rudy - ny, ny

<p>Hello. I thought that I should follow-up my original question with the answer that I arrived out. Perhaps this will help someone else on the fence.</p>

<p>I ended up returning the D7000 after extensive side-by-side testing against my D700. I put them through their paces using several different lenses and in many different environments. It really was no contest. Under optimal conditions, the D7000 did a great job closely equaling the D700 but with any slight deviation from said optimal conditions, the D7000 quickly degraded. The D700 clearly generated the superior image across the board. And I don't mean that you needed a microscope to see the differences. It really was night and day.</p>

<p>This was a failed experiment but it gave me such a newfound respect for the D700 that I went out and bought a couple of ED lenses. I felt bad for having taken her for granted.</p>

<p>It also taught me FX sensors are far superior to DX sensors. I already knew that but this experiment really hammered it home. I doubt that I will ever again bother contemplating a non-FX sensor. I remember when I upgraded from the D300 to the D700, I was stunned at the improvement in picture quality. That was 2 1/2 years ago and the D700 is, obviously, still proving to be an incredible camera.</p>

<p>So, I will go back to my original plan of biding my time as Nikon prepares the D800. This time, though, I am not anxious about it - this experiment has proven to me that the D700 isn't showing her age. I am a little worried about the D800 being 36MP though. Not only do I not need that much resolution, both in terms of image size and storage requirements, but I can't help but think that the picture quality won't be as good. Those photocells are going to be TINY. But Nikon knows what they are doing, so we'll just have to wait and see. </p>

<p>I hope that this helps.<br>

Cheers.<br>

Rudy</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of product photography & factory floor shots at work using the Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR (on a D700, VR turned off). While I haven't tested it against others, I am blown away by its color and crispness. So much so that I am tempted to pick up the 200mm Micro.</p>

<p>Regarding the Sigma, my personal feeling on 3rd party lenses is to avoid them (please, no flames. this is just my personal preference). My take is that, generally, they have to make concessions in order to work as best as possible across a broad spectrum of cameras. Nikkor lenses, on the other hand, are designed specifically for the nuances of the Nikons. I have tested Sigmas vs Nikkors in the past and have found the Sigmas not as crisp.</p>

<p>I hope that this helps.<br>

Rudy</p>

<p>This thread has been dormant for a while, but I thought that I would give it a bump to see if anyone has any new thoughts.<br>

I have been shooting with a D700 since August 2008. I want to explore video and have been waiting for the D800. Tired of waiting, I started researching the D7K. People have been very impressed with it and so I picked one up this weekend.<br>

I am doing a lot of side-by-side comparisons using a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 105-Micro (all Nikkor), and an SB-600.<br>

My initial findings are that low-light shots come off noisier and softer with the D7K. Also, highlights sometimes produce strange artifacts.<br>

Both well-lit natural light shots, and macro shots using a flash, though, produce extremely comparable photos.<br>

This is just a rough initial finding. I need to ensure that I am using all of the proper settings on the D7K (ie, don't have defaults on that should be turned off), and I want to do more rigorous, controlled testing. If the D7K passes muster, I probably will sell my D700 body and throw the savings into the D800 cookie jar.<br>

In the meantime, anyone have their own set of results that they would like to share? I would love to hear about them.<br>

Rudy</p>

I'd love to hear other opinions also.

I'm trying to decide between the Hoodman and Nikon's for my pop's xmas present.

 

rudy

I hope this helps.

 

I went ahead and tethered a 5D to a G4/Capture One (using Canon's supplied USB cable).

 

Capture One didn't find the camera. I went through the 5D menu to "Communication." It was set to "Print/PTP." I went ahead and switched it to "PC Connection." I turned off the camera, quit out of Capture One, turned the camera back on, and relaunched Capture One.

 

It works perfectly now. I love tripping the shutter via the "capture" button and having the shot pop up on screen. No more CF sneaker net.

 

rudy

Wow. What a ride.

 

I just spent 1/2 an hour reading through this thread.

 

I'm shooting product at Clinique with strobes and I'm debating whether cont lights (aka "hot lights", "sizzlers", "barn door burners", "egg fryers", "stare into the sun", etc) would be a better way to go.

