david_carson

If it's a modular hip belt you like, I think Kinesis has no equal. I use mine to shoot

weddings with, and it was much better than a Domke F5-XB with extra pouches on it and

better than a Lowepro Orion-similar all-in-one waist belt. The Kinesis system also seems

better than the Lowepro modular system, with more options (really like the E530 and E330

for Leica gear) and a better attachment system (no velcro). The regular Kinesis belt (there's

3 types) isn't very bulky and is very comfortable on me.

One point about the Newswear and Domke belts...the key thing that the Kinesis system,

and to an extent the Lowepro modular system, has is the ability to take it off and not have

everything slide off to the floor. The Lowepro system uses a double velcro thing, and

Kinesis uses a bombproof metal attachment method. The pouches do not slide around.

However, if all your gear would fit in a Domke F5-XB, then I'd buy that and a Domke belt,

as it's not 'military' looking, the canvas gets nice and broken in, and it's easy to slide to

your small of your back for walking and then around front for shooting. That's what I use

mine for. If you need lots of

pouches, buy Kinesis. Going to carry your SLR system sometimes? Kinesis. Have bigger SLR

lenses? Kinesis. If you're going hiking, Lowepro all-in-one beltpack are nice, but the

Kinesis

stuff would work there too.

Just for the gear you mentioned (assuming you are taking 1-2 lenses), they would fit in a

E330 fine...if the mounted lens is no bigger than a 50 'lux.

The owner is very nice too. He emailed me his recommendations for my gear.

<p>Here is a full review of my experience with Rich Pinto of Photovillage: (<a href="http://www.drcimages.com/reviews/photovillage_review.html">link</a>)

</p>

<p>I should note I do not have a history of having <b>any</b> problems with anyone

but Mr. Pinto. Look at my photo.net history; I have been a long-time member,

and have tried to be thoughtful and courteous in my dealings with others. I

have

sold an Xpan and Eos A2e and lens via photo.net, and bought a flash bracket

from a Leica forum member.</p>

<p>He may

say he has many successful transactions, but I would point out that you should

draw

your

own

conclusions

based on his

own

words

in emails

to me.</p>

Tommy,

<p><i>At the moment, I am changing my mental programming to turn Towards the arrow

as

if it were a 'beacon' as opposed to what the direction of the arrow is pointing in.</i>

<p>Your idea is another way to phrase what I was trying to explain. We are saying the

same thing in different ways, only your way is shorter!

Tommy,

I think you misunderstood my advice. It's all in the head, not the finger. One still uses the

index finger on the front of the MP's dial (not the rear), but you think of turning in terms

of the rear of the dial.

For example, if the LED says 'turn right', you think in terms of turning the back or rear of

the dial right, vs with a TTL you think in terms of turning the front of the dial right.

You do not, in any way, change the physical way you turn the dial. Make sense?

Of course, this is a crutch, but it seems to work for me unless I swich back and forth from

a TTL to a MP during a wedding shoot.

And huw, interesting idea!

I think the only way to fix this problem is to re-align the way you think about your MP (or

for anyone who mixes TTL's and classic M's, save the M5, I think). Instead of thinking of

turning the <i>front

</i> of the dial the way of the arrows (as with your TTL), with the MP imagine the <i>rear

</i>of the dial turning with the arrows, even as you use your same index finger to turn

the front of the dial.

I think that f/2 is more usable (at least for me). Look at this 40mm f/2 Voigtlander lens in Nikon AIS mount:

http://cameraquest.com/Voigt%20SL.htm#Voigtlander%2040/2%20Ultron%20Aspherical

You could have it chipped too, I suppose. An alternative dome shaped hood is on top of the page; the one shown on the lens is pretty ugly.

JMW,

Ah! I see what you were trying to get at, now that you've explained it further. I do agree

that something is fishy.

JMW,

If you care to read the post, the Epson solution actually works.

I had tried upgrading the driver, but that didn't work. You must follow the directions to the

letter.

For all of you who are having problems centering your prints in OS X 10.3.x with your

Epson 2200, below is what Epson sent to me, and it works.

For background, I simply could not get the prints to center (with Photoshop CS; I didn't try

other programs)...some users had a "stylus 2200, margins minimized" option, but I didn't.

I either had to manually center in the print preview area, or make an equalized-margin

custom paper size in the page setup area. The following solution worked:

**********FROM EPSON**********

Thank you for contacting the Epson Connection.

Please follow the steps below and use the minimize margins driver to center

an image.

To correct the issue you are experiencing we will need to perform a

complete removal of the files and reinstall the driver. The most current

version of this driver allows for borderless printing, roll paper support,

and maximized margins.

DRIVER REMOVAL

Note: If there are any other Epson printers on your Mac, please let us

know what models you are working with before trashing the Epson folder. We

will recommend a compatible driver to reinstall after the SP2200 driver is

set up and functioning.

