pablo ledesma

Two things, first, there is a reason most of the Nikon AF lenses are plastic and that is also the reason that the ZF lenses are MF. I think Zeiss wanted to make quality products, or at least those which conveyed quality. The Plastic Nikkors, even the pro-lenses, don't feel solid like the old MF nikkors. I believed that the AF nikkors are plasticy to increase AF speed, there is also the slop in the design tolerances of the AF nikkors, which lead to the sample variation. I'm sure none of the ZF lenses will rattle when you shake 'em. As for Sony, does the system even allow for MF?

 

Second, did you guys see the DOF markings on the 100mm/2?? Only the f11 and f22 were showing. I thought that DOF was all aperture based, can lens design narrow dof?

Sigma 30mm/1.4, I've heard many good things, more then your budget, maybe e-pay for less? Also Sigma 28mm/1.8, heard it wasn't as good as the 30mm but its in your range price/focal length wise.

Pablo

"That I was sending them the optimal file so that its quality, or lack there of, WAS tech limited not me sending them broke to begin with."

 

"to remember something in their instructions SAYING not to use interpolation to increase size, and on large files"

 

Any goo typing lessons out there :)

Ok, thanks for all the answers. I think that 24x12 would be the max size I would want; I think only a test print will answer my question completely. I haven't seen anything brought up that I wasn't milling around in my head, I just wanted to make sure That I was sending them the optimal file so that its quality, or lack there of, tech limited not me sending them broke to begin with. If anybody has any more items that I might me missing I'd still like to hear them. And thanks again. I seem to remember something in their instructions not to use interpolation to increase size, and on large files to leave the resolution field blank I wonder why that is. Oh and the service is White house Custom Color, anybody have any experience?

 

www.whcc.com

Oh and the printers want the files 300 ppi, so what would be my upper limit print wise?

Thanks

I keep my nef's untouched. Would the loss be noticeable in a print?

So after doing a searching Photo.net about print resizing I found no

answers to a question I have.

 

Background: I got a new D200, I have been proccessing my NEF's into

Tiffs, editing in PS2 and then saving the final as a jpg level 10,

which is the file format requested by the printing service I'm

looking into. Now PS2 shows that the files come out of the D200 at

12.907 x 8.64 in inches.

 

So the printing service wants the image resized to the target print

size, or they will crop it to fit. If I go into Image > Image Size,

use constrain proportions and upsize/crop to fit larger prints

sizes, what kind of picture quality would I lose? How much could you

upsize for a "fine art print." For example going from 12.907 x 8.64

to 24 x 12 by upsizing to 24 x 16.067 and cropping down to 24 x 12,

would I lose much?

thanks

Pablo

I have found that the AF gets less reliable the further away from the center spot you get. On mine the top and bottom sensors will try and focus a few times then just quit. I will say that they were trying to focus on low conrast subjects. I tried them on buisier subjects and they were better. While this was happening I thought the AF had died, I did the same thing you did, removed the lens and everything. But it came right back, so I'm not sure this was the same problem.

Fog<div></div>

I saw this picture in another thread and liked it, thanks for sharing. Sometimes I feel wierd using my D200 for B&W, I shot 75% B&W when I had film cameras, I like how they turned out.

Thanks, yeah I never thought I'd get mine.

Went walking today with my D200. It was really grey out, not a lot

of color, so I desaturated and added a sepia tone with PS. All shot

with 50mm f/1.8 at 100 ISO, on a tripod with the MLU feature.

 

http://webpages.charter.net/athos56/

"It's been done, back when dirt was new, and it works rather well. You already own two of these "cameras". It requires some pretty sophisticated image processing to deal with the resulting image, but that's been taken care of as well."

 

They also have great depth of field and a stereo image :) Now if only they had a firewire or USB 2.0 port so I could download the images.

Ahh yes all good points, I understand chip fabrication, but discounted the cost and methods of manufacturing because it is something that could be overcome, people can always figure out how to make it, if it works. I was thinking of this as more of a thought exersize. I hadn't thought that the "bowl" might change shape with the focus, or the zoom, that would be a problem... and the last piont,

 

"People also want rectilinear lenses/ images, with zero barrel/pincushion distortion. To do this, you need to coordinate the pixel locations on the sensor with the lens characteristics- none of those nice straight rows of pixels for this camera!"

