tom_brabant

Yes, GF LE is compatible with Elements 2. I once used them together a lot. But as I recall, GF--the limited edition, will not open a file larger than about 8mb. When I started using higher resolution cameras, my orginal file exceeded that. So rather than buying the full blown version of GF, I now up sample using Elements 2. I really don't know that I can tell all that much difference

 

Tom

Jackie, I use a 1270, the 1280's older brother. Even though the paper is admitedly designed for pigment printers (2000-2100etc.), I have good results with it using the heavyweight matte profile. The only drawback I have found is in deep black areas of any size--I do get a mottled effect. So I generally avoid using it when I have large areas of black or dark. I don't know whether that is true on a pigment printer or not. I have not tried other profiles. Let me know if you have better luck with other profiles--brabant@qx.net. Thanks and good luck.

Two of my very favorite pictures hanging in my family room (16x20 Cibrabrome--Illfacome) were taken with this mini, rather than my big array of R lenses. My wife had even said, "What adavantage is there is your taking your R-7 and all those other lenses along.

Thanks for your help. My test prints were made on an "all other things being equal" basis. Made on an Epson 1270, slow speed, high resolution, on Epson matte paper. No difference. I also tried looking on moniter at full pixel size. No difference. Maybe my eyes are fading (I'm 70) I guess my reason for sending this thread was because I have read so much in past years about using the lowest compression in JPG, which I normally do. And that makes sense. Except when on trip, when I want to hold recording media in reserve. But in my tests I just can't tell difference.

 

I just thought some good people on this net had tried same and found a quality difference. Thanks again.

Two years ago, before going to Europe, I conducted a number of tests

with an Olympus 3.2 camera between SHQ and HQ savings. Printed

identical pictures on a 13x19 format, and couldn't tell any

difference. Today, anticipating another trip, tried the same

thing with an Olympus 5050---highest resolution--HQ and SHQ--and

printed both on enlarged format. And I just can't tell difference.

I am not a novice---have printed pictures for 50 years--darkroom and

digital. What am I missing?

I am extremely happy with my Olympus digicams. And I like to make 8x10 and even 13x19 prints. I shot with Leicas for 40 years, and printed extensively both color and b & w in "wet" darkroom. I recently bought an Olympus 5050. Had thought about a Rebel, so I could use my LeicaR lenses. Then I thought it through, and realized that I didn't want to go back to lugging around a big camera and a bunch of lenses. Been there and done that. Years ago you had to use all those lenses before zoom lens quality improved so dramatically. But no more.

 

I will add that I am an amateur; don't ever "have" to get the picture. As a pro, it might be different. Don't know.

 

Tom

I kind of agree with Mike. I downloaded Olympus's RAW plug in and have used it in Elements II. So far, I see little, if any improvement over using SHQ in my 5050, even with 13x19 prints. In fact, comparing exposures of sky, I seem to be getting more noise in RAW converted via this program than recording in SHQ. I'm kind of tired of fooling with RAW until something better come out. For my needs, I'm not going to buy ShopCS, or whatever it is called, just to get that RAW converter.

 

Tom Brabant

Thanks, good people, for your advice. I had an Olympus 1.45 tele which I had used on a 3030. But lost the tele. I had good results with it, but don't particularly want to lay out $ for another one with no more magnification than 1.45. I was afraid your answers were going to be negative--that was just too much lens for the money.

 

Thanks again

Thanks, good people, for your advice. I had an Olympus 1.45 tele which I had used on a 3030. But lost the tele. I had good results with it, but don't particularly want to lay out $ for another one with no more magnification than 1.45. I was afraid your answers were going to be negative--that was just too much lens for the money.

 

Thanks again

Has anybody tried the Kenko 3x telephoto with the Olympus 5050,

with decent results?

Thanks for your advice. I have read so much about RAW on the net and elsewhere, that I thought I was beginning to lose my eyesight. I think I might just continue to use SHQ, leaving RAW for some very difficult lighting situations. Even then, I might be tempted to fire off three shots in the bracket mode in SHQ, and sandwich two or more of the shots in Photoshop, and work from there. I'll just have to experiment. Thanks again.

Using an Olympus 5050, I have used, for sometime, alternately,

SHQ and Raw formats. I have processed Raw formats through Olympus'

plug in to Photoshop. I can tell very little difference, if any.

I admit that most of my shots have been of the landscape variety,

in good lighting conditions. So the advantage via raw re white

balance is not obvious advantage. Am I crazy? I have been

printing 13x19s on an Epson 1270, and am totally satisfied with

SHQ. But I like good quality. But is the trouble of raw worth it?

