watchin

David,

Please calm down... The pathetic excuse for an entry form was NOT AIMED

AT YOU or any one person... I was referring to this silly box I'm now typeing run-on sentences into which will not allow me to format anything unless I know and use (correctly) HTML.

I did not think I was being rude, just terse and to the point. If I was rude to you (like you have returned in kind to everyone that disagrees with you!) then I will apologise.

RUDENESS WAS NOT THE POINT !

Trying to get a problem and frustration fixed WAS THE POINT..

Greg

THANK YOU Bas... That is exactly what I was getting at.

And just because someone will put up with a pathetic excuse for a data entry mode, does not mean that "it works fine for the rest of us."

I've been using this board for "a while" and NO I won't get used to it.

I've been doing the <br> junk and that is what I'm complaining about,

that's NONSENSE.

Take a look at some other boards (DigitalDingus, Steve's Forums, DPreview, etc..) and you'll see the non-amateur methods in use.

Brian, I know you guys are doing all you can to improve this board,

ergo the great thrashing lately with critiques and galleries... BUT

DAMN IT - this is silly! With the size of the membership and the number of hits per day... come on!

.... return soap box to corner ... deep breath, deep breath ....

.... say a few mantra's ....

Okay I'm calm again, ;{)

Greg

The StoFen came standard with my SB80 and it does have it's uses, but

won't help in the situation that Nick was eluding to, at least I don't think so....

I like the STOFEN as well but again in combination with a bounce to a medium/low ceiling. It also cuts the range QUITE a bit in open area mode.

Greg

When will someone PLEASE fix these stupid entry pages so that they

do not screw up plain text ( if I wanted this to be one continouse line

I'd have entered it that way ) and the first person that tells me I

should use HTML ENCODING in my

reply posts... THIS IS A PHOTO FORUM NOT A DAMN WEB PAGE CONSTRUCTION

SIMINAR. This has been BROKE and STUPID since day ONE... why hasn't

this ever gotten fixed.

(if you say you can't do it, I say FOOOEY go look at some of the other

web forums, they allow a mixture of HTML and plain text quite well.)

ARGH... do you get the idea I'm frustrated.... well DUH, good guess!

Greg

If you want to try out a "free" version of the bouncer, here's

a template and instructions to make your own. Try it if you like it

then go buy a "real" one.... I did ;{)

Greg

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid={0C537F65-5D2E-4921-A34D-346C4244F0AC}&inv=19218D41258C6FE&userid={0C537F65-5D2E-4921-A34D-346C4244F0AC}&AlbumId={40EED9A5-7703-11D5-AB2C-00400542FB64}&inv=19218D41258C6FE&GroupId={C86DCA73-0045-4EC6-940C-E69ECF5543A2}

I use a Fuji S2 with SB80dx. I've done weddings and events sometimes

having the same problem. I too only liked the results with a ceiling

bounce,which doesn't work with no low ceiling. I tried the Lumiquest

pocket bounce, it seems to solve the problem for me but you've still

gotta watch it.

In addition I'd get the flash OFF the camera and ON a

flip bracket. Primarily so you can do verticles with the flash orientation in proper position, but also to raise the flash up

so you don't get red eye (in low light areas it's more prevalent).<div></div>

People have come to the conclusion, however unwarranted, that they are

entitled to "an expectation of privacy" no matter the location.

A case in point:

I was practicing photographing people teeing off at a golf course. I was scheduled to shoot a golf tournament the following week and wanted to work on my timing and framing. I had talked with the course management and gotten approval to take pictures "as long as they aren't published, and you don't bother the members". Fair enough...

16th tee - I'm shooting with a 300mm lens and set up in the open on a

monopod. A lady tees off then runs to her golf cart, races over to me,

and demands "What do you think you are doing? This is an invasion of my privacy! I'm going to have you arrested!". No preliminaries, no coutesies, just aggression. I informed her I was there with permission, and the conditions, I also informed her that I was deleting the photos (digital camera) as we spoke. She continued to

harass me for 5 minutes until I informed her that she was close to the point of public harasment and I would call the cops if she did not stop. She actually acted shocked, but left, yelling all the way back to the tee.

The cops (as stupid as they can be at times) were only reflecting the

public ignorance and rudeness. If the management had not placed the "do not bother our members" restriction on me I would have discussed the photos with people before they teed off (or got teed off ;{).

I also believe that if people had some symbolence of common courtesy they would ask a question instead of posing a verbal attack in common situations. This would have prevented the scene above and kept things civilized.

Just my opinion (under my own copyright ;{)

Greg

I don't have a D70 but a polarizer is a polarizer....anyway...

If the kit lens has a tulip shade you should be able to use the

filter with no problem. I've been using one on the 24-85 AFs G 3.5-4.6

lens for a while (also 67 mm).