 

So I logged on to see if there was any good info regarding the two on photo.net.

 

You know what? Half an hour later, I'm even more stumped. There is a big group of yes and there is a big group of no.

 

I guess that I'm going to have to try them and see what works best for me and my situation.

 

Cheers.

 

rudy

First off, let me start (is that redundant?) by saying that I've resolved my issue. Only thing

is is that I don't understand why what I did was the solution. I'm hoping that someone can

enlightenen me. Also, if others are currently having this problem, perhaps this will help

them out.

 

I'm printing with an Epson R2400 (stock/no mods) with Inkpress Picture Rag 250gsm cold

tone and Hahnemulhe Picture Rag and their respective ICC profiles.

 

I "Print with Preview" in Photoshop CS2 and allow it to determine color thereby allowing me

to select the "proper" paper profile. Furthermore, I select "Relative Colormetric,' 'Simulate

Paper Color," and "Simulate Black Ink."

 

I create my Photoshop document according to the paper size I'm using. If, for example, it's

5x7, I make my "canvas" 5x7 and then size my image within that (usually leaving 1/2 inch

white space around all edges).

 

Here's my situation:

When printing "Advanced B&W," 99% images printed exact. 1% threw down this dingy

newspaper brownish-gray cast. Even the 0% black 1/2" borders came out dingy.

 

When printing RGB color with the print dialog's Color Management turned off, 100% of the

prints came out with a dingy newspaper brownish-gray cast. This was on both the

InkPress and the Hahnemulhe and their respective profiles.

 

Obviously it wasn't a paper or profile issue.

 

After MUCHO trial & error, I finally discovered that unchecking "simulate paper color" in

Photoshop's print dialog guaranteed that 0% black was consistently 0%.

 

Okay. Great. But it's bugging the hell out of me why this worked. What exactly is "simulate

paper color" doing? Whatever it is, it's extremely inconsistent.

 

Any enlightenment would be GREATLY appreciated. Hopefully, I'm not just being stupid. :)

 

Rudy

Bill. Out of curiosity... have you looked into (high quality) bulk ink systems or are you

staying with cartridges?

Thanks guys. Here's an article a friend just sent. It seems relevant to this discussion.

 

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/technology/

04money.html?%20ex=1139893200&en=4af7c83d001c368f&ei=5070&emc=eta1">NY

Times article</a>

I'm doing a cost breakdown of cartridges vs CF systems and I've reached a snag. Epson

lets you know that the larger cartridges are 110mL (3.72oz) or 220mL (7.25oz). But I'm

running an r2400 printer that uses the small cartridges. I've googled all day to no avail.

And I was shocked to come home after work, look at the packaging, and realize that Epson

does not list the actual content of ink for the small cartridges (isn't this illegal?)

 

My question is: Does anyone know how many mL of ink are contained in the small

cartridges? I'm assuming it's a pathetically low amount - that's why Epson refuses to

declare it.

 

Rudy

After extensive testing, I've decided on Inkpress Cooltone Picture Rag 300gsm. I'm

printing on an r2400 using Inkpress' profile. 50 sheets for around $14. It makes great

postcards.

 

Rudy

Hi David.

I bopped over to B&H and picked up an Inkpress sampler pack. That might be a good place

for you to start.

 

I've been doing EXTENSIVE testing of several brands (crane, hahnemulle, bergger, moab,

hawk mountain, inkpress, and epson to name a few) that group in the category of "fine

art" papers. I'm using an r2400 with the MK ink. These tests have been strictly black &

white using the advanced setting and profiles supplied by the paper manufacturer (written

for the r2400).

 

For black & white, I and several colleagues agreed that the Inkpress papers provided the

best tonal range and dmax (I come from a "wet" background of exclusively Oriental Seagull

FB, #3). Specifically, the cooltone rag 250gsm. I ended up buying a box of 13x19. I also

bought a box of cooltone rag 300gsm/5x7. This is great for postcards.

