RaymondC

<p>Hi all</p> <p>I am looking at these 2 options - what are the difference? One is smaller than the other holder form the images? Any other advice.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/APS-film-holder-adapter-for-Epson-Perfection-V700-750-800-850-scanners-/281647680065?hash=item4193828a41:g:Hz8AAOSwqu9U8gER">Link 1</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/APS-film-holder-adapter-made-for-Epson-v700-750-parallel-scan-option-/281650519903?hash=item4193addf5f:g:74wAAOSwPcVVvAJe">Link 2</a></p> <p>i have a Epson V700. My Nikon CS broke after buying used so not going that path again ..</p> <p>Cheers.</p>

<p>I have noticed over here in New Zealand the less common stuff to the general population can be cheaper than the USA. A Mamiya 645 with the no removable back (that version) with a lens, and a finder for $100US.</p> <p>I myself picked up a Epson 2880 for $100US with a 20 sheet packet of 13x19 luster paper and 6 carts.</p> <p>To me I like the film look on the print and I like getting equip I could only dream of in the 1990s and 1980s also slides look so good to the naked eye. Shooting it without the rear LCD, take it to the lab and wait for it, this process is so much longer to enjoy. I do use dSLRs for general photo's of people though, they just want them shared on Facebook. And did I say they are so affordable. Even just compared to an intermediate crop sensor dSLR. </p>

<p>Thanks all.</p> <p>Over here in NZ $220US. Well for a new one in the USA $650US (B&H) I think I rather get a used Nikon 17-55 at Keh.com for about the same price ;-) </p> <p>Maybe not as sharp as my other Nikon lenses I don't have the 17-55 or the 24-70 but as a general initial thought. The twist is a bit firmer than normal and the noisy VC. But pretty good for a beginner. </p>

<p>Thanks. They will be using it as a group shot around meal times and other get together events. So this (1) lens would be simpler. </p>

The tamron has a built-in motor?

<p>Someone I know got a used D3000 body and needs a lens. I thought about a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. Any other opinions? </p> <p>Their first SLR, the body came without lenses. They will be using it equally indoors (peoples homes including at night and at church) and outdoors, at the cafe etc. Mainly taking photographs of people and they want to blur the back. </p> <p>Thanks. </p>

<p>Yes, the result of the Epson 2200 paper profiles were very similar to Bill Atkinson's 7600/9600 that you saw above. The image on the right. Epson 2200 printer, Epson original ink, Epson original Prem SemiGloss paper and in the past original Epson Prem Luster paper. Epson 2200 downloaded ICC from Epson.com. So either the Prem Luster or the Prem SemiGloss ICC. The look I got was always like that.</p> <p>I have only gotten decent prints on matte papers. For those years I have just accepted it.</p> <p>Here. Left the ICC I got edited at my camera club. Right the Epson Prem Luster ICC with Epson Prem Luster paper, Epson original ink, Epson 2200 printer. This is what I basically get out of the box every day with gloss papers with the 2100/2200.<br /> <br /> <a href="https://flic.kr/p/FodAt6">https://flic.kr/p/FodAt6</a></p> <p>This Red River Arctic Polar Luster works so much better, even better than the edited ICC. <br /> <br />Provided I can fix that R2880. After being burnt I will do a test with the Epson profiles and with Red River.</p> <p>Just a poor hobbyist here, while printers may cost $600-700US where you guys are. They cost $1,100US equiv here. for the same model. Ink and papers also cost 2x here. As a hobbyist and for the prints I do I just cannot it's not feasible unless I write a $1,100US expense off for personal enjoyment.</p>

<p>Ok. I downloaded the Red River Arctic Polar Luster profile for my 2200 printer and used it for the Epson Semi Gloss. Worked much much better.</p> <p>While we have the printers for the exhibition papers and the other cousin which is more for glossy. While the glossy printer is spec'ed out with matte papers. What are the differences one may if the glossy printer used the matte paper and vice versa?</p> <p>Canon may still have a pro printer with dye inks. Epson's glossy printers have gone with pigment. Any pros and cons? </p>

