charles_m1

<p>Les- Good question! I googled it, and actually found out that RB stands for Revolving Back, not Rotating Back... but as far as RZ is concerned, it says it was a name adopted from RB. So I guess it does not mean anything?</p>

 

<p>Henry, the RB has a rotating back... that's what the RB in RB67 stands for. No need to rotate the camera.</p>

<p>I have an RB67, and it is still an awesome camera today. I have a Canon DSLR, but I still prefer the images I make from the RB. It is such a simple machine, and I love how it does not require any batteries.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hoods for the non-L lenses?<br>

If you're going to do video, then maybe a mic for the camera?</p>

 

<p>Canon sponsors several shows on PBS. As Michael Axel said, they are one of the sponsors on Art Wolfe's show. They also sponsor another program called "Nature". I've seen their ads on both of those shows. I think there was another PBS show too, but I don't remember the name. <br />The ad is pretty plain. No celebs or anything, but it does show a 1 series camera with a white lens (don't know which one though). It also shows other stuff like printers, and I think a copier.</p>

<p>You can use the flash on camera and get great results without buying anything more. Try this: Set ISO to 400, Shutter to sync speed (probably 1/250 or so), aperture to f4. Point the flash at 45 to 60 degree angle and swivel so that it is pointing behind you to the left or right. I also set flash comp to +2/3. Take your portrait and see how that goes. This technique is well documented at the planetneil.com website, take a look there if you want to see examples, or a better explanation.</p>

<p>I use a 580 ex II and set ISO to 250, but I know the 420ex is less powerful, hence the suggestion to go to ISO 400. You can open up the aperture if you need more light too.</p>

<p> For outdoors, a lot of people get great results using on camera flash as fill. I am not having much luck with that though. It tends to look too flashed, but probably because I set fill too high. I think it would look better if the flash was off camera, but this is something I am still experimenting with.</p>

 

<p>Alan- when digital was still pretty new, KEH did not list incompatible EF lenses as "film only", but in my research, I saw that some older Sigmas were incompatible with the newer Canon bodies. I wanted to buy a cheap 28 to 70/2.8 Sigma at KEH, but worried about this issue. <br>

When I called KEH, they confirmed that the lens I was looking at was not compatible with the newer bodies. I asked the exact same question to them as Siddhartha did: Only AF is affected, right? They replied: Nope, aperture also does not work. They did mention something about putting the lens on an older, compatible body, setting the aperture, then taking if off in some way that did not reset the aperture. Sounded like too much trouble.<br>

So my source for this is not firsthand experience, but I would believe this to be true. I think you can google this up to confirm.</p>

<p>Just like you said, the AF will not work, but the aperture will also not work. You will need to stop down to get the depth of field needed for macro work.</p>

<p>Wow, I am surprised at the responses so far. I love using flash. I use a Canon system and use the 580ex on camera. Most of my photography centers around my 17 month old daughter. I would say 90% of my pics are taken indoors, all with flash. Outdoors, I usually use direct, on camera flash as fill, but I don't take as many outdoors pics. <br>

At first, I was set on getting fast primes, but they cost a lot. I tried the 50/1.8, but I always found myself at 1.8 and high ISO. I did not like the noise and the limited depth, so I tried flash. Even at a little over $300, the 580ex was a bargain compared to an L prime and I loved the results.<br>

I have yet to try an L prime, so maybe I am missing something here, but I am happy with what I am getting. </p>

 

<p>One more thing, the light meter is useless for flash. You just need to figure out how to estimate what works or not. For example, if I am in a room with a high ceiling, bouncing off the ceiling may not work because the ceilings are too high. I can try adjusting the ISO or aperture, but I can usually estimate what should work based on experience. Just experiment and find out the limits of the SB400. </p>

