kent_morris

I just was on Adobe's site and there is now Elements 4? I thought 3

was not that old? Anybody know anything about it?

Did I read right? The 28mm is better than the 24mm for wide angle, and the 85 mm is better than the 105mm for tele? Pardon my ignorance, but why do you say this?

 

Not having an aperature ring does not bother me since the aperature is controlled from the camera on my N75 and thus wouldn't be used anyway. Is there another reason not to like the G lens series?

 

I will be doing film only, at least for a while.

 

km

Well, since I was already considering strongly, I have ordered the 50mm f/1.8. It's inexpensive, so I figure this will give me a cheap way to try out a prime lens and see what it's like compared to a zoom. I will probably wait and see what my experience is with that lens before I decide how to invest bigger chunks of $$$. Thanks for the input.

 

km

Any opinions regarding these two zooms? I would like to replace the

28-80 that came with my n75 kit. The main objective is to get a

little better image quality (no I can't afford prime lenses

unfortunately). The extra range of the 24-120 on both ends and the

VR sound appealing, but I have seen enough comments about softness

that it concerns me. Mainly will be used for people and

landscapes. No camera shop in town here, so I have to order it from

somehwere to try. Any thoughts or comments appreciated.

 

km

I've had my N75 for a little over a year now and I'm shopping around

for a lens that will be a step up from the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G that came

with my camera kit. I enjoy mostly landscape and people photography,

and would like a lens that will improve my images a bit. There's not

a camera shop to try these where I live, so I've scoured the internet

for reviews and wanted to see if anyone has any experience with these

before picking one to order and try out. The three lenses that I'm

considering are:

 

1) 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S - All the reviews read great, just

wish it had a bit more range at the top end.

 

2) 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR - This is one that I want to

like, sounds great on paper. The VR would be a nice feature, and the

extended focal length would be perfect, but a fair number of reviews

mention it isn't as sharp, enough that it's hard to ignore them.

and it's also a bit more $$.

 

3) 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF - ?

 

Again, any comparisons or experiences would be appreciated. Thanks

in advance.

 

/km

I just recently tried Picasa and have been very pleased, I guess a new version was recently released. It is much easier to locate my pics now. There are some other features in the software that i have not attempted to use so can't address. It is free, google it.

I am using the 30 day trial of PWP, and overall i have liked it thus

far, but I have a couple of questions...

 

1) Can you somehow view the histograms when adjusting levels like you

can in photoshop

 

2) I know that each manipulation creates a new 'layer' that is a

separate image, is it possible to go back in your workflow several

steps and make an adjustment that will still apply to the subsequent

layers, or if you want to make an adjustment several layers back do

you have to redo the subsequent layers?

I have the dual scan IV which I assume is the same model you are talking about. I actually had an HP 7960 before I got that scanner. I have been happy with the results from that combo. I principally bought the HP for it's ability to do b&w prints. I have been extremely pleased with B&W results. The color is also good with a little effort, but not what I was mainly concerned about when doing the research for the printer. If I were principally interested in color, I would have looked more closely at some of the epson printers and possibily canon models as well, and my purchase may or may not have been the same. Good luck in your search.

 

km

Hi -

 

I would second the HP 7960 for B&W output. I have a dual scan IV to scan my negs as well. The HP papers are good but a bit expensive. I like the Ilford Gallerie Pearl just a bit more though they are about equal. I have been very pleased with the B&W output. As mentioned it only prints up to 8.5x11. The color is good with some effort, though I have to admit I haven't done nearly as much color, and if I were only going to do color I may or may not have purchased the same printer. It is superb for B&W and it's relatively easy compared to buying another printer and dedicating it to B&W printing I would guess.

See this website for reviews of both printers.

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

 

I have the 7960 and I'm not in a big hurry to upgrade. Sounds like there may be some subtle improvements, but I'm still happy with my 7960 for now.

I have once or twice compared the HP premium plus matte to the ilford gallerie classic pearl and have preferred the ilford paper ever so slightly. The blacks are a little blacker on the ilford. Both are good though. The kodak paper is okay too, but i don't think i liked the finish quite as much as the other two papers, but it is also designed to work with the HP inks.