<p>My issue is with gloss paper. The above is that what you guys got with this printer - ie the right photograph with the canned profiles? I just find them dull. Were the 2100/2200 always like this or did I just get a off spec'ed printer?</p> <p>If we go thru the process of calibrating our monitor and our printers. How close are we talking about if we hold the print next to the screen? And how much does this differ between different papers?</p> <p>####<br /> I am not in the USA but like everywhere most people prefer a flash camera body and lens and get cheap other things. About 10yrs ago I got the 2100/2200 for $300US with 12 or 14 unopened inks (OEM). Although consumables over here are 2x the price of B&H prices of you guys.</p> <p>I just picked up a $100US for a Epson R2880 with 20 sheets of 13x19 InkPress double sided premium luster (duo) and 6 unopened cartridges. The guy took it from the USA to here and didn't know thought he didn't need a transformer and blew it up. To use 120V appliances in our 240V system. I then got it for $30US and hope that my $25US new power board will fix this.</p> <p>But yeah due to prices at the labs and for a hobbyist like myself I don't see it economical to purchase new printers.</p>

<p>Added a WhiBal card for your reference ...</p><div></div>

<p>Been some yrs hibernating away. Got it out, no blocked nozzles :)</p> <p>I found the 2100/2200 prints fantastic matte papers - yes disable ICM in driver and enable in Adobe. People also say the 7600/9600 are the same system and they are made by Bill Atkinson and they are better. So I tried them out. The other one in the image is a color consultant I met at my camera club and she edited a profile I got done outside unsatisfactory. The profile is actually for Epson Prem Luster paper but it works equally well for this Semi Gloss. </p> <p>What is happening here? </p> <p>Other question is that - with a calibrated screen of course if one have paper that is calibrated or are using the newer printers with the provided (free) profiles. How close are we talking about if we hold a print next to the screen? And how much does this differ if we repeat the same test with diffeent papers (again they are custom calibrated or the newer printers with (free) profiles. </p> <p>Many thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>Paper choice question. I have been getting my printer out again. </p> <p>For portraits and snaps I understand gloss has the appeal, so semi gloss and luster. For things like camera club to be framed up or my own independent travels - cityscapes and streets (occasionally). Matte or fine art? No one would be touching the print, would be matted up with or without glass. </p> <p>Other question is at my camera club most people choose lab gloss (Fuji Archive Crystal) or some type of gloss if they use their inkjets. If one looks closely at the print does matte papers allow one to look at the detail better because there is no glare? </p> <p>Thanks.</p>

<p>If the downloaded (free) ICC profiles are not working for you. Have you tried to getting your printer custom calibrated ie - printing out various patterns and using a device to scan it and create your own ICC files? Or someone who ask you to print these charts out and they scan and generate the ICC for you?</p> <p>One other way is simply to modify the color balance deliberately. Even if it doesn't look good on screen. So it prints differently. One might be able to do this on the printer driver also. Not sure if it would disable the color management though.</p> <p>Or maybe a RIP software? Like Quadtone RIP. Free download. </p>

<p>I was just having a look at the different prices for the inks. Ie $12US and $30US. Are the r3000 larger size or are they just expensive b/c it's newer? </p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>I have re-read those. I understand the Coolscan are a step ahead of the high end Plustek's like their 135/120 format scanners (~$2,000US). Coolscans are not made anymore so put that aside. I did buy a CS4000 some years back off a pro looks like and it broke down within a year. </p> <p>A flatbed is a versatile scanner. So my gut feeling is saying a $199US scanner would be on par or better that a flatbed? The $199 is a specific scanner not necessarily a dedicated quality one. Is my gut feeling correct? Obviously the $499, $1999 scanners would be way better than a flatbed and a tad less than the CS's. But are the $199 on par or better than flatbeds? </p>

