hapien

<p>It is probably a software depended thing. I looked adobe liquify help <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/liquify-filter.html#liquify_filter_enhancements_creative_cloud_only">site</a> and read that CC should perform faster.</p>

<p>Interesting, D750 is supposed to be a bit lighter than D300. I expected it to be otherwise round. This results that D300 + 17-55mm and D750 + 24-70mm both weight about the same.<br> 1. All the lenses should work with D750. DX crop mode is around 10megapixels. Which is not too bad at all really. But still 17-55mm lens is a bit overlapping if You are not thinking at D300 + 17-55mm setup as a backup for D750 + 24-70mm.<br />2. I have never used video features on dslr, but I would expect zooming to work, if You only think of video recording side of things. In videos it is very tiresome to watch zooming, so be prepared to edit those scenes out in post processing, if not carefully used as special effect.<br> 3. If You plan to keep D300, I would also keep current lenses.</p> <p> </p>

<p>PC Core2Duo @ 2.53GHz, 4GB RAM, integrated HD3000 graphics, SSD drive. Photoshop Elements 13. Image opens to program in 1.83seconds and image opens in liquify tool in 8.57seconds.</p>

<p>I have also noticed that on pictures viewed on monitor visually similar unsharp mask sharpening results can be obtained with larger radius plus smaller amount and smaller radius plus higher amount.<br> Different programs have different methods of defining unsharp mask sharpening. But the idea is same - radius, amount and threshold.<br> Usually with digital images I use contrast usm - very high radius, low amount, no threshold plus detail sharpening usm - low radius, high amount, threshold 2. Sometimes detail sharpening usm is masked and applied only to partial picture.<br> The sharpening methods You mention are somewhat more advanced, and probably optimized for inkjet printing, but perhaps they work in similar fashion what comes to radius amount relation.<br> I am rather new in inkjet printing, but I have not yet noticed need for additional sharpening specially for inkjet prints. I have turned off almoust all printer driver included enhancements. If You have 300dpi or 600dpi source of sharp shot image, glossy or semi-glossy paper, then You are likely to recieve nice detailed print.</p>

<p>While I'm not facebook user myself I often see in IRC this recommendation for image resizing to facebook use <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/266520536764594">How can I make sure that my photos display in the highest possible quality? | Facebook</a></p>

<p>I would gues that best films for scanning depends of your scanner. With Minolta scanners without IR-dust removal it was nicer to scan slide film as dust appeared in black and required much less clone stamping in post processing than white spots on negatives. In scans 3-layer color negatives have nicer colors than 4-layer color negatives. </p> <p>Film of choice have been<br> Slow BW: Ilford Delta 100, details surpass scanner capabilities, tones - lots of them<br> Medium BW: Kodak Tri-X, nice tones, beautiful grain<br> Fast BW: Ilford Delta 3200 eh, there's even a image<br> Slow color negative: Kodak 100 / 160 nice colors / lower saturation colors<br> Medium color negative: Kodak 400 detailed, nice colors, why not to always shoot 400<br> Fast color negative: Fuji 1600 better than expected<br> Slide film: any maker, perhaps in order of visual preference Fuji, Kodak, Agfa</p>

<p>What version is the 18-55mm? You could get latest and greatest VR II version if Your copy is older and You dislike it. Even between same model lens there likely are some sample variations.<br> D3200 and 18-55mm should be about as good as it gets backpacking with DSLR. Perhaps a second battery and plenty of memory cards. Small and light shoulder bag. Bring a charger with european electricity plug.<br> When I was backpacking in Central Europe, I had no camera with me at all.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I had Minolta Scan Dual III once. It was a bit slow operation at max dpi and had no IR dust removal for color negatives. Now I would look for Plustek OpticFilm 8200 series scanner.</p>

<p>AF 50mm f/1.8D cheapest, small, lightweight, sharp, fast focusing and some say, has uneasy bokeh<br> AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX sharp, nice bokeh, has no distance scale<br> AF-S 50mm f/1.8G relatively big size for 50mm, nice to shoot with, I have not seen the pictures yet <br> AF-S 35mm f/1.8G is allready in stores, dxomark says it's good<br> And there are many manual focus versions</p>

<p>Travel light. Try one lens aproach. Go with AF-S DX NIKKOR 18–55mm f/3.5–5.6G VR II.<br> AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G is very nice. Not much lighter than the previous zoom.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Minolta Scan Dual IV has software based dust brush. It is not very usefull. I have tried to minimize dust and scratches and use clone stamp tool.</p>

<p>Power adapter should say:<br> Output +24V 0.84A positive at center with 4.8mm DC-connector</p>

<p>I have resized the slideshow images. Not to the native resolution of the projector, but 1920 pixels long side and saved with moderate jpeg compression. This reduces amount of data going though the computer and even old systems probably work without additional delays. </p>

<p>I looked at the picture. The lens seems to be able to make decent images. CA is there, but it is usually there in high contrast subjects and open apertures. CA might be lower if you stopped down a bit, say f/5.6 or f/8. Or opened original picture in photo editing software with auto CA reduction on. Image sharpening may be a bit on high side on camera or in edit. Or might be just fine in paper print.</p>

<p>You want to RESAMPLE images for web and print purposes and minimize noise in the resampling process and recieve best achievable image quality.<br> For best and fastest results, use linux and imagemagick from command line.<br> For web suitable dimensions are, say 600x400 pixels, and you should use Lanczos resampling filter to avoid need of sharpening, save with image quality 85.<br> For 4 * 6 online photo prints at 600dpi, suitable dimensions are 2400x3600 pixels, and you should use Cubic filter to minimize noise, save with image quality 100.<br> If the internet connection is too slow or media too small, you can first drop quality, then use smaller dimensions. In film days ordinary scan was 1500x1000 pixels and pro was 3000x2000 pixels.</p>