jurie

Ditto Roger. I saw an add for the T2 in September during some tennis match. I would have paid more attention if it had been Anna Kournikova instead of some random guy, but that's probably irrelevant ;-)

 

And I'm sure that the F6 has been advertised in photo rags and whatnot. I don't consume dead trees, so we'll leave that up to someone else to confirm.

 

Jordan R. Urie

I second Michael Borland's suggestion. The GIMP would cover more than someone who is just doing personal snaps needs, and the price is right.

 

Jordan R. Urie

Gerard,

 

<p>First, it's a "hot shoe", not a horse shoe. That might be why you had trouble finding some information ;-)

 

<p>I've done a bit of research, and it looks like the FZ20 doesn't take a dedicated flash. Any flash with one center pin and low enough trigger voltage should work fine. Which flashes have low trigger voltages, you ask? <a href="http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html">Here</a> is your answer. Check out Sunpak and Metz, they seem to have a wide range of safe models. The Nikon's look usable as well, however you'd probably end up paying for features that you couldn't use.

 

<p>One thing that might be nice to have in a flash is the ability to zoom the head. With your 12x zoom all the way in, a flash set to disperse at wide angle will be wasting a lot of light that could be more useful further forward. It's not a necessity though.

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

I worked at #774 in Edmonton, Alberta until a few months back. Nothing we sent out ended up going to Markham; turn-around times would be horrible. E-6, b&w, etc. was processed at a local Colourfast.

 

As far as the slide film goes, I tried it once and wasn't particularly impressed, but I was rather in-experienced at the time, so I should probably blame the dork with the camera instead of the film I was using.

 

Jordan R. Urie

In a nutshell, older flashes tended to use extremely high trigger voltages. These voltages would turn the inside of your shiny new FZ20 into slag, so I wouldn't recommend using them without something like a Wein Safe Sync.

 

Any flash that is designed for digital cameras should be safe. Which flash mount pin layout does the FZ20 use? If Nikon, an SB-50, SB-600 and SB-800 will definately be OK.

 

If you go with an off-brand flash, make sure that its trigger voltage is low enough that it won't damage a digital, and you should be fine.

 

Jordan R. Urie

<p>Another thing to consider is that while many professional photographers and studios may be dumping their medium format equipment at fire-sale prices, there are people who are buying those same cameras and doing something with them. I would expect that my situation is similar to many people who have just been introduced to medium format: I got a decent setup (RB67S, 90mm, 180mm) for an awsome price ($750 CDN), and of course, I'm using it.

<p>So the film is still selling, just to a different market, ie. to students and hobbiests as well as to pros. I put less film through it than a pro would, at an average of two rolls per week, but I'm sure that there are many other people out there who have just been introduced to medium format that are buying film they never would have bought before. The market is still there, it's just shifted sideways a bit.

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

Richie,

 

<p>The <a href="http://www.fsinet.or.jp/~sokaisha/rabbit/rabbit.htm">Pancake Bunny</a> is adorable, and is a prime example of what some people with too much time on their hands get up to. You thought cat pictures were bad? Aint seen nothin yet!

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

Adam,<br>

<p>Sticky problem. The Adobe Gamma tool creates an ICC profile for your monitor, however, the Intel Extreme Graphics control may or may not be loading an ICC profile of its own. The software sliders may or may not be affecting an ICC profile instead of directly modifying the screen's hardware. The only way to find out for sure is to do a bit of research - check the help options if there are any, or dig around with google to find out. Hopefully you don't have two conflicting ICC profiles.

 

<p>As for the external LCD, use the hardware settings to control contrast, brightness, etc. If you get the laptop screen set properly, and leave the software sliders, you have a better chance of keeping a good result on the external monitor.

