doug_broussard

<p>Aside from all the people defending Nikon here because they don't have a D300 or are so brand loyal they think everyone with an issue is a troll, there are significant numbers of D300 owners who have experienced "mirror up" failures. <br>

Unfortunately, without a subpoena as part of discovery, Nikon won't divulge the failure rate, and has not instituted a repair extension program. Used D300 owners are out of luck because the company requires an original purchase receipt. <br /><br />If you have a failed D300 mirror, or have paid for a repair, please contact me via http://d300mirrordefect.com. If there's sufficient mass to do so, we can try to get recompense or repair from Nikon. </p>

<p>Johnathan: Do you mind sharing the name of the place that repaired your D300? I also have this problem; currently speaking with a class action attorney about subpoenaing Nikon for the number of repairs on D300 bodies for this exact issue, since it seems to be a very common issue and probable flaw with the D300. Mine was purchased used and has only 22k exposures.<br>

Where did you have the repair done for $200.00?</p>

<p>Ed:</p>

<p>I went to check WCI's web site, and I was surprised I couldn't find any file/film submission guidelines. I could swear there used to be something up there about the vague no nudity policy, but I couldn't find it this time. At the very least, I think they'd make this policy pretty loud and clear to customers before people send originals or files in for printing.</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, I would suggest developing a short list of Chromira operators and sending them all a relatively challenging test print; images with very smooth gradations (empty sky, fog, etc.) will show the degree to which the operator aligns the Chromira's head to avoid banding (really, the only shortcoming of the machine in my opinion after operating it for two years and a LJ5k for a while).</p>

<p>Compare the prints to a reference you're happy with to judge how spot-on their color is. </p>

<p>Sorry to hear about your experience James, but frankly, I can't say I'm surprised. As a former employee, one of the reasons I chose to leave WCI was the increasing, almost hysterical Christian evangelism and value system among many of the employees. As a heretic myself, I mostly ignored this stuff, but it was became annoying to have to ignore the apparently compulsory prayers and almost incessant kvetching (heh) about church people, policies, etc.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, when you're based in a small town, some of your best hiring and networking resources are local organizations - so it's not surprising that many employees were introduced to WCI because the owners met them at church. Of course, this foothill area is filled with artists, photographers, and others with talent applicable to WCI, but I can't judge them on that. I lived in Santa Cruz when I was hired on there and moved to Oakhurst at great trouble and expense. </p>

<p>That being said, their level of quality is still the best in the industry as far as I'm concerned. I have not printed with them in quite some time due to a disagreement I had with the owner long after I left the company.</p>

<p>It may be a stressful time for them, as I know one of the owners was sick earlier this summer, but once someone's church starts dictating the services they provide, I look elsewhere.</p>

<p>It's entirely their right to do so, and my right to find a place that will print whatever art an artist happens to make that falls within reasonable bounds and, of course, the law.</p>

<p>While I could see the argument for no nudity based upon the fact that employees often have their children at work, the solution to me as a business owner would be pretty simple; no kids in the cutting and shipping room. It's kind of a dangerous place for children anyway. Problem solved.</p>

<p>When it was started, one of the fundamental ideals of WCI was to advance the west coast school of photography's goals; impeccable quality through testing, sharing of techniques, open evaluation of others' work, etc. I'll leave it to you to decide if they still fulfill that mission and whether you want to deal with a company that imposes arbitrary and amorphous guidelines on work they'll accept for printing. </p>

<i>I start with a sRGB TIF (yes I am aware 1998 is preferable work space as wider gamut)

In PS 7.0, View:Proof Setup:Custom: Adobe RGB (1998)check the Preserve Color Numbers

(Intent Relative Colorimetric)</i>

<p>

Relative colorimetric intent is normally what you want to use when soft proofing; "use

black point compensation" attempts to compensate for the transmissive nature of your

display.<p>

Preserve Color Numbers doesn't affect the way the color is displayed on your screen.

<p><i>

This then displays on my monitor an image that color matches the Chromira prints. So

that seems to point to a difference in the way the Chromira is configured in handling sRGB

and RGB 1998 files. If you uncheck the Preserve Color numbers box, then the monitor

does not reveal the variance.</i><p>

The Chromira's color management works like Photoshop's. The Chromira

workstation software looks at the profile that the file is tagged with, and applies the values

in that file to the profile that the Chromira is set up to print with; in WCI's case, that's a

profile built to describe the gamut of Fuji Crystal Archive type C paper processed in RA-4

chemistry. There's are actually fewer variables involved in the Chromira's workflow that

there are when you use Photoshop to print to your 2200 - believe it or not. A good place

to start would be at home, nailing down the variables in your workflow and simplifying the

process.

<p>

If the files started off tagged as sRGB (like, say from a digital camera), soft proofing them

as you describe in Adobe RGB is going to match your 2200 prints if you're printing

through that space to the printer - which will definitely cause problems when you send the

same file to WCI. Since the file is no longer squeezed into the "adobe RGB" box when you

print, the colors will look oversaturated compared to your print from a 2200.

<p>

Here's how I print to my local printer to take a simple, no-doubts-left approach to

printing.( I don't have a great printer at home right now, but I'm hoping to get my hands

on an HP 8750. For an inkjet, the D-max is incredible.)

<p>

Start in your printer driver, and turn off ALL color management. If you're on a Mac, you can

do this by bringing up the print dialog box and selecting the ColorSync drop-down menu

item. Next, set printer color management to OFF. Period. The 2200 driver in Windows has

a similar feature - set it to off as well.

<p>

Contrary to what might seem like the logical thing to do, when printing from Photoshop,

it's actually best to let Photoshop do the color management from the working space to the

printer's space. The next section details how to do this.

