h_s1

Any Canon FL users out there or what? · August 8, 2010

I have used an FT QL. Wonderful experience! The Quick Loading feature is quite convenient, similar to the motorized system of modern electronic cameras (EOS). The meter has never let me down. I am currently using an FTb body, but I have an FL lens among other FD lenses.

The biggest convenience in FTb is, of course, the wide aperture metering. No need to stop the lens down. I gather that otherwise FTb is quite similar to the FT (except the focusing screen, of course). The simplicity yet the professionalism of the FT QL is quite impressive, e.g. a dedicated button for the mirror lockup.

August 8, 2010

Ben, yes, you are correct. When I was working on it and browing various web pages, I had similar thoughts. Looks like since the squeak was observed, it happened when the shutter was release and that relation to the shutter probably gave rise to the now famous name. Besides, I gather that it is impossible to make the squeak happen in a camera normally without releasing the shutter.

August 8, 2010

Dave, thanks for the confirmation. I am have also learned the weird quirky procedure to follow if one ever wants to check the depth of field in this camera! The camera appears to be working okay after my partial and so far incomplete CLA. The flash also works, it fires 299T on every shot when it should, no shutter capping. I will wait to decide how good a job I did regarding cleaning the shutter spindles till I get the first roll back in a couple of days.

Mark, I READ the Manual.

August 8, 2010

Just acquired an AE-1. The camera was suffering from the infamous shutter squeak. I remove the top (with special care given to how to remove the shutter/ASA speed dial so as not to break the infamous tungsten wire) and used a syringe to drop two very tiny droplets of lubricating oil onto the flywheel. Sufficient info is available no the web on how to do this. The squeak is history! I am shooting a role to check the exposure (it appears to be over exposing by 1 stop AFAICT). My next project will be to replace its seals in the back, perhaps the mirror damper foam and then lubricate its critical parts with appropriate lubes.

However, I have noticed a quirk. If I point the camera to a scene, half click the shutter release button so that the needle in the viewfinder moves and points to an f-stop, and then recompose, the needle doesn't stay at that f-stop. It appears as if the exposure is not being locked by half clicking the shutter release button and that the meter is continuously measuring the scene illumination as the button is half pressed. Is this correct or is something the matter with my camera?

Thanks.

July 8, 2010

Monika, yes, I have looked and there is a method to save the owner's name in the camera. But that is not what I am asking.

Ben, that worked wonderfully. Thanks a ton! I was even able to change the copyright field as well.

I was able to batch process all the raw files from DPP and zoom browser in various way, but couldn't find a method to change that EXIF field. I will be surprised if it is not possible using Canon's software, but your method is even more general!

July 8, 2010

I see. Canon's Zoom Browser shows the information as "Owner's name". But yes, you are right in understanding what I want to do. Thanks for the suggestion, I will give it a try.

July 8, 2010

I have a few hundred photos whose EXIF "Owner's name" field I want to modify. I have installed Canon digital cameras' software (zoom browser, EOS utility, DPP, etc.). Is there a method to select the photos whose field I want to change, change the field and apply that change to all the photos? In other words, can I change an EXIF field in Canon's digital cameras' software in a batch mode for a bunch of files at a time?

Thanks.

July 6, 2010

I tried Brooks' advice. Here is the report.

I downloaded the exe files listed down below from Canon's download web site. Of those, the following required no CD or prior installed software: * Canon RAW Codec 1.7.0 (rc170upd_7l.exe) When I tried to install the following, they prompted for a Canon CD with the corresponding software on it. I used my G5's CD and the installation proceeded and completed successfully. * Digital Photo Professional 3.8.1 Updater for Windows (dpp381en.exe) * EOS Utility 2.8.1 Updater for Windows (eu281en.exe ) * Picture Style Editor 1.7.0 for Windows (pse170en.exe) * ZoomBrowser EX 6.5.1 Updater for Windows Vista / Windows 7 (zb651vistaupd-en.exe) The following did not work with the G5's CD, wanted a prior installation of the corresponding software: * Original Data Security Tools 1.8.0 Updater for Windows (ods180en.exe)

I chose not to install the following:

* WFT Utility 3.5.1 for Windows (wft351en.exe )

Not sure if I need this at this moment.