 

<p>As for the center box blending in with the horizontal stripes, it helps to squint. The idea as I understand it is that the light-and-dark pattern averages out to a specific midtone, which you are adjusting the monitor to display in the inside box. Once you get the hang of making the grey box blend in, check (or was it uncheck?) the box that offers to let you adjust each colour individually. It's a lot tougher to get them just right, but you'll end up with a more acurate result, as it will adjust colour balance as well as gamma.

 

<p>An eye/spyder would definately get you a better result, and it would be worth buying or borrowing one if you are going to be doing any prints based solely on the colours that you see on your monitor. If you are having your prints printed at a lab, however, they are more than likely tweaking the colour anyway.

 

<p>Good luck!

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

Jamie,

 

The Canon digital SLRs have zero compatability with their non-autofocus lenses. Only Nikon and Pentax have compatability with pre-autofocus lenses, with Pentax having the most backwards-compatability. None of those systems will have something like a split-screen finder available in the consumer range, although it is no doubt possible to hack one together yourself (search for the thread where someone modified a screen to fit in a 10D).

 

Or were you just trolling?

 

Jordan R. Urie

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29965&item=3856811799&rd=1">fixed</a>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3856185278">clickable</a>

<p>Cute! :-P

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

The *ist also feels somewhat "cheaper" in my hands. It doesn't feel like it was made to quite the same tolerances as the 6. They've moved some controls around, and it handles a bit more like a Canon Rebel Ti than a traditional Pentax. If you like the big LCD screen on the back, it might be worth snagging. The screen is easier to read if you wear glasses, and (I might be wrong about this part) I think it shows more information than the screen on the MZ-6.

Marc,<br>

 

<p>There's a huge difference between the MZ-5n and the MZ-6. The MZ-5n is built like the MZ-M, with analog-style knobs for setting shutterspeed, exposure compensation, etc. It has nothing in the way of "dummy" modes for point & shoot, so I wouldn't recommend it for someone who isn't comfortable with lots of numbers & dials. Personally I love mine, as it's very easy to see exactly how your camera is set up, even before it's turned on. The MZ-5n also requires lenses that have an aperture ring, so if you are looking at getting some FA-J lenses then it's not an option. They are cheap crap, IMHO, but the price is right for some people...

<p>The MZ-6 is capable of everything the MZ-5n is, however you access things like the shutterspeed through a twitch-key instead of setting a knob to a specific number. Also, the MZ-6 can use FA-J lenses, so that might be a consideration for you. The MZ-6 has "dummy" modes as well (ie. portrait, landscape, action, etc.) If it's going to be used by people who don't want to learn what an aperture or a shutterspeed is, they might be a bit more comfortable with it. Note, however, that either camera in the manual/shutterspeed priority/aperature priority modes will produce better shots than you'll get with the dummy modes. The dummy modes are afraid to go out on a limb, so the portrait mode doesn't get really flat depth of field, the landscape mode doesn't do the greatest depth of field possible, etc.

<p>Personally, having used both, I'd recommend the MZ-5n as being something that you'd be able to take further than the MZ-6, as it's better in rapidly changing situations, and you can see its settings at a glance. Just my $.02

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

<p>I checked that site out a couple of days back, it's amazing the level of detail available when you zoom in. You can see an overview of the city, but zoom down to see individual rocks in the gravel rooftop. They automated the entire setup, and (IIRC) they had a computer shift a camera with a 400mm lens to automatically cover the entire field.

 

<p>Some of the points where the stiches join are interesting as well. In one spot there was a bus that morphed into a car, with the bus being on the row that was shot above the row that the car was in. Another one showed half a torso, with the bottom half simply erased. Quite creepy, actually.

 

<p>Something like that would take a helluva long time to make, but imagine the detail available if one were to print it? Billboard size at 300 dpi? Maybe even bigger?

<br>

<br>Jordan R. Urie

<center><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2881956"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2881956-lg.jpg"></a></center>

<p>Nothing fancy, just a 4ft octobox to camera left and an umbrella to the right for fill. I had rented a lighting kit, and persuaded some friends to put up with my muddling around. Learnt a bit about lighting, and decided that I definately need a larger space than the end of my living-room to work in. Anyone in the Edmonton, Alberta area know where I can get temporary (rent-by-the-day) studio space?

