stefanovandelli

This is just an opinion and doesn't address the technical aspect of your question.

You ask: "why this is necessary?"

If correctly used, USM makes the foto look 'better' without making it look 'false', then I would say that it is needed. My definition of better is 'more like reality, seen with the naked eye'. My definition of false is 'displaying unnatural artifacts'.

You ask: "Could it be that the CCD (camera or scanner) is actually faithfully and accurately capturing the image and by applying a sharpening filter you are just synthetically introducing sharpness that was never really there?"

Maybe, is my answer. But the bottom line is that sharpness was there when I took the picture and if there is a way to put it back... why not?

Sorry Ivar, but I really have to point out that I am not complaining, I am not complaining, I am not complaining. As with regard to the critical opinion.... well... I'd love that. THAT is the reason why I use this site.

Just to clarify one small point... I am not complaining! I just don't understand anyone going through the bother of signing up to this site for the apparent only motive of rating photos that they don't like. No pictures posted, no participation to the great forums, no criticism to rated photos (at least with respect to my photo). It doesn't particularly piss me off, but it most definitely leaves me puzzled.

One of my recent pictures has just received a low rating without

comment. That's fine... well... not really, but I sort of got used to

people rating low without explaining why in their opinion the photo

doesn't make the grade. So I am not complaining about this, but out

of curiosity I checked what pictures this guy is taking. Well, you

guessed it right, No of photos: 0. Once again I am kinda used to this

so... I am not going to complain about it. The one thing that ticked

me off is that this guy has rated 109 photos on the site with an

average of 3.85 for aestetics and no highest rated photos. Now, if

someone cannot find beautiful pictures on a site like this, what the

heck are they looking for?Surely one is bound to bump into a photo

from Mark Gougenheim or Nana Sousa Dias just to mention a couple. Why

do they bother?

Thank you Andrew. I have requested an estimate.

Does anyone know where in London I can take an Olympus 35 RC for

cleaning?

 

Thanks

Thanks to everybody for your answers. I will need think about this but in any case, I believe I will give the D60 a miss. £450 is too small a difference (although still a lot of money). Thanks

I have found a second hand D60 for £850 and I am very interested in

buying it but... I wouldn't mind too much paying the extra £550 for

the additional features of the 10D (which would also come with 1 year

warranty).

The main reason I am even considering going for the D60 is that I

have heard that many 10D owners are suffering a problem with accurate

focus, which really puts me off.

I guess the questions I'd like to ask are: Do you think that £850 is

a good price for a good condition second hand D60? Is the focus

problem with the 10D really that bad (in terms of how many cameras

suffer from it)?

Thanks for your time.

The Type Tool automatically creates a new layer for the text. Proceed as follows:

- select the Type Tool (Button with the T)

- select your font type, size and colour

- Click where you want the text to appear

- Type your text

- If you want it semi transparent, you'll have to change the opacity to suit you.

- Finally, save as JPG for publication (no need to flatten).

 

Cheers,

Stefano<div></div>

Bob, I have no reason to doubt that you are referring to genuine multiple postings, although sometimes the story could be different.

A few days ago I had a posting unjustly deleted because the moderator of the day thought it was a duplication. In reality I was asking a completely different question to a completely different audience. Yes, the story leading to the question was essentially the same, but it was a different question nevertheless, and one that was pertinent to the chosen forum.

All said, I fully agree with you that the same question should not be posted more than once. Ciao.

Prompted by Carl's reply I went through the process again and the results are much improved. This clearly means that I was doing something wrong yesterday. Apologies to everybody for wasting your time, although it did serve a purpose as I seem to have resolved my problem, at least partially. Thank you for that.

The workaround that I have found involves loading the image using sRGB working space, convert it to Adobe RGB(1998) profile, save, change the working space back to Adobe and reload the image. Maybe there is a shorther way, but I found that this work sufficiently well. I am somewhat disturbed to see that the in-camera Histogram is still different from the one in PS, albeit marginally. Different types of sRGB profiles?

Many thanks again for your help in resolving this. This also taught me that by using Adobe RGB color space, Canon have clearly improved things on the 10D.

I tried to load the same image using both sRGB and Adobe RGB(1998) working spaces.(edit/color settings/working spaces/RGB) In both cases the histogram looks the same. i.e. different from the one I see in-camera. As the histogram is a mathematical representation, I guess that the monitor color space is irrelevant. (thanks for the spelling tip)

The blinking on the LCD seems a useful addition, but I would be interested in knowing whether the istogram is the same.