Right now I am transfering photos from the DSLR directly. A program auto started when I connected the camera to the computer via a USB cable, asked for tags and started the transfer.

Thanks!

July 6, 2010

All good answers. Here is one approach I have used at times when I did not have micro fiber cloth at hand.

Put a some drops of naphtha on a cotton bud (the ones used by women for makeup), or on a plain earbud (but this can leave lint on the lens), and gently wipe across the lens in circular motions. Naphtha dissolves all those oily smears the lens may have and evaporates leaving nothing back. Not to be done if there is dirt and sand on the lens though, use a blower for that first.

July 5, 2010

John, perhaps this will answer your questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus#USB_3.0

Robert:

Yup, backing up all that 1 TB data *will* take time. However, note that 1 TB is the max capacity (actually, around 90~95% of that is all that can be used out of it). What I do is do a backup of my current data, the "seed" backup or the initial backup (which I did a few years ago, when it was 20 GB). All subsequent backups are updates to the older one, i.e. newer files get added, deleted files get removed from the backup, etc and that updates are usually of some gigabytes only, never 10s of GB. I use rsync tool (available in Linux and Unix since ages) which is precisely for this kind of situation. It is a very sophisticated tool (there are other tools too in Linux, all free). That, and the cost cannot be beat, $ 0.00! :-)

So, I started with around 20 GB of data, which took an hour or two to backup IIRC. But all subsequent backups have included the updates to the previous ones, which are not that big if done regularly.

July 5, 2010

William, yes, I agree with what you wrote. USB 3.0 appears to be interesting, I am assembling a new computer whose chipset has USB 3.0 (and eSATA). Would be interesting to see how it goes.

Regarding the "cheap and hugest", you are right the way you phrased it, my way was poor. I had meant to explain to get the most economical drive one can get while keeping in mind the size, speed and application requirements. For example, one can get away with a cheaper disk which has a lower cache if it is just an external drive for backups (internal drive, for rapid data transfer, benefits with larger cache and thus justifies the expense). I also choose to have one 1 TB instead of 2 500 GB just to keep things simple (easier to scoot off with just one disk).

July 4, 2010

Brooks, that is wonderful to know. I was going to install it from the Cd first and then download the update. But your method appears to install the newest one provided it sees the user's original CD.

Thanks.

July 4, 2010

Great! Thanks for the tips. I will do this and report back if there were any issues.

Regards.

July 4, 2010

I have a Canon Powershot A520 and a G5. I want to install Canon's software on a new computer. Does anybody know which camera's CD should I use to install the software so that my both Cameras can work with it (I don't have to install both, do I?? Also, I have a friend who bought a newer Canon digital camera (a DSLR) and we want to play with its photos. Would that camera's software also work with my older ones?

In other words, are Canon's various digital cameras' softwares backward compatible? And can I just installed the one from the newest camera and will it support Canon's all digital cameras?

Thanks.

July 4, 2010

RAID is good for data reliability on the fly. If a disk crashes, the computer can still work with other disks on the RAID. But RAID is *not* a backup solution. In other works, if you use RAID, you can still lose data that is not backed up somewhere else.

Here is one option, most probably the cheapest:

1. Get a hard disk, the cheapest and the hugest you can get (1 TB might be the sweet spot) to connect in your computer (not an external one). The internal hard disk will give you the highest data transfer rate. Whether you can add more disks in your computer depends on your motherboard. Save and work with your photos on this hard disk.

2. Get an external hard disk (USB or firewire, depends on your computer and your choice) sufficiently large. Use this disk only to save backups of your photos from your computer's internal disk. This external disk can be picked up and taken along in case of an emergency.