Nomi,<br>

 

<p>If your negs are overdeveloped/overexposed, you could look at getting your hands on something called "farmers reducer". In theory it will reduce the density of the negatives. I've never used the stuff, so I'd suggest talking to someone who has, but it should be available, and there is a recipy <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/data.html#d8">here</a> if you want to make your own.

<p>Good luck, and let us know if you end up with any decent images

<br>

<br>

Jordan R. Urie

Jeffrey,<br>

 

<p>Perhaps less time/money on processing and culling proofs? I doubt a portrait session would require even 1/10 the number of frames that a wedding would.<br>

<br>

Jordan R. Urie

Michael,<br>

 

<p>I've had a similar problem with my RB67 once or twice. Check to see if there's any catches that engage/disengage when the darkslide is inserted. On the 120 back for my RB67 Pro there are little catches at the top and bottom that catch once the darkslide is inserted almost all the way in. Pull it out about 1.5cm and they disengage, letting the camera know it's alright to shoot. I've seen them not quite disengage twice, and had to poke them in with a fingernail.

 

<p>Hopefully this was helpful.

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

Prop idea - rubber chicken / rubber fish. Might provoke some interesting responses, and some completely bland ones. Probably give you a decently wide range of responses.

Bill,<br>

 

<p>If I can offer you one piece of advice: never EVER make a decision that could have legal consequences based on advice from the internet. Ever. Trust it as far as you can spit. Even if the person giving the advice knows what they're talking about, they only know for sure what its implications are in their own area (city, state/province, country). The advice could put you in a situation you don't want to be in, so _always_ contact a lawyer if you have a serious legal question. There's no substitute for competent legal advice. Even in your situation, I would talk to someone qualified to give that kind of advice in your area, be they a lawyer, gov't clerk, or whatever, they are infinately more qualified to give you advice than any of us are.<br>

<br>

Jordan R. Urie

Lien,

<br>

<p>Would it be possible to fake the adapter with parts from the local hardware store? I assume that you need to get farther up for more clearance. Perhaps a metal plate or wooden block drilled out to act as a spacer, and some kind of bolt that's male on one end and female on the other? Maybe male-male attached to a female-female coupler? Should only cost a few dollars, but I don't know how stable it would be. If your 645 weighs anything like my RB67, it'd probably be a bad idea without a block of wood or something to snug it up against the tripod shoe...<br>

<br>

Jordan R. Urie

Duncan,<br>

<p>One option might be to buy one of the blacklights that screws into a regular lamp socket from a local party-supply store or headshop (you know, the stores in the "hipper" parts of town that'll also gladly sell you a pipe or hookah for "tobaco"). Try a few test shots, see how they turn out, and return the thing (or keep it, they can be pretty fun. I broke mine a couple of months back and kinda miss it... If you're doing this in Edmonton, AB, Canada, I'd be happy to take it off your hands)

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

Cougar,<br>

<p>What level of changes need to come about before one can re-copyright an image? Simply changing the cropping? Serious dodging and burning? Printing it in a different format, IE in a magazine vs. a gallery print?

<p>I suppose that's a question for the lawyers, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone has had any dealings with that aspect of the law...

<br>

<br>

Jordan R. Urie

Oops! <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009zxt&unified_p=1">I stand corrected</a>.

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie

Andrew,<br>

<br>

<p>He is probably asking because copyrights do run out after a certain number of years (50 here in Canada). If someone had a 51 year old professional print made from the original negatives by the original photographer, it might be questionable as to the copyright status of it. Is it legal for the purchaser to run off a million copy-prints from it for his family or not?

<p>Personally, I doubt that situation would come about often, but stranger things have happened...

<br><br>

Jordan R. Urie