To Carl, I switched the color management off to be sure and the problem is the same. Istogram on camera shows no clipping, istogram in PS levels is clipped on the highlights. I heard from other users complaining of the same issue and I want to be absolutely sure that the EOS bodies don't suffer from the same problem. Thanks.

Are your in camera levels (istogram) exactly the same after you

transfer the picture to PS?

This is prompted by a problem on my G3 where although the levels look

fine in camera, once the photo is transfered to PS the highlights are

badly clipped.

I would like to upgrade to an EOS digital body but this would be a

major no-go.

(To the elves, this question, as the one posted before, is completely

different from the one posted in "Digital Darkroom" as it is specific

to EOS Digital SLR only. Please do not delete again.)

A close friend of mine that lives in Italy (I live in the UK) in need

of a telezoom for his EOS30 was evaluating between Canons 70-200 f4L

and 75-300 IS USM. The guy at his local photostore recommended a

Tamron 75-210 f2.8 for quality and value for money.

Now... I have been searching on the net for any reference to this

lens but... I just can't find any. Maybe its an old lens? Do any of

you know it and can you comment on its performance? Personally, I

find it hard to believe that it could be better quality than the 70-

200L, or better value than the 75-300 IS USM. Thanks in advance.

Barry mentions slow shutter reaction on the G2. This has been almost completely resolved on the G3 which uses the same DIGIC processor found on the 10D. Also, for the same reason, the battery life on the G3 is almost impossibly long (compared to other digicams). If I don't take many pics it can last days and days (I always use the LCD to frame). That said, the creative control that you get with an SLR is unique and cannot be compared with anything else.

By the way... the information about the cross-type center AF sensor is very useful. I guess that using the center sensor is a small price to pay when I need additional AF speed and/or precision. Thanks.

I actually set out to test my Speedlite tonight and the results (for the autofocus) are absolutely fantastic. I can focus in virtually total darkness at a distance of approx 5 meters (this is the max I can test in my house) . I must say that this is completely above any expectation I had and I believe that it will solve my problem on the day of the job. What about the G3 then. Why wouldn't it help at all with it? I tried again and it turns out that the Speedlite AF assist beam does not fire when used with the G3, although the flash itself works fine in E-TTL. The beam I could see is the (useless) one of the G3 itself. Does anyone know how to get the Speedlite AF assist beam to fire with a G3?

Well... thanks for all the answers. Some good stuff in it. I must confess that I actually bought a 420EX last week, but not yet tested it with the EOS30. I tried the focus assist with the G3 and it didn't make much difference. I'll be trying with the EOS30 tonight... and let you know the results. My problem with autofocus became evident one night I had to take pictures of an awards ceremony. The background was black, the spot light were not trained on the subjects, and the subjects themselves were wearing all sort of outfits. People come, take the award and they go... quick... no time to try many different way to focus. After the first lens hunting experience I just put it on manual and did it that way (not ideal without a split screen focussing aid). I did not have the confidence to set the aperture smaller to increase DOF (and I still don't) so I have been working in program mode. At the maximum aperure you pay a price for focus errors. I will need to do a similar work in the near future and want to be prepared.

I own a EOS30 and often struggle to autofocus in situations of low

light. I went to my local store and asked about using a fast prime to

improve the focussing problem. The advice I received was that I would

be better off spending my money on an EOS300V as the autofocus on it

has been much improved, especially for low light situations. In this

guy's opinion, the autofocus of the 300V is the best you can find on

ANY EOS to date. Does any of you have used both bodies and can

confirm these claims?

James, as it happens this came with manual, case, filters (UV, Yellow and Red) and lens hood. I really could not leave it there. The one thing missing is lens cover. Do you or anyone know where I could buy one?

I recently purchased what I thought was an excellent example of

Rolleicord Vb. Once home I noticed lots of "spiderweb" lines (fungus-

like) behind the lens back element. It really looked nasty and I was

already beating myself for not noticing this at the market stall

where I bought it. I took the camera to "The studio workshop" in

London and they took the lens apart while I waited. They cleaned the

lens (no etching) and re-assebled it. It now looks absolutely

spotless. I have not yet taken any picture since the cleaning, but I

have no reason to believe that there will be any problem. I guess the

moral is that if I noticed the fungus I would not have bought what

turned out to be a great specimen at a very reasonable price. Either

I have been very lucky or lens damage by fungus is not to be assumed.

Sometimes it might just need a good cleaning.