 

Please note that all of my testing was specifically K3 black & white as that is my niche. I

plan of testing color but not for a while and more than likely that will be to determine a

good glossy color paper.

 

Hope this helps.

 

rudy

I agree. I was afraid that if I uploaded new photos into their separate folders, they would get lost in the shuffle. So I went ahead and created a folder called, "New Uploads - not yet filed." I keep the new uploads in there for a week or so and then move them into their permanent folder. It's a workaround but a very easy way to accomplish what you seem to be after. And it's pretty self-explanatory for anyone visiting your page.

 

Rudy

I shoot with an FA. The only cameras that take advantage of AIS are the Nikon FA, 2000, 2020, and that's in P mode. I don't shoot in P mode.

 

AI lenses are as much as I need (even if I had an F4) and, quite frankly, I've noticed that not only are they built better but they win lower bids. People ASSUME that AIS is better since it's newer and thus flock to those auctions. Fine by me.

 

Nikon created the AIS and then built the FA to capitalize on it but it was pretty much a dead end.

 

Just buy the AI. (unless you're bidding against me on eeeBhay :)

 

 

Rudy

 

p.s. I just found out that eeeeeeeyouknowwhat is not allowed here. Why?

You're right Larry. I rummaged through my recycling bin all the time thinking, "geesh... am I going to have enough bottles?" I was thinking that I would have to go to a camping store to buy a big enough jug. Well... I get to Photographer's Supply and pick up the XTOL. I immediately notice "5L (1.23 gallons)." The whole time I had been envisioning 5 GALLONS. I swear. Sometimes I have the biggest brain farts! Yeah... 5 liters is not that much. :)

 

Anyways, let me follow up on the outcome. Mark. Thank you s0o0o0o0o much for your advice! Out of the 70+ shots on the pushed Pan F+, there are 6-8 shots that I'm printing. Considering that I was expecting zero, this was a huge success. You saved me! Yeah they're thin but they're much more workable than I was hoping.

 

I'll be printing them this week. I'll scan some in and upload them to a folder in my section.

 

If these guys come around your neck of the woods, check them out. They fall along the lines of say... "Blue Man Group," and are very passionate with their art.

 

Rudy

 

p.s. Now... whether I prefer XTOL over Rodinal as a NORMAL developer has not been tested. I did, though, test Pan F+ vs. APX100 in Rodinal 1:50 and the Pan F+ pops more for me. On that note, I think that Rodinal 1:25 produces better midtones for me than 1:50 (on Pan F+) but I need to test a few more times.

Thanks so much Brian. I greatly appreciate your response on this!

 

That's great about the "prev" button. I hadn't even thought of it being able to flip over like that.

 

And you're right about people "gaming the system." Google keeps its algorithms secret just for the exact reason. Fine by me if you do also for photo.net.

 

Thanks again for the explanation Brian!

 

Rudy

I apologize if this has been covered in the past. I did some extensive

searching of past threads but didn't come across my answer.

 

I also clicked this way and that way trying to have the gallery search

return a 100% list of uploaded photos.

 

I would like to be able to browse a thumbnail list of all uploaded

photos for a given period. Today I did a gallery search for "Period:

Last 24 hours" along side each of the "Rank By:" variables. Here's

what I got:

 

Average Rating: 1192

Sum of ratings: 1209

Originality: 1210

Aesthetics: 1210

Number of ratings: 1196

 

You get the idea... around 1200 images. I wasn't able to jump the

pages nor did I have the time (i.e. patience) to click through some 50

pages to see if non-rated photos were included at the end. I'm

assuming that you probably filter these out. If so, then this is not a

complete list, correct?

 

Using "Period: Last 3 days" returned about 3500 photos. Can I assume

that this list consists only of photos that were uploaded during the

last three days AND, of those, only the ones that were rated?

 

All the other "Period" returns seem to cap out at 300. I understand

this as the loads would easily choke a horse.

 

So... is there anyway to input a date as the search parameter and have

everything returned? I simply am curious as to what is all out there.

 

Secondly, is there any write-up explaining the ins and outs of the

different searches?