<p>Oops, double post.</p>

<p>I use a Canon, which works a little differently, but try using Manual mode. If you are indoors, set the shutter speed to the flash sync speed (usually around 1/250). Set the aperture to what you need (I usually use something around 4 or 5). ISO is usually around 200 or 250.<br>

Now, you need to determine where to point the flash. Straight up at the ceiling is fine if there is enough distance to the subject, the ceiling is low enough (regular 8' ceilings is fine), and the ceiling color is white or off white. The light will bounce off the ceiling and look more natural. If you are closer to the subject, I usually aim the flash up and behind me, to the right or left. <br>

Hope I didn't confuse you, but this should produce decent results. <br>

What you need to do is understand that when using flash, there are 2 exposures. One for flash, and one for the ambient light. After you understand this, you might also want to research the dragging the shutter technique.<br>

I learned all this from reading the planetneil website. Look it up and have a nice read.</p>

 

<p>I get my film developed at Walmart all the time. The 120 and 220 film is sent out and takes about 3 weeks now. They also do E6. It used to be quicker in the past. <br>

Anyways, the prints suck, but it is cheap, so I don't care. The film is developed just fine. I take the film, scan them, and make my own prints. </p>

 

<p>The OP is asking about how to keep track of what is backed up.<br>

My system is simple, but I am not sure if it is optimal. <br>

When I transfer pictures from my camera to my computer, I create a new folder in my "Photos" folder and name it by the date in yyyymmdd format. For example, if I transferred by photos today, I would create a folder called "20090327".<br>

I create backups to DVD and an external harddrive. For tracking what is backed up, I have these folders:<br>

Saved<br>

SavedToDVDOnly<br>

SavedToHDOnly<br>

I create backups about once a month and sometimes, I don't have time to transfer to DVD or vice versa. If I backed up to both DVD and HD, then I move the backed up photos to the "Saved" folder. If I only had time to back up to DVD or HD, then I move them to the other folder so I remember to backup to the other medium.<br>

This is probably not optimal, but it works for me.</p>

 

I am not sure if I can figure this out. I use NikonScan and everything works ok for me. Could the Gamma setting be off? I believe for PCs, it should be set to 2.2, but for Macs, it is different (I think it is 1, but not sure?).

 

I re-read your original post, and you talked about the notch, which I see in mine too, but I don't pay attention to it. I'm at work right now, so I can't check, but I wonder if it is an auto exposure setting?

<p>I don't know if this is any help, but the way I use the glass carrier is:<br>

1. Put the proper mask on for the film (645, 66, 67 etc.)<br>

2. Put the film on top, but make sure the film curl is like this: the middle will bump up against the top glass. If the film is perfectly flat, you don't need to worry about it.<br>

I don't pay attention to which side the emulsion is on. I do it like this to avoid newton's rings on my scans and it works almost all the time. Interestingly, the only time I have problems are with perfectly flat film because they can sag and touch the bottom glass, causing newton's rings.</p>

<p>I have had this lens for 3 weeks so far with no problems. When I did my research on this lens I did read about a few problems with the AF failing. I think it was on the fredmiranda reviews. Hopefully, this won't happen to me!</p>

<p>I just bought the Canon 100 macro lens. I chose it over the Tamron and Sigma alternatives mostly because in addition to macro, I'll also be using it for regular stuff (mostly portraits) and wanted the USM for the regular stuff. I wasn't so sure how fast or quiet the Tamron and Sigma lenses are, so I ended up buying the Canon for it's USM.<br>

The Canon lens also does not extend when focusing, so I think that is another plus for macro use. <br>

The only negatives about the Canon is the price and the fact that the lens hood is like $25! </p>

<p>I have an 8000, but this does not look like the banding that I've seen. The banding that occurs on my 8000 looks like the color is off in one of the sensors. I am not sure, but your problem looks more like the sensors are not aligned properly. Using fine tune fixes it because it uses only one sensor. That is my theory anyways. <br>

If you only scan B&W, then I am not sure how much of an effect the banding will have. I only scan color films, so not sure.</p>

I had this problem before. It only occurred when using flash and cheap ebay triggers called Cactus Triggers. There would be a black band across the bottom of the photo and not all photos were like this, only about 1 out of 15.