Some people have suggested getting a step up ring and using 77 mm filter

for all lenses. I tried it with my lens and it ran afoul of the shade, while the normal sized one didn't.

Yes you need a circular polarizer. Hoya seems to make a reasonable one. Do NOT go for the cheapest you can find, this is one case where you get what you pay for...

I'd also suggest putting a UV or H1a filter on the lens and leaving it there (even under the Polarizer) for safty.

The only down size to using the filter with the shade is you can't see the little aiming point (which I find useless anyway), but you can do it by eye via the viewfinder (better!)...

Hope that helps,

Greg

Please don't cross post the same question in several forums.

Since this is the wrong place, how about using the other posting

in Digital Darkroom forum.

I'm not a moderator, but I'm interested in the answers and several

places is a bummer to monitor.

FWIW - the Universal is "newer" than the 23 in design, but takes the

same lenses (if I remember right), also available is the G back and Graflok film holders as well as any accessories that fit the Graflok back.

I understand that the G back is a prized possession and hard to get.

Might I ask why the ground glass approach? The range finder focus on

this camera is quite good, and the camera is really designed to be

handheld "press" style medium format.

If you are going for a view camera... why not buy a view camera?

I've used Photoreflect for about a year.

There is no monthly fee, nor image fee. All costs are rolled into the

processing fees 15% for eCommerce and 3% for payment processing.

There are no limits on number of events, nor number of photographs per event. I've not seen a limit on how long an event stays current.

Processing is via thier software once you've set up the photos for display.

There are some limits on packaging and special items. The display

quality is limited to one size thumbnails and one size "expanded" view. The quality of the images displayed need improving.

Thier templates on web site layout is limited, but not bad.

Notice I use a private domain alias that is proxied to thier

site.

I'd recommend getting your own domain that you can set up your

proxy lists and email lists. (I'm using ArborDomains)

Hope this helps,

Greg

Kelly - Yeah, good point about the WinNT register hacks, and that Win2K "supposedly" got rid of the need for them. That's what I meant by modern ones not ignoring L2.

Win2K will "use" dual processors, but I was referring to spliting a single process context across the processors. Currently all of the OSes do CPU allocation based on processes, not tasks or threads.

It used to be that all of the system level processing, interrupt handling, and driver code got allocated to the primary CPU, so even a process running on the second CPU will do a processor swap when a context switch goes to kernel mode. And forget about doing parallel threading, or even subprocesses in parallel. Even the latest Windows only handles, what, 4 CPUs?

So with even some of those limitation, not to mention what it would

cost to upgrade the system for SMP, I'm going to stick to single CPU

for now.

I'll learn more about 2K+3 Server as I go ... I was just fishing for

any "are you nuts, it'll ruin your world, burn down the house, and make the cat leave home" type problems...

Life is a grand adventure.. just wish EVERYTHING wasn't so @#$% grand ... Let the adventure continue ;{)

Greg

Kelly - I don't know of any "modern" OS's that turn off L2 cache. As a

matter of fact, I don't know that they CAN turn it off. In the older

Systems and Non-Intel Systems it was common to turn off L2 for certain

operations or modes of running, I haven't heard of that in a while.

Anyone know if that is still a capability on Intel (turning off L2)?

I do know that most flavors of Windows don't use multiple CPUs well. I understand that is getting "fixed", and I believe 2003 Server is one

of the fixes.

As mentioned you don't need a boom, it just makes it easier sometimes.

If you have trouble finding the Hukabar clamps, I've used the Bogen "super clamp" with equal success. B&H has them (I think they're around

$25-35..

You can do the same thing with a tall light stand and a weight bag on the legs (higher you go, longer the moment arm, harder the crash...weight it down or be sorry WARNING!).

Play with it, have fun.

Greg

To answer your question... ask a few more...

How long do you want to keep the lens without having to overhaul it?

How hard are you on your equipment, conditions and such ?

How careful do you want to be in positioning and framing to avoid lens internal problems?

If the answers are "years", "it needs to work where I am", "I worry

about the shot and don't want to worry about the lens"... get the Nikon.

Understand that the Nikon is a beast, it's big and heavy. But it's

a beautiful beast, it's smooth, balanced, sharp, quiet, fast, and built like an M-1 Abrahms....

If spending $1500 for a lens boggles your pocket... get the Tamrom.

Let's see ... fired up the old ouija board (computerized of course)...

survey says... (oooops mixed metaphor, sorry)

Answer - don't worry be happy, just realize that the camera body dictates which lenses you can use. Pick the camera for the job it does,

pick the lenses for the quality you need. The hell with the mumbling x factor.