I just got the Scan Dual IV recently and have been very impressed with the quality I'm getting for the money I spent (I was on a similar budget). I think it may be a bit more time than you're thinking, at least initially. While the scanner is fairly easy to use, there is a bit of a learning curve, and it does take a little bit of time to figure out what works best for your taste. There is also no ICE, so if your old negatives are also dusty or otherwise dirty, that could throw a crimp in your plans. I have spent maybe an average of 5-10 minutes or so touching up in photoshop and have gotten pretty good results cropping and enlarging up to 8x10 size. Though if you're not enlarging too much, you might get by with less touching up, etc? And of course you'll get better quality scanning the negative than the print in case no on else mentioned that.

I do mostly B&W as well, and have little problem, though I've found that letting the HP driver do the B&W generally seems to work a little better. But I would like to be able to do decent color on occasion. I'll check out the custom profile option, that particular site seems affordable, if it is good then it may well be worth it.

Thanks.

 

-kent

Okay, i've read essentially all the posts here on the HP7960 and

done a few trials of my own now, and I'm not sure what to make of

the results, so any input will be appreciated.

 

My monitor is not profiled, but I have used Quick Gamma per Norman

Koren's web page on monitor calibration. I have a hi res test image

from photodisc that is supposedly in the adobeRGB colorspace (it

does say this in photoshop), and printed it on Ilford Gallerie

Classic Pearl paper with 4 different settings so far which are as

follows:

 

1) Photoshop print space set in print preview - printer color

management; HP print driver setting - ICM color management (so

essentially no color management done, right?)

 

this produces a dull lifeless image as expected

 

2) PS - print space set to a profile downloaded from ilford for this

paper and the 7960; printer driver set to ICM colormanagement

 

only marginally better than no colormanagement at all, i was sort of

surprised to be honest.

 

3) PS - printer color management; print driver - adobeRBG

 

Much better, but a little over saturated in the reds (baby a little

too pink, yellows a bit shifted maybe?)

 

4) PS - printer color management; print driver - sRGB

 

Colors not quite as saturated, but are really spot on compared to

what the monitor is displaying. By far the closest of the four to

what I'm seeing on my display, though not quite the pop of the adobe

rgb print.

 

So is the print driver actually doing better color that photoshop!?

I wouldn't expect that at all, but that certainly appears to be the

case in what i have done above. What other setting might work better

in photoshop. And why does it look better in sRGB than adobeRGB in

the print driver setting, I would expect that since the image

profile is adobe RGB that it should look better with the print space

set to that. Also does changing the print profile associated with

the printer in the OS have any affect on any of this?

 

 

Any insights into these observations appreciated as I'm trying to

get good color out of my printer, but also understand what/how i'm

doing it as well.

 

 

thanks

-Kent

I have the HP 7960 and I have been please with it. I don't yet have a digital camera so can't comment on the ability to print directly from the printer, but the printer is easy to hook up and use. Of course the main reason I bought it myself was the ability to do great B&W at a reasonable price.

 

Check out the review of the 7960 and the 8450 at photo-i, i think it will give you the information you want.

 

-k

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/HP%208450/page-1.htm

I have the HP 7960 and for B&W, the prints right out of the box are excellent. So far my prints have only been limited by the source image rather than the printer. You can go pick one up tonight after work and have great prints tonight as well. I haven't yet taken the time to get the color prints exactly how I want them (I like the B&W more anyway), but color is pretty good as well. I think it would be hard to beat the 7960 B&W output for price and ease of use period, but especially for a "beginner" as you say.

Anybody heard anything about the new Canon scanner coming out, i

think it is the 9950F?

Thanks for your input, extremely helpful. I am planning on getting the SB28 most likely since now I have an excuse:) I am not sure I understand how getting the flash off the camera with the cord +/- stand would improve lighting (this is my inexperience and ignorance showing through, sorry).