1. Double click on the MAC HARD DRIVE.

2. Double click on the LIBRARY folder.

3. Double click on the PRINTERS folder.

4. Drag the EPSON folder to the trash can.

If you receive an access denied error message when attempting to remove

this folder it indicates that you do not have Root Access. You will need to

contact Apple for assistance on obtaining root-level access to the

operating system in order to remove this folder.

Please follow the steps below to download and install your printer in OS X:

1. Go to the following website: http://support.epson.com

2. Under the PRINTERS heading select INK JETS and then the Stylus Photo

2200.

3. Under the DRIVERS & DOWNLOADS section select MACINTOSH.

4. Select "PrinterDriver V.1.8aAs" for Macintosh OS X (Epson11019.sea.hqx).

5. Follow the prompts through the survey and license agreement. The

Download Manager will take over and save the file to the desktop for you.

DRIVER REINSTALL

1. After the download is complete, double click EPSON11019.sea.hqx file.

Click CONTINUE, then CONTINUE again, then OK on the INSTALLATION WAS

SUCCESSFUL screen.

2. Open the new "Epson11019" folder created by the extraction process.

3. Double click the file inside which has a .DMG extension. This will

create a hard drive icon on the desktop named SP2200.

4. Double-click to open this DISK IMAGE file. Here, you will see an

INSTALLER file - double-click this icon to start the installation process.

5. The next menu will prompt you to ensure that you have Administrator

Rights to install the printer driver. Click on the lock (if necessary) to

authenticate and enter your password.

6. The actual installation process will begin. Follow the prompts to

install, click CONTINUE, AGREE for the SOFTWARE AGREEMENT, and so on. You

will be prompted to select a disk to install the printer to. Select the

appropriate OS X hard drive or partition and click CONTINUE. In the next

window that appears, click INSTALL.

7. You should now be informed that the computer needs to be restarted after

installation; click CONTINUE INSTALLATION here. The driver will now be

installed and the system optimized. Restart the computer when prompted.

8. After the computer restarts, open your PRINT CENTER or PRINTER SETUP

UTILITY (found in HARD DRIVE, APPLICATIONS, UTILITIES). Make sure your

printer is powered on and connected at this point.

9. If your printer is listed, simply highlight it and click DELETE. Once

the printer has been removed from the PRINT CENTER or PRINTER SETUP

UTILITY, click the ADD button. If your printer is not listed, click the

ADD button.

10. From the drop-down menu, select EPSON USB for a USB connection, or

EPSON FIREWIRE for a Firewire connection. Once your printer has appeared

under PRODUCT, click on the name to highlight it.

11. Once the printer is highlighted, a Page Setup menu will appear at the

bottom of the window. Click the up-down arrows at the end of Page Setup and

select ALL then click ADD. ("ALL" must be selected to get all the added

paper features of this driver.)

12. You will now see multiple listings in the Printer list for your Stylus

Photo printer. Highlight the printer name which does not have a paper type

attached (ie Stylus Photo 2200 or Stylus Photo 2200 (Standard) if no plain

printer name appears) and click on MAKE DEFAULT. Close Print Center.

13. Ensure Classic is not running. Open an OS X application and a file that

you wish to print. When ready go to FILE and PAGE SETUP ensure that under

"Format for" you have selected the printer name plus paper feature you wish

to use. (NOTE: If printing from 10.3, make the feature you wish to use

default in the PRINT CENTER or PRINTER SETUP UTILITY and match it on PAGE

SETUP in the program you are printing from.) You are now ready to try

printing.

SETTING UP BORDERLESS PRINTS IN AN OS X APPLICATION

(NOTE: not all applications will show these options)

1. Click on FILE and PAGE SETUP. Ensure the settings below are adjusted:

SETTINGS: PAGE ATTRIBUTES

FORMAT FOR: EPSON STYLUS XXX XXX(BORDERLESS)

PAPER SIZE: Whichever compatible paper size you wish to use

(NOTE: borderless printing is not supported on custom paper sizes.)

Click OK when done.

2. Click on FILE and PRINT. Ensure the settings below are adjusted:

PRINTER: Stylus XXX XXX(BORDERLESS)

PRESETS: STANDARD

Make any other adjustments needed (on COPIES and PAGES, PRINT SETTINGS,

etc) and then click PRINT.

If you require further assistance with this particular issue, please ensure

all of our previous correspondence is contained in your reply, so we can

better track the history of this issue.

If you have a different technical support issue, please submit another

E-form via our website (http://www.epson.com), and we will respond in a

timely manner. Thank you again for contacting Epson.

Christopher O

Epson Connection

Hell, this thread has been so informative, let's continue down the workflow.

- ever tried any of the sharpeners? Photokit, focalblade, nik, QImage's new Equalized

Sharpener, Focus Magic, etc. Gotta work in 16 bit.

- Rip: use one or your stock driver? Will the epson 2200 driver handle 16 bit files?

- what paper do you like?

- how do you center the print on the paper?

- have you calibrated your monitor? With what?

- and finally, what dpi do you like to print at?

whew

Cool grant. I'm getting somewhere here, thanks to you.

You don't mention if you manually expose (preferences) and then tweak the master

control, or auto expose and then tweak the master.