<p>

Choose Print with Preview in Photoshop (7). Notice at the bottom of the Print with Preview

window that there is a checkbox for "Show more options". Select it, then choose "Color

Management" from the drop-down menu.

<p>

In the source space area, make sure the profile your file is tagged with appears. It should;

the file's space is the default. In the destination space area, select the profile appropriate

for your printer and paper.

<p>

This should eliminate any options that could be causing color problems in your prints at

home - and it'll help you nail sown some variables that could cause unexpected results

when you send that file off to WCI.

Have you spoken to WCI about the difference between inkjet prints and silver prints?

Inkjet prints like the 2200/7600/9600, are subject to metamerism. Under different

lighting, the prints look different. If you're relying on a 2200 print, remember that this

printer, while it uses the same inkset as the 76/9600, is close to being unpredictable in

terms of it's color output. While the 2200 can be profiled, I don't judge it as a printer that

is reliable for color print proofing. Using the same output profile, it can at time give

different results, even with all other variables nailed down.

Are you printing black and white prints? B+W prints on silver paper may look at turns

biased toward magenta or green, depending on the lighting in the room. Epson prints

(which naturally use color inks) will be all over the place in the same way but to a more

exaggerated extent because of metamerism.

Are you converting your image's profile to the Chromira profile before sending it to WCI?

Don't do this! The profile is for soft proofing on your monitor only! If

you are printing preflight prints, leave the files in their native colorspace. Converting your

files or tagging them with a printer's profile can (and will) result whacky prints.

And last of all; realize that not all processes look the same. Epson prints look pretty good

at 90 degrees to the viewer and may have a larger gamut than Fuji Crystal Archive. At the

same time, I prefer Crystal Archive prints for my images because I do have a hard black

(high Dmax) in most of my images, which doesn't reproduce well on the Epson

Ultrachrome printers. For this reason, I'm sticking with the Chromira for my prints, which

contrary to your experience has a very slightly smaller gamut in some colors than the

Epson Ultrachromes.

There's nothing about the Chromira or Fuji Crystal Archive that would make your prints

look oversaturated or all that different from the Epson - BUT - I don't know what your

prints look like. If

they're comprised of mainly deep, rich, light blues, the Chromira may not give you what

you've come to expect from ultrachrome. If your prints have a lot of Dmax areas, then the

Epson Ultrachrome prints may look pale compared to Chromira output. The Chromira is

calibrated each day to produce a linear scale, and is profiled to that daily, repeatable scale,

so I doubt that's the problem. Nor does it sound like your problem is

chemistry.

Could it just be that there is a problem in the way you are profiling you

monitors, or the room you are viewing your monitors or prints in? This make as huge

difference in what your prints look like, not to mention the fact that transmissive versus

reflective viewing leads to many disgruntled printer users - often without reason for

disgruntlement.

Help us solve your problem.

To add some clarification about the "tweaking" people allude to here on the

forum:

Digital images are different than film. The contrast and saturation you see on

a chrome is there because you're sacrificing some tonal range to get the more

desirable attributes.

Digital cameras don't require this sacrifice, but you do have to be aware that

the tonal range a camera like the D60 is capable of necessarily implies that

contrast will not be the same as on a chrome. You will have to apply an s-

curve on an adjustment layer in Photoshop to add contrast.

The same thing happens on scanner when scanning a chrome. You get as

much range out of the chrome as possible on scanner and add contrast back

in with Photoshop.

One other thing: your scanning lab may be sending you scans that have an

embedded color profile (EktaSpace if they're doing it right) that is different

than the one your D60 does (or doesn't) embed in the file from your camera.

Whether your monitor and printer are profiled, and whether you are taking

those color profiles into account also makes a difference.

Theoretically, with identical white blance settings (say, daylight), your digital

camera and scanned slide film should get close (perceptually) to displaying

the same values. You have far too many variables unaccounted for to explain

what you're seeing.

Digital imaging is a complicated beast. It isn't, as some have suggested here,

just film cameras without the film. There is so much more involved, and it can

be incredibly accurate - more accurate and consistent in theory than a master

printer in the darkroom from print to print - but as photographers we have to

go back to square one and learn a new vocabulary and new habits.

Simply opening two files showing the same subject from wildly different

sources, then viewing them on a monitor which hasn't been profiled, in

software which doesn't support profiles...you'll have to tell us more about your

system to help us troubleshoot, or it may be time to learn more about handling

color consistently in digital photography.

I would advise you to stick to Michael Frye''s book. Galen's is

more of a "Why I'm such a damn great luminary and

photographer" kind of book. Michael's book actually deals with

photography in Yosemite.

Second-third weeks in February is when I've seen horsetail run.

If it's too cold, you'll get nothing!

Try to learn more about mountain photography in general,

instead of the Alps in particular. I know there are at least two

books available from my local library that deal with mountain

photography (at least one written by *cough* Galen Rowell).

Try looking through and reading the book, then form some ideas

about how you can 'see' the same landscape differently. Maybe

instead of sweeping vistas, you could concentrate on individual

peaks, or perhaps what's in front of your feet.

James:

I'm from there. I don't know any guides personally, but I do know that

there are some folks who'd be happy to send you information regarding

the Atchafalaya Basin and resources for exploring it. If you're

looking for photography tours, you may not find them, but guide

services can be had for a price.

Try 1800 LAROUGE (Baton Rouge Convention and Visitor's Bureau)

or 800-346-1958 (Lafayette CVB)

These are the closest major cities. You will have a fair bit of luck

finding guides in Henderson or Breaux Bridge.

A bit of advice: Explore the northern (State Highway 1) and southern

(State Highway 90) parts of the basin as well. You'll be glad you did.

If you'd like other tidbits on the best places to stay and eat, let me

know.

Doug