steven_palmer1

I think you will find that they mean you have the choice of using AE (aperture priority) or fully manual. The metering doesn't change, its always TTL.

 

Steve

Thanks alot guys, just what I needed.

 

Steve

I'm going to Hong Kong next week and am wondering if anyone can

suggest some good camera stores? I am thinking mostly of secondhand

stuff but I will also need to buy film so any good stores that you

know of would be a big help (location too would be good).

 

Thanks.

 

Steve

Thanks for the replies everyone. At least it seems repairable so I'm happy about that. Graham, yes I did use a slow shutter speed to enable me to see the opening and closing.

 

Paul, I will email you for a detailed description of how to do the fix. Thanks for the offer.

 

Steve

I just bought a Yashica Mat off ebay, it arrived today and I think

the shutter/aperture blades are stuck but I have no experience with

this camera or any other TLR so I just thought I would check that I

have not overlooked a setting or locking lever or something that

would prevent it from firing. I loaded it with film ok but on

pressing the shutter release I can notice a VERY slight movement of

the aperture blades and thats it. After doing this I can wind on

the film about a half turn and then back about a half turn to cock

the shutter again but once again, on pressing the shutter release

button, only a VERY slight movement of the aperture blades can be

seen. I am fairly sure something is wrong but I just wanted to

check before sending the obligatory email tomorrow. Thanks.

 

Steve

I would like to thank everyone for their help with my question. You have given me some very useful information and I much appreciate it. The photos were also very helpful.

 

I have seen some cameras with Tessars/Xenars in very good condition but I think I will try and find a Planar/Xenotar. In the end I think I will be glad I did.

 

Thanks again.

I am trying to decide between a Rollei TLR and a Bronica SQ system.

Both are appealing in their own way but my major concern is lens

quality. Now, I know and believe that there is much more to a lens

than just how sharp it is, however, after using a Contax rangefinder

with Zeiss lenses, anything less sharp (ie: some of my Nikon glass)

really stands out to my eye. The Rolleis I am interested in are the

Rolleiflexes with the 3.5 Tessar/Xenar or 2.8f Planar/Xenotar. How

would these lenses compare with the 80mm lens for the Bronica? I am

really thinking about sharpness here but any comments regarding

distotion, flare, ghosting, bokeh are more than welcome. I usually

hate those "which is better" questions but I keep reading how fabulous

the lenses are on Rollei TLR's and I just have some doubts about good

a lens (Rollei) that is decades old can be compared to the newer

Bronicas.

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Steve

I think the only answer to that is, "it depends". As you know alot of people talk favourably about velvia but personally I prefer sensia. You've been using velvia for 7 months so you know what it is good for and probably what it is not good for. Sensia will give you colours that are more true to life but you may or may not want that. Sensia is not quite as sharp as velvia (but it is still sharp) and it has a slightly higher RMS. So, I think it depends on your personal colour palette preference and how large your resulting prints. Sometimes I want "in your face" colours so I pick up velvia but this does not happen often. Personally I find that over saturated look a bit tiresome after a short time and much prefer a more subtle, natural look. But that's just me. One of my great disappointments is that Fuji does not make Sensia in 120 because I like it so much. Oh, I dont know your workflow but I have a nikon scanner and I find that Sensia scans very easily with very little need for manipulation. This may or may not be important to you but it is important to me.

 

So, if you like the colour palette of Velvia, dont change to Sensia, you wont like it. If you are comfortable with a more "what you see is what you get" look, then give it a try.

 

Steve

It sounds like everyone is suggesting the Kodak over the NPH but if you do decide to take NPH, make sure you take enough. I was in Japan (Kyoto) last October and tried to buy NPH from a large photo store and the salesmen (I spoke to several) didn't have it and didnt know what it was. As you may know they have some different film types over there and sometimes it can be hard to get an equivilant film. For your info, what I bought was called Pro 400 (fuji) and I was told it was the highest quality 400 ISO negative film that Fuji made. I found it to be more than acceptable and I think I like it more than Kodak 400UC. That's just a personal preference though.

I have the Epson R210 and I think it is a very good printer. "Very good" doesnt really tell you much but I can say that I did a comparison between the R210 and the 2100 (same file) and the 2100 was just a little bit sharper but you really had to look for it and it was only visible in certain areas of the image. The colours are vivid and mostly life-like with the usual trouble of reproducing natural looking greens. I have had a bit of trouble getting saturated, bright greens to look as they should. Different paper can make this better or worse, however. Also, I have never had a clog with this printer which I am very happy about. Anyway, that's my experience with the R210.