<p>Now that the Nikon Coolscans and Minoltas are no longer with us. Just curious about how good are the alternatives out there. Ie the $199-1399US scanners from the makers of Pacific Image / Plustek.</p> <p>How do they compare to say an Epson V700. I know it is a flatbed. Are flatbeds on par with a $199US scanner like this?<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/884296-REG/Pacific_Image_Primefilm_7200U_35Mm_Slide_Film.html</p> <p>Cheers</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks Ralph, yes I did have the speedlight at a higher power output it produced even more spill light onto that coupon book .... I was trying to reduced the speedlight power so it still gave a whitish background. When I set the power too low I could still see the wallpaper texture. I think the above pix I was at 1/32 manual with my Nikon SB800. I just couldn't move any more with sofas and coffee tables in the way and much of the other walls had cabinets and picture frames. If I talk in 2x and 1/2 powers, I think to get the wall even a bit whiter I would have needed 1/16.</p> <p>I have thought about monolights for my next photog learning. With my room size limitations maybe I would be limited to colored backgrounds and half height body shots only. Also the fact that speedlights versus monolights, speedlights are also not cheap and more fussy to use.</p> <p>The manufacturer gave me a stofen, so I will give that a try :)</p>

<p>I saw a Adorama TV video. <p>The subject was just about 1m in front of the wall. Not enough space in our lounge. Maybe a curved white table or a white tent would be better. </p>

<p>Here is what I got. Don't have a link to what I am trying to get, cos I tried and couldn't get it.</p> <p>This is a test shot using a coupon book, couldn't get what I was after ...... </p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi all</p> <p>An amateur question. I was just trying to capture an ice cream stick about 2m in front of the wall. The background was my white/grey wallpaper so I put a speedlight on a light stand and pointed to the wall and overexpose it but I got a lot of light spill / reflected to me. </p> <p>How does one perform this? Many meters of separation? Use a softbox instead of a wall? </p> <p>Thanks.</p> <p> </p>

<p>You're looking into it too much :)</p> <p>Just a normal studio backdrop ie - 400W monolights and taking pictures of people with a white backdrop and then the blue etc.... Then I thought if I were to get that, could I use that with my 35mm Velvia slides and project them without buying another screen. I have a Kodak Carousel given to me but so far I have only been projecting onto the wallpaper...</p>

<p>I saw a news post about over time that expenditure on new equipment have reduced and I find it some what true with the older people at my camera club who are in their 50+ age group, some that have been with the club for 20yrs. Some at their younger years used to submit more images, get out a bit more, but now are less active but still go to the club meetings for the "conversational" type.</p> <p>Speaking for myself 2004-2006 was the peak of it, I was reading the news announcements. I started digital photography in 2004 after just a film SLR casual stuff with the family but I wasn't that much involved with photography at the time. So since 2004 I got some lenses and have pretty much tailed out. I have been attending camera club meetings and I find the additional monthly group I belong to forces me out and get a bit more invovled. With my gap period I find that I pretty much just went to work, went home and I went out for photography properly once say 3 months. Pretty much just capturing images of friends and family and put online re: significant events / dates and meet ups etc. </p> <p>How have your photography been over the years?</p>

<p>Hi there</p> <p>In the future I may get into shooting portraits with some proper big lights. And there are cheap options available for the hobbyist. </p> <p>Question - the white backdrops can they be used for projection ie - slide projectors or digital projectors? </p> <p>Thanks in advance :) </p>

<p>I know this is a lens that hasn't' been updated yet a ~1999 model isn't it. How does it fare with modern dSLRs? Cheers. </p>

<p>I am shooting more film now for my own. I do use digital if it is just with people with a significant calendar day etc .. or important date. To me it is not the IQ but just the handful of keepers but sure there scenarios where film cannot be used. Then again with digital I shot 24 a day perhaps 36, film I shoot about 12 or 18. Digital is like too predictable.</p> <p>Not just photography. These days, we may get 5 days annual leave, take the 2 weekends at both ends. Quickly see as much and do as much, get back the night before and next morning back to work. Smartphones, smart tablets, laptops, digital cameras etc. Mobile data, GPS. Restaurant reviews. Post images and then quickly post it on social media. Maybe teether the dSLR to the smartphone. While in the past, one had a guidebook, a map, they engaged with the locals, they got lost in the back roads which is an experience in itself.</p> <p>Back to photography, in a way the imperfections of myself or the lab was a character. Handshake blur etc .. etc color not quite right, was just feeling part of it. Instead of everything just landing perfectly. Rather than photo shoot it was capturing our own daily lives.</p> <p> </p>