I am interested in people who have used raw and found it really

better, and why.

 

Thanks in advance

Did use the B&W mode with a 3030 Olypus which I have been using. With an infrared filter, I could better tell what I was getting while taking the pictures. With red filter, from old Leica days, really could predict the outcome through the viewer.

 

Thanks again for youre quick come back.

 

Tom

Thanks for your quick answer. I'm not surprised. I'm reminded of an answer that one of my sons gave my wife years ago when he asked if he could stay up late one night for something. When she answered no, he's response was a knowledgeable "I thought so".

 

I wonder what the purpose of such option is--to print directly to a printer? I would hate to "blow" ink and paper for a 13x17 print without going through a computer processing program of some kind. Even PhotoDeluxe 1, years ago, offerred up sampling.

 

Thanks again.

 

Tom

I recently acquired an Olympus 5050. I noticed the SHQ mode (and I

think the TIFF mode) offers an "enlarge" option. I took two

identical subject matter pictures, one using standard SHQ, which

gave a 2560X1920 picture, totalling 14.1 m byte picture. Switching

to the enlarge option under SHQ, I got a 3200x2400 picture, a 22 m

byte picture.

Is this for real, or is the camera upsampling in recording the

picture? If the latter, I can upsample later in the computer,

and save disk space in camera. If the former, it's a good lick.

Rendered something like a 170 ppi picture for a 13x17" picture.

 

Thanks in advance for your advice.

 

Tom

I loved that lens. I used one in the late 1960s with a G camera, mainly for portraits of adults, at f4-5.6, and my children at higher apertures for more sharpness. At f8 and fll I found the sharpness outstanding. I later moved to the R cameras, because I loved the vertical formal and always thought focusing with a rangefinder in vertical mode was difficult for me. But I don't think I ever reached the sharpness with R cameras and a 90 Summicron as I did with that old screw mount Elmar. Good shooting!!

Michael makes me want the Rebel. My 90mm Summicron, vintage 1976, was my favorite lens for a number of years--taking pictures of my boys. Left it on the camera a lot.

 

Tom Brabant

I added insult to injuury. In issuing my opology for my behavior yesterday, I forgot to thank you guys who gave me some good answers. I do so now. Thanks people. And from now on, I will do my best to be a good reader and not a writer!!

 

Thanks again.

 

Tom

I apologize to all for my comments last night to Andrew. He was right. I should just try all search engines and use a question as a last resort, which is what I will try to do from now on. I was in a hurry for an answer last night for reasons I won't go into. But that's no excuse for my behavior.

 

One again, I'm sorry.

 

Tom

Andrew, you were right. I will go back to Google, because that search engine sure beats this. Please don't answer me there.

Dear Andrew Neimeth (is that it?)--thanks for your help Your referenced URL did not mention the Rebel. If I had pracaticed law for 40 years like your answer to my question, I wouldn't have the money to buy the computer upon which I am writing. Thanks again for nothing.

Is the relatively new Canon digital Rebel compatable with Leica R

lenses, with an adapter? Know autofocus won't work, but will

they work otherwise. I have a 280mm APO that I would really like to

get to work with digital.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Tom

Thanks to all you guys. Sounds like some good advise here. Have been deliberating this decision for about a year, and think I just might wait a while longer. I'm really hooked on digital. My Leica equipment accumulated over some 40 years is about to go on sale, along with enlargers. I haven't printed a Cibachrome (Ilfachrome) in three years and don't plan to.

 

Thanks again, Tom

I have for four years plus used a 2.1 and now a 3.1 megapixcel

Olympus. Have had satisfactory results, expecially with 8x10, and

some 13x19 with Epson 1270. I usually upsample for the latter,

sometimes with Genuine Factals.

 

But I am now tempted to buy the Olympus 5050, a 5 megapixel

camera. Will it give me extra resolution that I can really

appreciate? I like quality (who doesn't) But am I going to pay

$600 for any appreciable extra benefit?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Tom Brabant

If my memory serves me correctly, I have to in some degree give credence(sp) to the advice of the Holland repairman. About l976, I bought and used a CL. Used a 50mm M and 90mm M on it. BUT I read in Leica Photografie, or somewhere, that there could be a slight problem the other way around--with the C lenses used on the M cameras. And it had to do with the angle of the cams. Gee, that's been years ago; I don't remember exactly. I didn't pay much attention, as I was going the other way.