I use a Logitech and its fine but sometimes I need to put the receiver on the desk instead of under it as I once did. I do find, however, that for very precise manouvers it is not quite as good and the usb optical mouse that I had before. I am not going to change back so this should tell you that it is only a minor difference.

 

Steve

Thankyou Michael,

 

that does help. I'm sorry to take so long to reply, I've been away, but I will have a look at the things you mentioned. Thanks again.

 

Steve

Marco,

 

I cant help you but can tell you that I have experienced the same thing. In my case the change was a little more than subtle and I never did figure out what was going on. On the positive side, I have only had it happen a couple of times and have flattened files with many adjustment layers with no change in contrast. I was using PS7 then.

 

A friend told me that he had heard of the problem and heard that flattening the image layer by layer can help. I tried this but it didnt work for me. Maybe you will be luckier.

 

Steve

Michael, I dont think adjustment layers are the same size as the original background layer as in the past I have used many adjustment layers with not even a doubling in total file size. So, I dont know why these files are getting so hugh now in 16 bit mode. (I know 16 bit is bigger than 8 bits, I am referring to the relevant size when compared to the original).

 

Here is another strange one. Last night I was working on a file in 8 bit mode and observed the size to be 31/70Mb (which is normal). I converted to 16 bits and the file size changed to a whopping 70/1.34Gb ! I then changed back to 8 bits and the file size changed to 31/156Mb. Not the same as before. I have no idea whats going on. Does anyone else?

Kelly, thanks for the reply. I know that adding layers increases the file size but I have NEVER had a file grow to 570Mb and in the past I have added alot more than 5 layers. Also, why would a 60/570Mb file reduce to 30/60 when going from 16 bits to 8 bits? What I am asking is, how does 570Mb drop to 60Mb? I'm still confused by this.

 

Steve

I have recently upgraded to PS CS and have been doing all adjustments

in 16 bit mode, however, sometimes the file sizes are enormous and I

dont understand why.

 

I use a Nikon Coolscan IV to scan 35mm slides and the resulting files

are normally about 60Mb in size (no cropping and scanned in 12 bit

mode). Yesterday I was working on a file (in 16 bit mode) and had

added about 5 adjustment layers only when I noticed that the "document

size" in the lower left hand corner of the window showed 60/570Mb.

I believe it too because when I tried to save the document it took

forever. I did not notice the file size before that. Out of

curiosity, I converted to 8 bit mode and the file size changed to

30/60. This figure I understand but the previous one I dont. To

add to my confusion, I closed the file and then opened the folder

containing that file, highlighted the file and noticed that the

preview window was showing the file size to be 285Mb.

 

I am confused by these sizes so if anyone can enlighten me it would be

greatly appreciated.

 

As stated, I only used about 5 adjustment layers (curves,

hue/saturation) and did not duplicate the background layer.

 

Thanks.

 

Steve

john, I have the 7660 and the R210 which is identical in its print quality to the R300. My advice is: if you want to do black and white, the 7660 does a fantastic job and far better than the epson, but it does use a LOT of ink. If you want to do colour the Epson does a very good job and the indiviual ink tanks will save you alot of money. Also, the choice of paper is better with the Epson.

 

I have only tried to make colour prints with the 7660 a couple of times and the results were not good, however, I didnt do any tweaking because I only bought it for black and white printing. The Epson, on the other hand, was much better out of the box using their papers.

 

Steve

This is an continuance of a problem I've had for the last week,

Re: "Colour problems.....again", (2004-12-28).

 

Ok, so I formatted my computer and everything seemed to be fine. I

decided not to do any cutting and pasting (which I thought caused the

problem last time) but after a very short time the same thing

happened again.....MAJOR colour shifts when opening a file in

photoshop. I dug out an old photoshop 6 book (I'm using PS7) and

after some reading discovered that I had my colour management

settings wrong. Under Colour management, I had the RGB, CMYK and

Grey all switched off. I thought this was my problem so changed

them all to "Preserve Embedded Profile".