 

Finally, and this is an aside (though related): how are "Views"

tabulated? I suspect that it's not just through link clicks but also

rotations through the various queues???

 

I hope that I haven't been too confusing.

 

Rudy

I found this at kodak.com:

<p>

"Dilution at 1:1 will provide slightly greater film speed, enhanced sharpness and shadow detail, and slightly more grain. If you have been consistently obtaining satisfactory results with diluted developer and you use the mixed developer before keeping characteristics can become a concern, you may want to continue your current procedures. However, Kodak publications will no longer include development recommendations for the 1:2 and 1:3 dilutions of the developer. Some customers have reported problems with developer stored for periods between six months and one year. Most often the problems related to loss of developer activity when customers were using a 1:3 or 1:2 dilution of the developer to process KODAK T-MAX 100 Professional Film."

<p>

Kodak has a great support document on XTOL:

<p>

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.jhtml">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.jhtml </a>

<p> There is a shop here in town open today. I'm going to run out and pick some up. Unfortunately, it's only available as a 5 liter mix. I hope that I like it. I'm going to be swimming in it for awhile.

Thanks Mark! Your suggestion helped me find what I needed and in less than 5 minutes. I've never used XTol and went over to digitaltruth.com's "Massive Dev Chart" and whadda ya know... they have Pan F+ pushed to 400 under the XTol section. Straight - 10min, 1:1 - 13min, 1:2 - 15.5min, 1:3 - 18.5min).

 

I see a glimmer of hope. :)

 

What's your suggestion on dilution & agitation? I believe that I've read sometime in the past in one of these forums that no dilution works best for pushing. I've never worked with it and any caveats you might have would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime, I'm going to search through the archives - I'm sure that I'll be able to find AT LEAST 5 different answers :)

 

Rudy

Hi. Hopefully someone can help with this...

 

Last night I shot a Xeno dance performance - dark theatre, low lights,

etc. They presented me with so many amazing shots that I burned

through my film shooting more than I had anticipated. Luckily I had

two 35mm straggler rolls left but, unfortunately, they were Pan F+.

Left with no other choice, I went ahead and shot those at 400ASA.

"Shoot now, pray later."

 

I don't have a lot of faith in their outcome and thought that someone

here might have some good suggestions (aside from "prepare better next

time") on how to best process. I've spent the morning combing the net

but haven't found anything specifically helpful. It's not a "pushing"

film.

 

Normally I tank-process with Rodinal but in this situation, I'll

gladly take other suggestions. You tell me.

 

Thanks.

 

Rudy

I like this innovation quite a bit. I sat here and clicked through all of the "Big Five's" choices... it provided consistent substance the entire time for me. Kind of like when I first got on the internet and found every new link a step forward in my exploration. The random critique volley, on the other hand, doesn't flow or perpetuate as nicely.

 

I also like the text menus (on the gallery page) now on the left side.

 

I've said it many times since I've joined just last month and I'll say it yet again... I love the growth that feeds in this site - great ideas from so many people. In fact, I've found it quite humbling. I'm very thankful.

I think that I'm back to normal (as much as that's possible :)

 

Thanks so much!

Photographer's Lighting (aka Photographer's Supply) rents out a lot of Hassy and so I'm sure that they can better direct you in the right direction. And they're open 7 days a week for lighting and darkroom supplies.

 

432 Bryant St.

SF, CA 94107

 

415 512.7300 and/or

415 882.9380

 

Rudy

I've been able to manage some text info updating but in regards to updating the images themselves... still achieving 100% failure.

I know you're asking about FP4 & D76 but I just wanted to chime in... For b&w, I shoot exclusively FP4 (& Pan F) and have been developing it Rodinal, 1:25, 68ºF, 9min (timed so I've completely drained out and am pouring in stop at :09:01). I fell in love with it in school. D76 is a great developer but we all have different sensibilities and it was lacking "something" for me. I'm still satisfied with the combination of FP4/Rodinal. What aesthetically pleases me may not please you but, if you've never tried Rodinal I'd suggest you buy a small bottle and try it for a few rolls. If you have and prefer D76, then never mind. :)