TomHildreth

Is it possible to create clickable links to each of my photos? I would like to make these links accessible to non-members, such as when bringing up a subject in one of my Facebook groups. How may I obtain such a link here?

<p>Thank you both. On the laptop, I have done more tweaking (including installing an SRGB profile) and I am much happier with the on screen results. Edward: I seem to have no profiles installed in the larger system where I do my editing. My original graphics card died a few weeks ago and was replaced, which may be the reason for this. In that I occasionally send my files out for printing, is there any harm in installing an sRGB profile in that machine, or should I leave the profile space vacant, or is there a color profile that print houses would prefer to see coming from customers?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have a large tower PC that I use for photo editing. To my eyes, it works well, and my digital captures are vibrant. On the other hand, when viewed on the laptop I use to connect to the internet, the same images are very lifeless. Suspecting a color profile incompatibility, I’ve tried some alternate profiles but nothing I’ve attempted has made a change.</p>

<p >The color calibration and gamma settings don't come into range when I try them, so that's a strong indication the laptop monitor is off the mark. (I have no calibration device, just what's available through control panel display adjustments. In particular, reds are lacking. However, it appears as so my photos are more lifeless than those of other photographers when viewing them on the internet, and this has me very concerned. <br /></p>

<p >Suggestions?</p>

<p > </p>

<p>For the past several years I have been using common microfiber cloth such as that economically found in the vision section of big box stores. It cleans dust very well, and also, much to my surprise, it can often clean oily matter such as finger prints very effectively without use of any liquid lens cleaner formula.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Guys.</p>

 

<p>Has anyone here subscribed to the "Click and Copyright" service offered by Click Industries? I just became aware of it and I'm wondering if it is a valuable service. What is your experience with them?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. I'll be checking them out.</p>

 

<p>I'm looking for an American lab to which I can mail C-41 films for negative development and scanning to DVD as TIFF files in the 3000-4000 DPI range, no prints. Film will be current C-41 exposed at rated speed. No touchup needed beyond ICE, negatives to be returned in appropriate plastic pages. Does such a place exist?</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.vermontel.net/~tomh/TEXT_FILES/EarlyEktar100.html">http://www.vermontel.net/~tomh/TEXT_FILES/EarlyEktar100.html</a></p>

<p>My Minolta MD 200mm f2.8 does not have the Rokkor or Rokkor-X name on it.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Provia 100F</p>

<p>I have had one about 5 years, and have not used it much. For one thing, I usually shoot with 100 speed film and it is difficult, being an f8.0. Then, if you try B&W, you'll likely need a yellow filter, and you are down to ISO 50 with most of my films. Of course all this is an old problem indeed.<br>

But, once in a while....here is one I took on Kodachrome 64<br>

<img src="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b360/tomhvt/RAIL/NECR/NECR323N.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I have two of the 45mm f2.0 lenses, and until now was unaware of the f2.8 predecessor. In that it may be a pre-MC lens, I can understand why I wouldn't know about it. A photo of the f2.8 shows a lens much flatter than the f2.0.</p>

<p>I use my 45s quite a lot, and still shoot Minolta MF gear exclusively. Well, I have three Canonets that get used also. </p>

<p>Due to their thickness, mailers presently cost $1.22 to send First Class via USPS. Check with your local person at the mail counter, they are likely to come up with this amount, though there is ample confusion. Most of the confusion results from not using the 1" opening template that your local PO <em>should </em>posses. </p>

<p>My take on the subject is here <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=919798">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=919798</a></p>

<p>The discontinuation of Kodachrome is not a surprise, and after shooting it for decades, I began to explore E-6 films for alternatives once I "saw the writing on the wall."<br>

Where I was shocked by Kodak was in learning that they had discontinued support of their proprietary PCD file format. Before I had my own scanner, I invested rather heavily in Photo CDs. A year ago I learned I had a couple thousand "stranded" images on this "obsolete" medium, that I had invested resources in making backup copies did nothing to reduce the potential loss of access to these images. I'm glad to report that I found a way (Infranview) to convert them to TIFF files. <br>

The Photo CD was available just about anywhere in the early 1990s; drugstores, for instance. Did Kodak do anything to advise the public that they were discontinuing support for for the PCD format? If so, I missed it, and I suppose that is my fault for not spending time scanning Kodak's latest market statements. Still, I wouldn't have expected it from a company whose CEO announced that Kodak was going to be the leader in digital photography, while simultaneously abandoning their earlier digital file format with little notice. </p>

<p>Just re-subscribed and noticed this enticing "benefit" in the subscription benefit listing. But from what I see here on this thread, it was prematurely introduced. Any current updates on IMagePro websites availability? Is there an ETA for a functional version? </p>

<p>I use Fuji mailers (from B&H) for both Fujichrome E-6 films and Kodak's E100G slide film. They go to Dwaynes and come back in cardboard mounts without dust or defects and with very satisfactory turn around times of about 10 days. It now costs 1.22 USD to send the film to Dwayne's.</p>

<p>I think it would have been helpful to tell Ryan when at his WalMart to be sure to fill out a <em>Kodak </em>envelope for his Kodachrome, and to place same in the <em>Kodak </em>kiosk's slot. When getting your Kodachrome developed and mounted in this manner, it will come back in a crappy plastic box. You can use the same technique at K-Mart for a little more money, and you will get it back in the familiar Kodak yellow box.<br>

Thought I would try this technique at my local Shaw's food store. When I brought the Kodachrome in to be dropped off last week, there was a sign on the kiosk that read informed me the previous day was the last day they would be sending out film for development to Kodak, period. So I sent it directly to Dwayne's via USPS. Got an email from the developer yesterday advising that it was processed and on the way home. Most of my USPS experiences have been good ones, don't think they lost or damaged a single roll of my film in 35+ years. </p>

 

<p>Jin,<br>

Photo on the way. A more recent failure leads me to believe that your comments box is not tolerant of the apostrophe, and this may cause the errors.</p>

<p>Josh/Jin,<br>

I have succeeded in uploading the three files in question, but only after deleting the caption information from the file info section of the JPEG.</p>

<p>Jin,<br>

Yes, it continues to happen with these three specific images-every time I try to upload them I get that error msg. They are 1024W, and pretty big filesize, BUT they are within the filesize range of 70 other files that uploaded successfully yesterday.</p>

<p>This same thing happened a couple of weeks ago with a different batch of images.</p>

<p>When uploading JPEGs to my folders using the <em>upload several photos at once </em>option, on about 10% of the photos I get.."For file XXX.jpg:The Photo.net server returned error 540 (unexpected databse error).<br>

The XXX file resolution is identical to others that uploaded successfully, and the filesize is within the range of others that uploaded successfully.<br>

Otherwise, the multiple photo upload option works very well. </p>

<p>Thank you all for the input and for providing examples. I have been scanning a group of 30+ year-old 35mm B&W negs, most of which I exposed on cloudy, nearly 100% overcast days without any filter. I've tried to compensate in PSE, and have had some improvement with controlling highlights intensity on some, and applying polarizer filter to others.<br>

Still, I was wondering if there was something I should have done back then that would have made for more interesting photos today. In the case of no blue showing at all, I guess there really isn't much one can do at the time of the exposure-though downrating may be worth experimenting with.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>