 

First question: is this the correct setting? (for someone who

clearly doesn't have a full grasp of colour management)

 

I thought this fixed the problem as the files looked 'normal' when I

opened them. A few hours later I re-established the Gretag MacBeth

Eye-One monitor profile as my default setting (I had previously

switched it off) under the Windows Control Panel. I didnt notice

any difference immediately (I think I was working with grey scale

files) but later I opened a file and again noticed the dreaded colour

shift that has been plagueing me.

While trying to understand this I noticed that after opening a file

and going to Image/Mode/Assign Proife, the profile that was listed

in the bottom box was sometimes the Monitor profile from Eye-One.

Now I didn't think I should select that as a profile but when I did

the colours did appear to return to normal.

 

So my second question is: What colour settings should I be using?

I understand that this is an over simplication but if someone could

give me a starting point it would be of great help. I have always

chosen to use Adobe RBG 1998 as my working space and it still is my

current working space.

 

Does this make any sense to anyone?

 

Why does the monitor profile seem to be the only one that will give

me the correct colours?

 

Thanks very much for any help you can offer.

 

Steve

Thanks Michael, I give them a try.

 

Steve

Thanks David, I'll have a look at Epson's web site and inkjetart.

 

Steve

I have had difficulties finding an inkjet paper with the look that I

want. I find the glossy papers (Epson, HP, Ilford) too glossy, and

I dont like the surface texture of the semi-matt. I use matt paper

mostly (Epson and Hahnemuhle) but what I would really like is a

paper with a similar appearance to some printed publications. For

those of you that have read any of Ansel Adam's books, The Print,

The Camera or The Negative, the looks of the images in those

editions is exactly what I am looking for. The paper is glossy but

not overly shiney and it is of course smooth in texture. The Lens

Work publication uses a similar paper (at least to my eye). So,

does anyone know of an inkjet paper with a look close to the above

or perhaps one that comes closest?

 

Steve

Steve and Roger, thankyou very much for trying to help me with this problem. I really appreciate your efforts. I freely admit that I am less than an adept at this stuff (not even close) so when things like this happen I sometimes dont know of where to start. As I had this problem once before and knowing how it confused others who know alot more than me, I decided to travel the route that I took last time which worked for me, ie: format.

 

Roger, the only reason I mentioned formatting was because it worked last time. It was my last resort and it worked so I decided to format again just an hour ago and I am happy to say that it worked again and things are back to normal. Unfortunately, I am none the wiser by doing this so IF it happens again I will not know how to fix it in a more appropriate way. So, let me say thankyou again to all that had a shot at this one. If I ever find out what was happening I'll be sure to let everyone know.

 

Steve

Ethan and Steve, if I open a file with a tag that is not the same as the working space a window comes up with three choices: dont colour manage, convert to working space, use embedded profile. If I select either of the last two the file will open with the wrong colour. If I choose dont colour manage then it will open with the correct colour. Now, if the file has a tag which is the SAME as the working space, ie, Adobe RGB, then that window will obviously not appear (because the file tag is already the same as the working space) BUT, the image will show the wrong colour when it opens.

 

To say I'm confused is an understatement. It is quite difficult to explain this via the internet and I'm sure that someone who knows what they're doing could work this out if sitting in front of my computer.

 

Anyway, I'll keep trying.

 

Steve

Roger, I do convert to Adobe RGB and the monitor profile created from Eye One is set as my default. Adobe RGB is also set as my working space. It makes no difference which profile is attached to a file. All are affected when opened. Images that I have had for ages and opened many times without problems are now also affected. Colour space hell is right. A question: why is formatting a bad thing?

 

Frank, it definately is not ambient light or colour temp of the monitor because as I wrote in response to Jeff, I can view two same images at one time and they are different. One normal, one shifted.

 

Anyway, I appreciate everyone's help with this. Last time formatting did solve the problem but I never understood what caused the problem which is very frustrating.

 

Steve

Jeff, these are major colour changes happening here. I'm talking about a normal looking blue sky turning to a blue green. More importantly, I forgot to mention what is probably a significant detail. When opening a folder in photoshop and viewing the files as thumbnails, they all look normal (without any colour shift). If I highlight one of the images (single click on it) when the image appears at the bottom of the window below all thumbnails it appears WITH the colour shift. So I can be looking at the two images in the "Open" window, one will be normal (the thumbnail) and the other (at the bottom) will show the colour shift. This seems quite bizaar to me.

 

Thanks again.

 

Steve