 

Also you prefer the Ultra over the Portra? The name of the latter would imply it is made for portraits, but I have not shot either film. I will probably try to shoot a roll ahead of time, but I don't really have time to go shoot a bunch of rolls of both to decide between the two.

 

Thanks again, the input is both very helpful and truly appreciated!

 

Kent

I severak times have taken engagement photos and similar shoots for a

few friends always giving the caveat that I am an amateur, but so far

my friends have always been pleased. But, they have been couples

shots outside with fill flash, which I am reasonably comfortable with

at this point.

 

Anyway one of these couples asked me to take a few groups shots at a

reception. It will be indoors, fluorescent lighting, 9-10 foot

ceiling (or a little higher?) I would guess. My indoor flash shoots

never turn out quite as good as I'd like, and i haven't quite gotten

the slow and rear sync stuff down. The shutter speed is always to

slow. So i'm just wondering for a group of 10-12 people what is the

best way to do this. I have a Nikon N75 kit, an sb23, and was

thinking about picking up an sb28 for this. Should i go for the sb28

and bounce, get a diffuser for the sb23, use a certain film type?

 

It's fun, and I don't think they want professional stuff or they

would hire someone (we did discuss this briefly) but I also want to

do a decent job for my friends. Any tips would be appreciated by

this amateur.

 

Thanks,

Kent

<div></div>

one thing to consider, on the HP printers, the printhead is actually on the cartridge. So everytime you replace the cartridges you replace the printheads. This could be good or bad I suppose, but is different than most I think. Also most recommend turning off when not in use to prolong printhead life.

I guess I will be saving my dollars to buy a film scanner. In some ways it would be easier to just let the lab do everything, but seems like alot of the time they don't get it quite right. When they do it's great. At least if I mess it up, it's my fault and I know it. I think the darkroom is fun, and with the digital set up i don't have to worry about chemicals that go bad or leaving stuff out if i have to walk away to do something else. anyway, thanks for all the insight.

 

km

Hi -

 

I recently purchased a photo printer, but now have run into an

interesting situation. The photo lab I usually go to charges around

$9.00 for a cd of images, so I assumed they would be decent scans

and could use those to print from. But the scans from the photo lab

are so so (big enough for 4x6 at best). To get high quality JPEGs

cost extra, the cost depending on the scan resolution. Is this

common? If so, how do you all get good scans without 1) spending a

ton of money on scanning or 2) running back and forth to the photo

lab several times and still spending bunches of $$. Do you pretty

much need your own scanner or digital camera to make it worth having

a photo printer? I was thinking that I could just get a roll of

film scanned to a cd and it would be simple, but apparently it is

not quite that simple if i want to print anything bigger than 4x6.

Thanks for any input or advice.

 

Kent

Well, I'm going to order some of the Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl and i may also try the Kodak Ultima in the satin finish. The glossy is okay, but to my eye all of the glossy papers have a little bit of a funny reflection at certain angles that the matte papers don't.

 

I guess the little white line thing isn't such a big deal if you're going to frame. I ran across an elargement I had done at Wal-Mart some time back and it had a bigger white line than the 7960 leaves.

 

As far a driver settings, i seem to be able to get the closest match b/t what's on the screen and what comes out of the printer using the HP print manager software included with the printer. Using PS essentials with color management on and adobeRGB is pretty close, but not quite as accurate to my eye, a little too red maybe? or the yellows are too flat? I may still play around with the color management in PS, but so far haven't been able to beat the HP software for printing. Of course i'm still an amatuer at PS and color management, so if anyone has any tips, please share.

 

Kent

I picked up several packs of the HP premium plus matte 4x6 paper for just over $20 for 60 sheets recently at the same time I purchased the HP7960 at Best Buy. It is very nice and I think looks better than the glossy version of the same paper to my eye. I think you pay extra for HP's claim of 73 years archival print:) ANyway, That works out to $0.33 per page. Still not super cheap, but not bad. I plan on trying the Ilford Galerie Classic Pearl at some point too.

 

Kent