And have you ever mult-sampled? Worth it?

Thanks again, grant!

But how about the histogram. I've always just went by the idea that you don't want the

histo to blow out on either side of the -+ scale, but blowing off the top is ok. I'm not sure

how far the dark and light triangles on the histo should be from either end of the curve.

Right on the edge?

Thanks grant. You always scan in positive, right? Ever see a need to use multi-sampling?

Ever scan true b/w film (assuming you have scanned color neg and slide)? I'm assuming

you use ICE, and I guess Grain Dissolver comes on too when ICE is used (RTFM, Dave).

I guess two black holes are also the effects of the whole profile-schmofile thing, and the

biggie for me is "how to read a histogram", or "what a good histogram looks like." I've

always just went by the idea that you don't want the histo to blow out on either side of the

-+ scale, but blowing off the top is ok. I'm not sure how far the histo should be from

either end. Thoughts?

To start to answer my own question, I saw grant's ideas here:

<p>Minolta 5400 vs Nikon 9000 quick comparison: <a href="http://www.photo.net/

bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008vfC&unified_p=1">link</a>

<p>He says scan at 16 bit linear, color or b/w positive to get the best raw output from the

5400. I still don't know about what's the best way to adjust the 'master gain', as he puts it

(I think he's referring to the master setting in the exposure tab). Or if manual exposure is

best (in the preferences), or if the color matching space is important or not.

Hello,

I've read, or tried to read, all of the mindbending ideas on the web and newsgroups about

adjusting the scanner sw or using Photoshop CS to do the same thing. I have 60 negs to

scan for an art

project. I don't want to re-do these, so I'm trying to nail this out

of the gate.

I own a 5400. I tend to subscribe to the 'raw' theory of scanning, i.e.

scan without corrections because scanner sw modifies the scan

post-scan and so just use PS to modify post-scan. I own the CS version, so

working in 16 bit (or whatever, 15+ bit) isn't a problem. I am very

good at Photoshop. I have color neg and b/w neg., a couple of Fuji

velvia chromes.

What I am wondering is:

1) using the 'raw' scan theory, is it ok to use the Minolta 1.1.5 software, or

would Vuescan or Silverfast make any difference USING THE 'RAW' theory? My

guess is the Minolta sw is fine using the 'raw' theory. I'd rather use PS,

a tool I know well, than to use some other sw that I must become an

expert at.

2) If other sw can do a better "raw-scan" by opening some secret

hardware-level nirvana, what is the sw and what are the sw settings to do so?

3) AND, whatever the answer to the 2nd question, what are the

setttings in the Minolta software for a raw-type scan?

My guesses are:

- 16bit linear (vs 16 bit), and can someone explain the difference?

- don't know about about autoexposure vs manual,

- autofocus unless there's a problem

- don't know about multi-sampling

- don't know about color matching output space (adobe RGB?) and ICC

profiles

- Color neg: best to scan as neg or positive? If positive, invert in

PS?

- B/W neg: best to scan as neg or positive? If positive, invert in PS?

- Fuj chromes: no idea

- ICE on, at least with color neg.

- Grain dissolver off with color neg, don't know with b/w neg

Thank you for your answers.

Best,

David Carson

I'm partial to canvas, and I like the Domke F-5XB (I don't think the B stands for ballistic

nylon, in fact, I don't think it comes in nylon). I like to use it as a waist belt with the

substantial Domke belt with an M and a couple lenses, as my shoulders hate shoulder

bags. I would get the sand color, as Domke black tends to wear/fringe into white. Must be

their dye or

something.

I've looked at the Lowepro Photorunner in the store, and the only problem with it is that it

has a double zipper, presumably to open real wide. However, once open, the fabric

between the zippers is padded and rather stiff and then flops around then with nowhere

to go.

This post is going the way that this one did (<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-

and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0097x3">link</a>). Anti-gear & gear people should probably

address my arguments there (do a 'find' on that page on my name, there's 3-4 relevent

posts of mine).

<p>Salient quote: <i>Some Sherpas climb Mount Everst in sneakers; this doesn't prove

shoes don't matter, it proves that Sherpas are tough as hell.</i><div></div>

Quiche, that photo is lovely. Is that from a pinhole camera, or a pinhole body cap on a

normal camera?

I had read elsewhere that Jeff Ascough used it, but can't find it at BH a couple weeks ago.

Where do you buy it in the States? I couldn't even find mention of it at fujifilm.com.

Jesus, I'm on a tear here. I should mention that my print above looks that way, that's why I

didn't sharpen it in PS. No other effects applied. Also, it was shot a f/1.4.

I really love that lens. Someday, perhaps, a 35mm f/2 pre-asph will also live in my bag.

Also (I miss posts when I'm responding to other posts!), I'm quite sure that the Delano

reproductions in Lenswork are not a high-end magazine printing technique, as that rag is

dedicated to the most perfect reproductions of how the artist's original prints look in

person.

It would be *very* strange for any magazine to alter/enhance an artists work on purpose.

They might screw up, of course, but the results wouldn't look nice.