By the time they change the x factor, and you change cameras ... who knows you might go Canon (God forbid! wash my mouth out with soap).

or even worse you might go Fuji with Nikon glass ... (think I'll be moderated out now ;{)

You'll see bigger sensors in the future but unless you want

to spend BIG bucks you'll have better images with the current size

sensors for at least a few years.

I'm "stuck" with Nikon lenses with my darn Fuji S2 ... and love it as well ;{)

I've the same tele and a Tamron 2X N-AFd BBAR MC7 which works well

with it. Looked at the MC5 version but this is much better quality.

Haven't seen any problems so far. It works well with the AF and the

exposures are still spot on with the Fuji S2.

I wouldn't use 2x for close up, the lens alone is much better.

Nothing wrong with G type lenses. I have 2, one I use all the time

(24-85 AFs) and one I never use (70-300 AF) the only reason I don't

use the 70-300 is I hate the focus hunting. I have an 80-200 AF 2.8f

two touch that focuses like an AFs I love.

Depends on your pocketbook. Some people love the 70-300 (~$125). I

personally rather the 80-200 (~$900). In my opinion the apeture ring

issue is mote (ie G non-G), it's the max apeture and focus performance, and of course the overall quality of the glass.

Just MHO ... I bought 2 lenses because I made (I feel) a bad choice

the first time. At least it wasn't a REAL expensive mistake. If you

decide on the 70-300 let me know... ;{)

For what it's worth, the 80-200 or 70-300 is a good range but I'd

invest in a decent 2x to go with it if you're going to do nature stuff.

Have fun, it's beautiful country around there - Greg

I use ABees with the grid as well.

Usually you want a focused illumination for the hair/head light. Therefore a softbox, which is a diffused spread illuminator, is

the opposite of what you'd use. The snoot tends to give a sharp point

of light, the grid an intense focused but wider and feathered area.

I use 20 degree grid... what are others using? They come in 10,20,30,40 for the AB/WL.

CPU cache is usually fixed in hardware.

I believe he is referring to allocation of RAM to be used as disk and file cache.

In other versions of server you can tweek the amount of read/write cache used for disk drives, CDs, file, directory and network channels.

I'm still learning about 2K+3 but I would assume they are still there as that was one of the "fine tuning" aspects of Win Servers.

Each successive version has improve the mechanism to tune these, maybe it's even easier... time will tell.

BTW - Scott - Why not start a thread on "Why no PS on Linux?",

it'll either be a real interesting discussion or a zealot war...;{)

Sounds like it's a go for 2K+3 with a fallback to Win2K server if

that gives too much grief. Thanks for the input everyone.

Now to find the time to do it... and survive the downtime on the server.

If anyone has gotcha points to avoid, please chime in. I really only

want to do this once ;{)

Scott - Glad to hear that the network is improved ! That is one

thing I'm looking for. I agree Win2K wasn't any great wonder (matter of fact neither are any of the other windows flavors I've tried.)

If I could get Photoshop and the other tools to run on Linux...

but that's another "Lost Weekend", so I won't go there.

Have you noticed

anything else of significance??

Qiang Lin - You mentioned "The server version is not bad, but it turns on a lot of services by default."

If so can you give me some details on 2003 server it would help? I am used to the server version turning on a lot of extra services that I have to shutdown to get reasonable performance in interactive mode. I'm just

wondering if they've added some to the set...

I'm not too concerned about the extra questions, I've done this a few

(tooo many) times so I have somewhat of a clue. The support issue is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" so you just lie a little (only slightly kidding ;{)

to Kevin Hundsnurscher - No going SMP is too expensive and doesn't seem to offer much in my situation unless I do a total swap to a "real" SMP supporting OS and application set.

As to the suggestions of Win2K - I'm considering that as well. I have a license and distribution kit. I'm just investigating if this might be a better option.

John - yeah I know this is supposed to be a server room version, but quite frankly that's goodness. Microsoft NT flavors are all server room versions, the workstation just has leg chains and a hood on ;{).

My experience has been that if you are using a mixed mode system (server / workstation) with a spread of peripherals, you are better off with the server version. Does that sound reasonable?

OH - I didn't mention that this is enterprise edition of 2K+3.

I've done several of these installs (primarily Win2K, XP, more 98SE than I can to think about, and just about every flavor of NT up til now) so that's why I'm polling for information.

"Weekend from hell" - yep, but how did you get done so quick ?? ;{)

The XP route doesn't impress me much, I've been using it on the laptop

and it's basically Win2K with a stupid GUI added on, and half the tools hidden. Besides I can't think of a good reason to spend another $179 if I can go the NT (Win2Kpro or 2K+3) route.

I guess the next question is, other than the obviouse "weekend in hell" which I'll probably suffer no matter what, is there any reason

to avoid this version.... ??