mwr

<p>What a pleasure to be back in v1. I had decided to stay away, that v2 was way too much trouble (including things that just didn't work) to spend time with.</p>

<p>I bought this YongNuo remote shutter release several years ago for my XSi. I didn't use it much, if at all. I now have a 650D and just found this gadget. It has the original CR2 lithium battery in it and doesn't seem to work. I can find no instruction manual either here on paper or online. I see no model number on either unit.<br /> - Does it work with only the one CR2 battery in the almost-square unit, with the other unit not having a battery (I can see no way to open that case)?<br /> - Is it worth getting a new CR2 battery for (and possibly a battery for whatever is inside the transmitter case)? Are newer ones enough better that it would be best to get a new one (they don't seem to cost much)? I'd prefer one that used commonly-available batteries (AA, AAA)<br /> All comments appreciated.<img src="http://ruthvenphotos2.com/files/IMG_1809_1000h.jpg" alt="" width="1129" height="1000" /></p>

<p>1. Are the canvas prints gallery wrapped around a frame? If so, how many inches on each of the four sides wold be "wrapped" and not be viewed on the front? I'd like to add a plain border to preserve the entire image for the front.</p>

<p>2. Is the largest pixel size on any one dimension still 6000 pixels? That's not much for very large prints. I have a pano I'm interested in putting on here but would like it to be 12,000 pixels wide.</p>

<p>The Canon S95 and S100 produce high-quality images from a truly-pocketable camera. Here are some images from my S100.<br>

<a href="http://ruthvenphotos.com/s100">http://ruthvenphotos.com/s100 </a></p>

<p>>I would like to come close to reproducing the quality I am use to<<br>

What uses are your photos put to? For web/computer display, I find my pocketable S100 to be, for most subjects, as good as my XSi. I had 12"x18" prints made of the same finely-detailed landscape scene taken with both cameras, and I could tell the difference if I looked from a few inches away wearing my prescription reqading glasses, but not otherwise.<br>

Here are a variety of subjects from my S100 (no action shots if that's your thing).<br>

<a href="http://ruthvenphotos.com/s100">http://ruthvenphotos.com/s100</a></p>

<p>I have a Canon XSi, not a Nikon, but I use my Canon 10-22mm (16-35mm equivalent) lens a lot as an all-purpose walk-around lens. Of course, one reason it's so good for that is that it goes to 35mm equiv. at the long end.</p>

<p>Just another data point. I had a Dell P4 2.8Ghz with 2GB RAM until recently when it died. It ran my Photoshop CS2 just fine (I don't know how much slower CS4 would be). I replaced it with a $600 Lenovo notebook/laptop, G530 model 444625U (highest spec G530), Intel Core2 Duo 2Gh, 3GB RAM and 250GB hard drive. It's way faster then the Dell it replaced. It runs my external monitor just fine and also the 500GB external drives I use for data I don't need to carry with me (one for main, two for backup). And it's super quiet!</p>

<p>Just a follow up. I got the Speed Freak instead of the Speed Racer (not on purpose; not going to tell the story here) and I find that this smaller pack holds my XSi and five lenses, one mounted on the camera, and a flash unit plus a few accessories. So it does the job for me in an even smaller package. I'm still getting used to accessing everything. I'll mainly use that bag to carry everything to where I'm going, then use a small selection of equipment in a smaller bag.</p>

<p>>Yes, everything you see sitting there was (five minutes before I took those shots) inside that bag. ...<<br>

Thanks! I'm going to get one for when I don't want to carry my backpack-type Lowepro Slingshot 200 which holds about the same amount (Canon XSi, five lenses - one on the camera, flash, etc).<br>

Do you need the lens changing bag in order to change lenses while wearing the bag?</p>

<p>To Matt Laur. I want to make sure I got this right. You carry inside the Speed Racer all the things displayed in the photo captioned "Most of what was stuffed in there". Correct? My problem is that I don't see room for those things in the photo captioned "Quick-grab carry configuration". What am I missing? Thanks...</p>

<p>I can only answer for me, not you. I would regret it because (1) the 10-22 works with the camera I have now (XSi) and I take pictures now, and (2) I find the 10-22 to be a great almost-all-purpose lens, covering the (equivalent) 16-35mm range.</p>

<p>Do you mean the index print that contains all those very small photos on it? If so, then all you could do would be to have those very small prints scanned and then printed. If you print the files from the scans larger, say 4 x 6, they would be very poor quality and probably not worth doing except as an experiment.</p>

<p>><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=904377">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=904377</a> <<br>

How did you correct that bad color?</p>

<p>I have Kodachrome slides from the early 1960's, scanned last year at 3,000 dpi, that look like original to my eyes except for (1) some dust etc. and (2) more grain in the skies than I would have expected (but I don't really know what I should expect re grain). The slides were stored in their original Kodak small boxes, packed together in an unsealed cardboard box, in not-controlled but not-extreme mostly household closet conditions.</p>

<p>>A special emulsion was developed for the APS system to help make up for the reduced negative size. Later, that emulsion was used for 35mm film as well and so the gap in quality between the two formats opened up again.<<br>

Yep, and that didn't take long. I shot 35mm film until mid 2002 and never saw the point to APS. If I wanted a really small camera, I used my Olympus XA. Otherwise my Olympus OM-1. I saw no reason to compromise image quality by using APS film (and it was compromised compared to 35mm). I recently had most of my film slides and negatives scanned and I'm glad they weren't taken with APS film.</p>

<p>The 18-55 and 55-200 I got with a D60 about a year ago. One of the lenses was soft on the left side and the other was soft on the right side. I returned the whole thing and got a Canon XSi.</p>

<p>OK, here's the result of a DxO RAW conversion with no adjustment or sharpening (to the best of my ability; I'm new using DxO), plus USM in Photoshop. I tried one using the DxO defaults and didn't like the result as well.<br>

100%<br /> <img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714_DxO_noadjust.jpg" alt="" width="426" height="372" /><br>

157%<br /> <img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714_DxO_noadjust_157p.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>>When I get a chance, I might try some trial versions of other raw software and see what can be done.<<br>

I'll definitely be interested in what you find. I just remembered that I have DxO converter so I'll have a go with that and see what I get.</p>

<p>I also like that hiking shot. I did a bit of Noiseware on it then darkened the light parts with PS Shadow/Highlight.<img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/negative_filtered_700w.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Link to full-size image:<br>

http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/negative_filtered.jpg</p>

<p>>Thank you. I think your workflow was like mine with more subtle sharpening.<<br>

Yes, but I did all sharpening in Photoshop, setting DPP to 0 sharpening. I find for "problem" images that it works best that way. Also, I don't agree at all with Bernie West's low opinion of DPP RAW conversion. I like the fine detail it produces (with noise reduction set to zero), the great Canon colors, and the ability to try Canon's styles to see which one you prefer.</p>

<p>And another 100%, cropped as above so it fits on the page.<img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714c2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>OK, here's a 157% upsize (with more cropping).<img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714c2_157p.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>That cropped 100% image above has been reduced in size by the site software. Here's a link to the image.<br>

http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714c_100,0.7.0_500,0.2,0.jpg</p>

<p>I may have coaxed a bit more quality from the D40 RAW file, converted in DPP with no sharpening and then USM in Photoshop. This is a crop of a 100% size.<img src="http://ruthvenphotos.com/files/IMG_5714c_100,0.7.0_500,0.2,0.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Scott, maybe I missed it, but what was your equipment and process for that great shot of the ship at http://sewcon.com/samples/Ship2%2005-21-06.jpg?</p>