 

I hadn't thought of that either... Humm this would be more difficult then I though... Well its time to go play with my D200, if you guys want I'll tell you about my idea for the ultimate 4x5 digital back.

 

Oh, and a famous scientist once said something to the effect of "what wonders have been dismissed because someone dismissed them because it was just lowly them theat thought of it." I'm sure this has been thought of before, I just wanted to talk and think about it :) its fun.

Pablo

The flexible part was an after thought and not my main point, but the curved part is, sure the current proccess is flat but there isn't a reason this couldn't be altered. And why is it easier to make flat field lenses, wouldn't lenses that do not need correcting be easier to make?

Do you think a standard curve would be easier then a plane?

Ok so the curve of lenses makes the plane of sharpness curved as

well right? And modern optics tries its hardest to straighten it

out, thats why lenses get a little fuzzy at the edges right? So why

not make the sensors themselves curved? Wouldn't it be easier to

make curved optics fit a standard curve then a straight plane? Oh or

if the sensor was flexable it could change to fit the lens attached.

 

Would thier be distortion? Any thoughts?

Pablo

3007XXX no banding... But its arrival cured a headache and a sour mood! It didn't impress my wife though, hopefully it won't rain so I can walk about tomarrow.

This brings up an important point, do not shop on line while drunk. I learned this the hard way, my new dual-core computer came into existance this way. Along with a 8" Newtonian Reflector telescope. Only a supreme act of self control stopped me from buying a Mauser action 30-06 hunting rifle, which was beautiful BTW...

Pablo

Yeah I was thinking some fill would have been good, but I'm not great with a flash, still learning that. I think I need a diopter because I find that focusing in general is difficult, because, well, for all the reasons that autofocusing cameras are popular, speed. Some time I find that I'm pointing at a moving target and trying to focus ahead of the target so that I can shoot when they hit it, but then find that leaves little time for composition, or that I hadn't advanced the film yet, or the cameras not on, ect.. hehe. Funny thing is, one day I was in a shop and I tryed looking through a Nikon F, I've been thinking of it ever since. I'm not sure if it was the screen or just the difference in quality, that existed between then and now, The F was really clear and bright, it just had the split prizm, no microscreen or matte field. I have been thinking of changing the screen out of my FM3a. With all that said, My FM3a is sweet and I will use it till it dies. But when I get enough scratch I'm gonna buy an F6, why? Because I want to buy new and I want to use old lenses and I want the option to use autofocus. And I'll soon buy a Nikon digital so that I can learn to use my flash better.

Ok adjusted as per Davids suggestions, thanks again, does it look as flat?<div></div>

No it was sent in to a lab, I've had to move out of civilization for my wifes work so I am currently unable to delevop film myself. But here is the break down, The Prints look good, much like WJ's adjustment, I agree that that my scans look flat but that is due to my scanning/photoshop abilty and my CRT monitor, which is on my computer which has my Photoshop. WJ's adjustment looks way to dark on my CRT. On my LCD WJ's looks great and mine look flat. So what I have to do is buy a better CRT, or move to 2 LCD's, AND learn more about what I'm doing. But thats what this is all about in the first place. A little more info on the exposure, I metered the whole scene as is and added +2 exposure comp for the extreme back lighting, the shutter speed was down around 30, so I'm pretty sure that it wasn't under exposed, and looking at that the neg's there is texture throughout the Highlights and the Shadows so I think the development is fine. I agree the scans look flat so its all me in the post processing. Oh and the scanner is an Epson 3170 photo and Vuescan software. David, thanks for the time you took to show me the Curves, hehe that sounded bad :).

I hate how on my CRT the pictures look right and on my LCD all of the picture looks the same color grey... I wish they looked more like the prints.<div></div>

More<div></div>

Here are some shots that came out well I think, comments welcome.

Scanned, levels adjusted and a tad of unsharp masking.<div></div>