kahheng

Ahhhhh, NK Guy, I see the light now! I remember having read this somewhere before. But not having used the camera for a while, I had completely forgotten what OP and CL meant! Until you came along ;-) Thanks bud!

Haven't used this camera in a while and for the world of me, I can't remember

how it's done. I do remember that it's partial metering only of course, and I am

guessing that I need to use the little "M" button on the left frontside.

 

Can someone give me a quick rundown? Thanks in advance.

Erik clearly has the best idea! ;-)

Gabriele

 

The no-brainer way (i.e., pay money way) is to use Alien Skin's new plugin called "Exposure". It does simulate the Tri-X look (amongst others) quite well - tone and grain wise. Even has push simulation. I like the orthochromatic simulation the best actually.

 

You can download a demo from the Alien Skin website.

 

http://www.alienskin.com/

 

It's not perfect but really not too shabby a plugin.

 

I find Grain Surgery's grain simulation good as well.

Patrick

 

No offence but you're still speaking pretty nebulously.

 

How about more specifics, say beginning from a file of X x Y pixels, you did, Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, etc......

 

Regards

I still use one and am satisfied with it on my CRT monitor, but I won't recommend it now given the plentiful other options. I'd buy the Monaco XR or the EyeOne 2 for my next one.

 

See a pretty detailed comparative review of most of the current offerings here

 

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm

Love adding grain! I have discovered Grain Surgery to be the most efficient way of doing this because it has presets to mimick actual film grain.

del.icio.us/tag/photoshop

Shawn

 

Come to think of it, for a Matrox card, I won't recommend the APVe for general use - it's an overkill if you just intend to hook it up to at most two monitors.

 

The PCIe P650 card would be the more sensible choice.

Brian's brought up a very important issue: The new motherboards tend not to have AGP slots - all the latest ones use PCIe for graphics. If you're using an AGP card now, you'd have no choice but to buy a new one.

 

I'd still go with Matrox cards for 2D applications. The Parhelia APVe or the lower priced P650 PCIe 128 would be my choices.

 

The suggestions for the AMD X2 cpus are excellent. They do beat the Pentium Ds, at a price premium though.

 

For the X2, I'd go with an ASUS board. Personally, if I were building a new PC, I'd use the Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe (and the 3800 X2 CPU which I think is quite a bargain).

 

RAM wise, I'd still use non-ECC value modules even at 4 gigs. As long as you're not overclocking, the value series from each of the known brand names are ok. See reviews here: http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2392 (the OCZ branded modules would be my choice)

 

Drive-wise, mosey on down to http://www.storagereview.com and see what the latest and greatest SATA drives are. ;-)

 

Personally, I still won't use an LCD panel for critical photo work. The seriously good ones (like a particular NEC) are still unaffordable (for my bank account), the affordable ones (like the oft touted 24" Dell) are still not good enough IMO. If you can afford it, a Sony Artisan CRT would be ideal.

 

And then I'd buy the best gaming mouse you can find.

For a $100, just grab it.

 

You should know it's not a printer for continuous high volume printing because it tends to overheat and then, volume printing will slow to a crawl. I believe the succeeding model added an extra ventilation fan to address this problem. Perfectly fine for intermittent piecemeal printing.

 

Also, having used it quite a bit in the past, I'd like to suggest that it's advisable to resize your picture to the PRECISE native resolution for best results. It's not good to give it any more or less.

 

Do check the manual on this, because it's been a really long time since I have used one, but if memory serves me right, the resolution that the printer is most happy at is 312dpi.

 

Also, cover the paper slots when not in use. Dust is not good for dye-sub printers since the final output is laminated.

Oh here's a sample ;-)<div></div>

Hi Parasko

 

You can try this. I cooked it up one day whilst creating actions to achieve film developing effects in Photoshop. It's the closest I have ever gotten to a digital Sabattier effect.

 

With your picture file already open:

 

1. Layer> New Fill Layer> Solid Color

 

Click OK

 

2. Set this layer's opacity to about 90% for a start

 

3. Change layer blending to Difference (from Normal)

 

At this stage, you may not see anything resembling a Sabattier-like effect, but fret not. Go to the Layer Thumbnail for this new fill layer and click to open, and then

 

4. In the Color Picker box, move the color sampling circle towards a denser grey area of the color picker gradient. You will see a Sabattier-like effect already working in the live preview.

 

Try out different colours and also vary the opacity of this fill layer (90% is good to begin with in my experiments).

 

It works on both colour and monotone images, and you can convert a color image before or after running this process.

 

You can also combine the outcome of this process with bits of the normal picture to get the right level of faux 'solarization'

 

Regards

Tan

Ilkka, I agree and disagree.

 

If he was doing it commercially, yes, I'd agree that there's a need to present a matching print. I should know. I am commercial photographer who deals with color seps all the time.