 

But in my case, my camera's sync speed is 1/250. I set the shutter speed to 1/200 and now, all my pictures turn out ok. You may want to lower the shutter speed and see it that works?

 

I think it is the trigger's fault because if I mount the flash on top of the camera and use it that way, I can set the shutter to 1/250 and I don't get the bands at all.

<p>I think the major differences between the 645AF and AFD are:<br>

-AFD has the ability to mount the digital back, although the AF can be converted by Mamiya for this.<br>

-AFD also has flash compensation settings, while the AF does not. This is actually pretty annoying to me because fill flash is more difficult to do with the AF.</p>

 

<p>A lot of people here did not use flash. My daughter was born Feb of this year and I wished that I used flash. I brought a 50/1.8 and a 28-70/2.8. I had to set to ISO to at least 800 on my 20d. I did get some great pictures, but the pictures had noise and most of the pictures had a sharp, in focus face, but the ears were oftentimes out of focus due to the aperture. I think my lens selection was adequate though. <br>

Later, when she was about 3 months old, I decided to take out my Vivitar 285 and try some shots. They turned out great because I can set the aperture to 5.6, ISO to 100 and get great depth and sharpness. Afterwards, I ended up buying a Metz flash that will sync up to my 20d and it was the best purchase I made. <br>

Also Jorgen has a great point. In addition to the 20d, I also brought a film camera (EOS A2) with me to the hospital and I am glad I did. IMO, Film is easier to archive and I don't have to worry about not having my daughter's birth pictures later when she is older. <br>

Anyways, that's been my experience so far. YMMV.</p>

Pete - Yes, I was very frustrated when I first started scanning with the 8000. I thought the 8000 would be easy to use and give me great pictures. My first scans were very disappointing!

 

After much trial and error, I learned to use the masks and to avoid newton rings, I always made sure to load the film with the curved side up. Now, I get no dark bands and no newton rings.

 

Consistent color is another issue, but consistent color is a problem with all scanners not just the coolscans. Personally, I use the ColorNeg plugin, which alleviates the problem, but it is still not easy.

I don't think Justin's problem concerns the Superfine mode. If you look at his link, you'll see a thick dark band across the top of the picture. I have an 8000 and got these bands when using the stock holder. When using the glass holder, I would not get these bands. I think these bands are caused by light getting through the edge of the film. If you are using the stock holder, you might try masking the film with some matte black paper to prevent the scanner light from going through.

Thank you for the links. I haven't seen the German ColorNeg website. The first link was especially useful. ColorNeg has so many controls that I have only tried a few of them. I don't think I've seen the FilmData slider before. I'll need to check that out.

 

BTW, do you know of any tutorials that exist for ColorNeg? I wish there was a tutorial or step-by-step instructions on this tool. For the most part, I am very happy with it, but I want to get the most I can out of the tool.

 

I hope I am not going too far off topic, but have you also tried the other CF Systems tools? I am wondering if they are good? I have tried ColorPos for my E6 scans, but I haven't really taken the time to use it.

Have you tried downloading the latest version? I am using Nikonscan for Windows Vista and it does not output a multipage tiff file. Actually, I also used it on XP and it never did this either. What operating system are you on? I wonder if this is a problem on the Mac version?

 

One more thing, I am using Nikonscan with a Coolscan 8000, but I am not sure that would make a difference.

 

To set the 16 bit option as a default:

1. Open Nikonscan

2. Set to 16 bit

3. Go to Scanner->Settings->User Settings->Set User Settings

4. Close, then open Nikonscan.

 

This should save the 16 bit option as the default. Actually, in step #2, you can also set other options for the default (Digital ICE, ROC, etc.).