3. Make backups regularly from the internal hard disk to the external one. Say after every project or every week or every months, depending on your schedule and load of work.

This is the method I use. I have a Linux machine in which one of the hard disks has my personal photos. I have written a script that backs up these photos to an external hard disk (using rsync). Works very well. Further, in my hard disk, I also generate md5 sums of each of the image files. So in case my disk get corrupted without warning, I can find out exactly which image files are not good anymore, by regenerating their md5sum and comparing it with the saved sum, and restore them from the backup ... all this happens via a shell script of course, so no manual labor is required.

June 24, 2010

I am scanning a Kodak Elite Chrome 200 film on my Epson Perfection 4490 Photo scanner. I have done it twice, once with Vuescan (where I gather that I cannot use the usual workflow as I do in a negative film: lock exposure, film base lock, etc.) and then with Epson's own scanning software.

I have noticed that I am getting better results with Epson's software. I scan the frames, while tweaking the levels in each frame's thumbnail. I choose max sharpening and low "dirt removal" (for some reason, with Ice I get "unable to write to file error" randomly). I get tif files that I then convert to jpg afterwords.

In Vuescan, I do a preview, adjust the frame crops and save as dng. The dng is then processed in Unfraw in Linux where I then adjust the white balance and curves for better contrast and brightness.

Of these two methods, the output (intensity, shadow detail) comes out to be better by Epson's own software. But white balance is better in Vuescan's (actually, it is easily fixed in Ufraw, Vuescan's advantage is that it produces dng files). So, if I could just fix the color balance in Epson's own software, it would be great.

How do others' use white balance setting in Epson's scanning software? The basic problem I see is that I cannot "lock" the white balance from one of the frames for the rest of the scan from a fill roll.

BTW, apparently there is only one shop that processed E6 in Montreal now. I opted for a CD as well from them for my last two rolls that I had them process. My scans from 4490 appear to be better than theirs! Theirs' are only slightly better in shadow details, as far as I see. But perceptually and in terms of sharpness and color, my own scans are way better than theirs. Yay!

Thanks.

June 22, 2010

Janne, exactly what I was looking for!

Now if I could only find the same experiment but with a slide film.

Thanks for the link, much appreciated.

June 19, 2010

Tim, I agree with your practice of leaving the leader out when you give it for processing. I also have set my cameras to leave the leader out from rewind note the rewind dot when rewinding in the older ones. In the former case, the camera winds the film to the first frame anyway, skipping over X, 00 and 0 frames I think. Now, in the latter case, I find it fun to get as many frames out of a film as possible. Got 28 frames out of the last 24 frame slide flim I got processed :)

I do that by loading the film in the camera in the dark, having charged the camera for action first (so that I can take the first show without having to wind the film). First I position the leader on the sprocket, without taking more of it out of the cassette, darken the room, and pull the cartridge towards its compartment in the camera back. The effect is that the first frame is usually good, it is the one usually marked as X on the film.

The problem, however, is that the tech might pull the leader further out and destroy the first frame. This happened with me once a few months ago. I know it because the tech did it right in front of me while I was standing there :( Since then, I just roll the leader into the cassette.

June 19, 2010

James, you are correct. Thanks.

Just to clarify a bit more, the 0 EC I mentioned is understandably whatever the system of calculating the exposure decides (be it human or a machine). And the other exposure are, of course, relative to this one. A perfect exposure of a scene is very subjective and cannot be decided by a formula (for natural images). What I am looking for really is a display of the photos where the photographer discusses his/her interpretations for exposure bracketed shots. Ideally, the shots will be of natural scenes or of people in usual situations.

June 19, 2010

Does somebody know of a website which has examples of photos showing the effects of exposure at various levels, e.g. 0, -1, +1, -0.5, +0.5, etc.? I am interested in images scanned from film only. I suppose this would entail having the scanner at fixed exposure settings so that inter-shot exposure differences are retained. It doesn't matter if it is negative or slide film, but I am expecting that slide film may be better suited for this experiment.

