fju

<p>Hello everyone. I need advice and hope you can help.</p>

<p>I have Lightroom 2 on a mac and it is crashing on me every time I use it. I've had it for about 8 months or more and it has never had problems until now. I get that spinning wheel and then the whole computer freezes up and I have to shut it down manually. It only seems to happen about 10 minutes after I open LR but I'm also having smaller problems when I use Safari.</p>

<p>A friend suggested I uninstall LR then reinstall it. I think my computer may have a virus so I'm considering wiping the hard drive and starting everything over from scratch.</p>

<p>My question is, what steps do I need to take in order to save all of the color correction, cropping, etc. information that I have done to each image. I have the catalog backed up to an external drive but will that save all of the editing I've done to the images? Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I forgot to mention that I shoot film. <br>

Peter, I was given an F50 as a gift and I love the size of the viewfinder magnification. It's a .78 pentaprism and my Canon camera has a .70 pentamirror. I only own one Canon lens so it's not a big deal for me to switch.</p>

<p>David, thanks.</p>

<p>Alan, according to your link the 50/1.8D exhibits a lot of CA. The 50/1.4D is better but still not great for a prime. Does anyone know what the best Nikkor 50mm lens is if CA is the main concern? Perhaps if I look at the non 'D' versions?</p>

<p>I'm switching from Canon to Nikon and I'd like some opinions on my 2 lens choices. I prefer normal lenses, so I may start with the 50/1.8D and the 35/2D.</p>

<p>Are these 2 lenses a good choice as far as avoiding chromatic aberration is concerned? I mostly shoot fashion so sharpness and contrast are not my most important factors. I mainly want to avoid CA at larger apertures. I shoot quite a lot at f/2 in bright sunlight.</p>

<p>I currently use a Canon EOS 28/1.8 (usually at f/2) and am unhappy with the chromatic aberration I get at larger apertures. I'm happy with the lack of light fall-off and sharpness is acceptable. If I were to switch to a rangefinder, would I find much better results at f/2?<br>

Everything I've read about rangefinders claims that rangefinder lenses are sharper and better corrected than their SLR equivalents, especially on the wide end. However, I have not sen any direct testing of this and I would like to know, assuming they are better, how much better are they?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you to everyone. Sorry for the late response.</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

You misread my initial post. I was asking about 12x18 prints, not 8x12.</p>

<p>Patrick,<br>

Thank you very much for that information.</p>

<p>It seems like the labs that offer the papers I'd like to use are the labs that want you to interpolate yourself. The exception is Adoramapix. I don't know what resolution they use so I'll likely send them files "as is".</p>

<p>Fuji matte is more of a semi-gloss. It is less shiny than gloss, but still has some shine to it.<br>

I have in front of me a sample print of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag paper which has a true matte finish. I can hold it directly under my ceiling light and there is no reflection, no shininess, off the print. The catch is that, as I understand it, this paper is for inkjet printers.<br>

Is there a similar paper for use on a Lightjet or Chromira printer?</p>

<p>I have been shooting with film SLRs for about 10 years, but just bought my first dSLR (Canon XTi) a couple of months ago. I would like to make some 12x18 prints and find that with little or no cropping, my files are just big enough to print at 200 dpi. I do not have a home printer and will be using an on-line service for these prints. My understanding is that I have the following options: <br>

A) send the lab a 200 dpi file and ask them to print it at 200 dpi<br>

B) send the lab a 200 dpi file and have the printing machine up-res to 300 dpi<br>

C) up-res the file myself when exporting from Light Room<br>

<br /> I think I might prefer to have them printed at 200 dpi, simply because I imagine up-resing would add some digital artifacts, even if only a little. If anyone has used all 3 methods I would like to know what you think.</p>

I am interested in trying a MF camera, most likely a Pentax 645, but have a question regarding achieving a shallow depth of field. When

shooting 35mm film, I prefer using fast 28mm or 35mm lenses, wide open, to achieve a (somewhat) shallow DoF.

I was looking at an online calculator to determine whether or not I could get a more shallow DoF from a medium format camera than what I

can get from a 35/1.4 lens on 35mm. According to the site "http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html" I cannot.

The numbers I put in were:

35mm lens, f/1.4 aperture for 135 = DoF 2.11 ft.

55mm lens, f/2.8 aperture for 645 = DoF 2.56 ft.

60mm lens, f/3.4 aperture for 6x6 = DoF 2.55 ft.

These assume a subject distance of 10 ft.

Thoughts?

I use an old eMac with a 1.25 GHz processor and 512MB of RAM. The viewable area of the screen is about 15" diagonally. I recently used

the trial version of Adobe LightRoom 2 and it ran perfectly fine for the month I had it, even though the minimum RAM requirement is

supposedly 1GB. It would be a bit slow for the first 5 or minutes or so, but smooth after that. I had no problem editing photos on my slow

computer with a small screen. If you are on a budget, I would consider a Mac Mini and a good monitor, or a 20" iMac. Any of the

computers you mention will run LR 2 and Photoshop just fine. Hope this helps.

Thank you all for your responses.

Helen, my comment was regarding E-4040 as well. I don't recall where it was on the

website that they mention 1/1000 sec., but I believe that page was referring to all of their

films. It included information on reversal films as well as B&W.

Dan, I'm new to Kodak Portra films but in the past I always shot Fuji NPH rated at 320. I

did this as a precaution for that specific film, and I always shot NPZ 800 at 800.

In my brief experience with Portra 160NC I cannot not see any difference between the

frames shot at 100, 125, and 160.

Does anyone know if I need to compensate for failure of reciprocity when shooting at shutter speeds of

1/4000 sec?

I'm referring specifically to Kodak Portra films. In one part of their website, they say that failure of

reciprocity can occur at shutter speeeds of 1/1000 sec. and faster. But in a different part of their site

they seem to say you can shoot up to 1/10,000 sec. without need for compensation.

Thank you for the responses. I'm going to use NPH and 400UC to see which one I like

better. I've used NPH many times but never for B&W.

I'm planning to have B&W prints made on a Fuji Frontier machine from shots taken with color film,

which films do you recommend and why? These will be portraits using 35mm film.

Thank you for the advice.

I'm going to focus manually, omit the polarizer, and use a lens hood to press against the

glass. I won't be using any flash and I expect exposure times of about 1 or 2 seconds.

Sound good?

Is there a tungsten balanced print film faster than ISO 100?

I'm planning a photo shoot and need advice on what to use and how to go about this. I'll

be shooting through a glass window at night.

This is what I plan to use:

Nikon F50,

17-35mm f/2.8 lens,

Kodak Portra 100T,

and a Polarizer

I don't know what type of polarizer I'll need to eliminate reflections from the window glass.

Linear or Circular?

I'd like to press the camera lens up against the glass to minimize motion (instead of using

a tripod). Will this work?

Thank you for your advice.

Stacy, that's motion blur, NOT a focusing problem.

To help this you need to be conscious of the shutter speed you are using. It helps to have

shorter, faster lenses, and to shoot with higher ISOs.

I was at Samys Fairafax a couple of weeks ago and they had very little used Contax or

Leica. One body of each, I think. They present the collectibles as being just that, and

useless for shooting.

Bel-Air has a lot more in the used dept.