a vapor or even vacuum deposition process if I remember correctly. You are not equipped.</p>

<p>One of my favorite tricks is to re-enable the Libraries feature that Vista/7 introduced in later versions of windows. It made very little sense for systems with a single disk (except when various programs stored things in scattered locations) but when you have 2 disks it makes a lot of sense to put extra folders on the storage disk and use the library settings to choose which disk storing in a library stores the file to.</p> <p>The option is in "View->Navigation Panel->+Show Libraries" in an Explorer window.</p>

<p>Please repeat this with more detail. Give us the steps of the process you are using.</p>

<p>I'm not sure there is a way to get correct out of this. Maybe the landscape setting, auto levels might work too. I would go for very conservative white and black point clipping and edit it later. The problem is there are no neutral tones available that would have the same color temperature as the subject. This makes it very hard to adjust the image in a "correct" way by any automatic process. If you found an image with a neutral white or grey in sunlight at similar exposure elsewhere on the roll you could select a greypoint on that one, lock the color and then use it to process this. Color adjustment on negatives has always been something of a creative process in my experience. If you just want warmer you can curve the blue channel down a bit.</p>

<p>I'll also go with underexposure on the second example. If you look up close, the part that is really grainy is the shadows. Since there are fewer film grains to make up the negative image of dark areas you get more grain if the negative is thin. My guess would be that the processing from the scanning lab compensated for the excess contrast and brought up the shadows, maybe more than they could be supported. Really this isn't bad as color film grain goes.</p>

<p>My only large-sensor digital camera being an EOS-M I have one word of warning: A lack of a viewfinder can be crippling, especially outdoors. It's much easier to compose through an EVF than to squint at the screen on the back of a camera and try to place things there. if you don't have an EVF a sun shield is probably a must, instead of the near useless accessory it is with a DSLR.</p>

<p>Doesn't Apple policy more or less forbid an app that duplicates their functionality from being on the store?</p>