Thanks.

June 16, 2010

If tweaking the rangefinder settings does not solve the problem, then my suspicion is that the focus may be off. In any case, it doesn't hurt to verify it. Does this modem have B setting? If yes, then confirm focus is quite easy. If not, then it is quite tricky to do so.

First, open the back and stick some translucent or frosted cello tape where a film frame is positioned to take a shot. Next, mount the camera with its back open on a tripod and pint it to a distant object. If you have window nearby, point it at least some hundreds of meters away and set its lens focus to infinity mark. At this point, you should have a sharp image on the artificial screen of tape at the back. A loupe really eases this determination (I use a 50 mm lens to do this). With this you can confirm if you focus ring is correctly set. There is no point in adjusting your rangefinder until you confirm this.

Now, if the infinity scene is not in focus at infinity setting of focus ring, you need to adjust the focus ring to do the correction. Are there any grub screws around the focus ring?

Now, after you set the infinity mark, you can confirm if shorter distances are also correct. Try it with an object at 2 m for example, it should be in focus at reasonably close to 2m mark on the focus ring. If this is off (yet infinity is correct), then the lens elements have been moved, you probably would need to tighten them (they are correctly placed when they are snugly screwed in).

Please let us know how it goes. And if you can post picture of the procedure, even better. Everybody loves pictures here :)

May 31, 2010

I scanned the bridge photo slide again, but this time with Epson's scanning software. The sharpness is slightly improved, but this perhaps is due to the film being flat now. I suppose the lack of apparently sharpness probably has more to do with shallow depth of field (50 mm lens at f/1.8) than with anything else. The bridge itself is in focus though, but it is quite small part of the whole frame.

But what was starkly different in the Epson scanner was the colors it gave me from the slide film. This particular photo is not as warm as the one I posted earlier (which was scanned with vuescan), but that is by design. All the slide frames that I scanned with Epson's software came quite out much better than the ones done by Vuescan in terms of color.

May 31, 2010

Looks good!

Given your experiences, I think I will also give wet scanning a shot. It does looks to improve things quite a bit.

However, the scan with the slide I linked previously is quite bad. Here is one that I did from a film (some unsharpening in post processing, but it the photo was quite sharp enough to begin with as compared to the slide frame above): <a title="Butterfly by hs.sam, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4656761144_8e1116c69a_b.jpg" alt="Butterfly" width="1024" height="686" /></a>

Taken with a very old Konica Auto S2 rangefinder camera (I was trying it out after I fixed and cleaned it; got it broken from ebay), on Kodak Color Plus 200 film and scanned with the same scanner. Note that the focus is off by a tiny amount (the butter fly is supposed to be in focus, not the leaves just ahead of it). I fixed the focus error after this roll was taken.

So something really went wrong when I scanned my slide film. I think I will try scanning it one more time (with Epson's software) to see if I get better results.

May 28, 2010

Peter, thanks for the link. It looks interesting. And a bit messy too :)

I haven't ever tried this wet process. If you have, what are you experiences regarding the scratches than one can get on the cellophane cover, or the risk of damage to the film due to its wetting and subsequent drying, etc.?

May 28, 2010

I deal with the curl in a freshly processed film by putting it under a number of heavy books for a couple of days. It works quite well. And that is what I did in this case as well ... the film did not flatten as usual, but it was not badly curled anymore (they gave me the slide film in Print File).

So far, I haven't had a reason to adjust the film holders. You say to shim it up a bit. Why not down?

Also, have you used Epson's own scanning software? If yes, what is your opinion of it?

In 4490, how does on adjust the carrier? I will try to search google to see how to build one though.

I am not sure I understand how dirt can cause the line across the frame. It might be due to dirt on the sensor itself, since if it were on the glass only, the dirt would need to travel with the sensor to create the streak, no?

Thanks.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by h_s1