 

But the poster doesn't sound like he's doing for commercial work. As a hobby, sending out to a lab that has a tightly managed colour workflow is typically fine. There's no such thing as 100% colour similarity anyway. If you haven't been getting satisfactory prints from your pro lab, there's something going wrong either on your end or theirs.

 

Do high quality inkjet prints look better? Probably. But I think that's BESIDES THE POINT. With Aran's limited amount of money, it's about *prioritizing* purchases. A monitor and a calibrator should come first in my books. And next, a machine you can comfortably edit images with.

The best CRT AND a monitor calibrator that you can buy within your $800 budget.

 

I won't bother with home printing yet since you can send files out to get printed - e.g., Lightjet, Lambda, even Fuji, which will likely last longer than most low cost inkjet prints. Just make sure that the labs you send work to run a tightly color managed setup, and ask them for their color profiles.

 

When you get more money, buy a more powerful desktop PC with loads of RAM.

 

I'd keep getting the printer as a very last priority.

 

This is what I'd do if I were to start over again.

Hi Scott

 

Frankly you need a PC with much more muscle and a tonne of RAM to run CS2 smoothly.

 

I have gone back to using PS7 likewise.

 

I hate to say this but I think, Bridge, is just badly written. Which is why it's slow.

 

Rgds

Sorry about the html c*ckup. Cut and paste?

See reviews here.

<p>

<a href>http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm</a>

Sean,

<p>

Adobe seems to think otherwise with CS2:

<p>

<a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331412.html">http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331412.html</a>

<p>

They somehow suggest 128MB as minimum with their latest incarnation of Photoshop. I still can't figure out why and they've not actually been very detailed as to why a massive 128mb is needed for 2D work.

Hi Charles

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the info.

 

<p>

 

I guess it's like my 240mm G-Claron. It's not as sharp as my Fujinon

210mm at f22, but still pretty good. It seems to be a characteristic

of most of these repro 6/4 designs. The huge image circle and

compactness makes up for that though.

Hi Wayne/Mike,

 

<p>

 

Well, I am thinking of buying the used #3s from Steve Grimes without

any engraving work - I'll be making a simple aperture scale since I

don't figure I will use this lens enough to justify spending that

much money on the additional work. I am using this to shoot

architectural details on buildings. I tend to use my wider lenses

more than long lenses.

 

<p>

 

Mike

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the insights! It's great to hear from someone who owns

this lens.

 

<p>

 

Regards

Tan

Hi

 

<p>

 

Is anyone here shooting regularly with one?

 

<p>

 

I have one in barrel that's been unused since I bought it some months ago. I had planned to put into a shutter for the longest time. I am just wondering if it's truly worth the $300 for a Copal 3S to do so.

 

<p>

 

Is this lens as sharp as a G-Claron for 4x5? (It shares the same design as I understand it)

 

<p>

 

Regards

Tan

I have owned a Hartblei 45mm Shift lens, used with my 645Super. It's in my opinion, just not up to par for serious use. This is because the lens suffers from terrible barrel distortion, shifted or otherwise.

 

But I must say that quality of the multicoating is very very good for an Eastern European (Ukrainian?) product. The contrast on the lens is very high and colours are snappy. Very 'German' in colour. Sharpness is good.

 

How they can make a shift optic for architectural use with such awful distortion is beyond me.

 

FWIW, it's a recomputed 45mm lens from the Kiev 60 series AFAIK.

Paul

 

<p>

 

Ellis is right on IMO. A monorail is the way to go if you want to

shoot architecture. Like Ellis, I do this for a living as well. I use

a Sinar F. I usually use only half of the full standard monorail. You

can easily mount a 58mm lens on a flat board if you put the rail

clamp behind the rear standard instead of inbetween the two standards.

 

<p>

 

The most important camera movements for this kind of photography in

my opinion is sufficient rise for the front standard and rear shift

as well. I'd say that about 90% of the pictures I frame merely need

these two movements, keeping the back fully parallel to the building.

Often, you wouldn't have the time to use tilts though it can be

useful at times to get enough DOF.

 

<p>

 

IMHO, the Sinar F1/F2 is a good camera for this. It's really fairly

lightweight. The Arca Swiss is a whole lot more refined and more

rigid, and is fully geared. A good choice if you have the budget.

I was interested in acquiring a Tessar once and asked around about

f6.3 versions versus the 4.5 ones. FWIW, the f6.3 aperture Tessars

are better than the 4.5 ones because they can be made to be better

corrected (the glass has to curve a lot less than the f4.5 versions).

 

<p>

 

I'd buy the f6.3 Ektars based on reputation alone.

 

<p>

 

A 300 Nikkor M is actually a Tessar-type as well too. If its cheaper

than the 12" Ektar (you seem to suggest this?), and if you want

modern coatings, the Nikkor would be the way to go. The shutter would

be a lot more reliable I'd imagine.