aaron d

<p>Looking more for actual experience than speculation, please... Ideally I'd like to hear from someone who has both lens and case, so as to avoid having to send one back. I'm not close enough to the right store to try it myself.</p>

<p>I just bought the 17mm TS-E and it won't fit in the pockets of my Domke bag, so I'm considering getting a Pelican case now instead. Can anyone suggest a model whose compartments are big enough to hold this lens? It's the giant (4" diameter) lens hood that makes it so difficult...</p>

<p>I'm looking at the 1504, 1524 and the 1554, thinking maybe the '24 might be the best fit. And with dividers, that is - I don't want to use the pluck-foam. Yes I understand the dividers are adjustable, but the length of the little dividers set the maximum width between the long dividers, and I'm wanting to know if they are bigger in the bigger cases, or if they're all the same. Know what I mean?</p>

<p>For getting-your-mind-around-the-situation purposes, it also needs to hold:</p>

<p>two bodies (5Dii) w/out lenses<br>

17-40mm f4<br>

24mm TS-E<br>

70-200mm f4<br>

hoods for all, including the giant 70-200 one<br>

and other stuff including a tripod ball head smaller things...</p>

<p>Thanks in advance! And sorry for the long-wind....</p>

<p>-A</p>

 

<p>No kidding! That fisheye ZOOM is killer! I wish I could justify getting one...... </p>

<p>I've about talked myself out of APS cameras. Instead, I'm going to write Canon lots of letters, telling them how cool it would be to make compact, fast-ish (not cutting edge) primes for full-frame. I might even send them cup-cakes...</p>

<p>OK, never mind - I'm an idiot. I ran a clean heads cycle and It seems to be fine.</p>

<p>-A</p>

<p>I did a search and couldn't find this issue posted before, though I bet it has been - so apologies if it's been beaten to death....</p>

<p>About every other print I make (on Ilford Pearl) comes out with little random spots of ink - mostly black, sometimes red. They're mostly pretty round but sometimes irregular shaped about 2-4 mm in size.</p>

<p>I've widened the platen gap, and the waste ink bin is only half-full.</p>

<p>Anybody seen this trouble and fixed it?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>-A</p>

<p>BG, I actually did use a 28mm 2.8 on a trip but the damned thing stopped dead after 10 days touristy shooting. "Touristy" meaning I was in Amsterdam, not the jungles of Borneo! Which was really infuriating - it was a great lens till then... All of <a href="http://aarondougherty.com/04_o_hand.html">these</a> were done with the 28 2.8 and a 5Dii.</p>

<p>And John, yeah, that NEX-5 looks really nice - I can't help but think that's a glimpse of the future....</p>

<p>Compact lenses for full-frame would be great! I like that better anyway, because I've always suspected that if I got a good photo with a "travel" camera, I'd always wish afterwards that I'd gotten it with my "main" one instead. They wouldn't have to be TINY, just small enough I could tuck it under a jacket without a monstrous lump....</p>

<p>Bob, Yeah - that's what I mean! I looked at their web-site, this one especially is a near perfect lens: </p>

<p>http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_15mm_F4_ED_AL_Limited/</p>

<p>Canon's got plenty of good small bodies already, they could slap a few of these lenses together in their sleep....</p>

<p>I'm not so much wanting a compact lens that has the letter L on it and a red stripe - I mean professional build/quality - and COMPACT. It can be an R series with a blue stripe or no stripe at all....</p>

<p>I'm wanting COMPACT - the full frame lens are big honkers (that's what I'm shooting now...). I like a 5D 24 1.4 for my slow careful work, but it's too much to drag around on vacation... I like the idea of the "pancake" lenses they're making for other formats.....</p>

<p>How nice would it be if Canon were to produce some L prime lenses for its smaller sensor cameras? The beauty of the 7D, 50D, 500D is they are super high quality and COMPACT - so why not some excellent compact prime lenses to go with? Like:</p>

<p>15mm f2.0 (24 equiv.)<br>

17 or 18mm f2.0 (28 equiv.)<br>

28mm f2.0 (44 equiv.)</p>

<p>They don't need to be the fastest damn lenses on the planet - but SMALL!<br>

OK I'm done ranting now.</p>

<p>Be sure and try out Lightroom before you buy it. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I didn't like Lightroom and it's a beeyoch to try to return. I don't like the way it organizes files and I don't like the idea of a sidecar file with my changes in it. I name everything so it sorts the way I like and keep them in folders that make sense to me. JUST A THOUGHT.</p>

<p>Be sure and try out Lightroom before you buy it. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I didn't like Lightroom and it's a beeyoch to try to return. I don't like the way it organizes files and I don't like the idea of a sidecar file with my changes in it. I name everything so it sorts the way I like and keep them in folders that make sense to me. JUST A THOUGHT.</p>

<p>I am wanting to print on paper cut from a roll so I can fill a sheet that will be 17 x 27" (image size 16x24") and am a little worried about buying expensive paper and not being able to make it work. Even with cut sheets, I will a lot of times get a "paper not aligned" warning" - I have to hit the paper eject button and put the sheet back in exactly as I did before (to my eyes, anyway), sometimes more than once, until it's happy the paper is straight.</p>

<p>If it's as sensitive as all that, how in hell am I going to cut an edge square enough to please my machine? I'd like to hear from 3880 users who have done cut sheets successfully, and would appreciate any tips you might have.</p>

<p><br />Thanks in advance!<br>

<br />-A</p>

<p>It feels like it is stopped if you just drop it in, but you have to gently push it on about an inch farther through the curve that directs it horizontally under the print head. Even after it hits bottom, two seconds will pass and THEN the machine will grab it and pull it on in.......</p>

<p>I've had mine for a few years (5?) - no problems. Sporatic use, though.....</p>

<p>Why would you scan B+W negatives in RGB? A B+W negative doesn't capture any color information, so scanning in RGB <em>creates</em> color where there is none in your image. Scan in greyscale! I use Grey Gamma 2.2 as the "color space" for very good reasons that I can't remember anymore. It matches the gamma I calibrate my monitor to, so maybe that's it.</p>

<p>If you add any tint or color cast in photoshop, you'll need to convert to RGB there - but that's the place to do it, not in the scanning. </p>

<p>I don't know either - I do architecture and interiors - but speaking as someone who is trying to make a living with photography, please charge them what a professional would. Nothing is more infuriating than being bid out of a job by somebody's nephew, or a "friend of a friend". </p>

<p>You might look at the ASMP web-site as a starting place, they're a good resource for all kinds of professional practice.</p>

<p>Yeah, raw then TIFF or PSD. As you're converting from raw, you have control over where the black and white points begin, and color temperature and a lot of things you're stuck with once you've got a TIFF file made. You can also process for some lens specific corrections in Canon's DPP (if you're shooting with their camera) or DxO type programs. Once they're converted, the concrete is set, so to speak. That's also why it's a good idea to keep your original raw files around, untouched....</p>

<p>I had the same problem once and it turned out I put the paper in upside-down. But I'm a dim-wit....</p>

<p>And who among us can honestly claim to have never bathed with a pet burro in Tennessee? Let him cast the first stone!</p>

<p>Look guys, I promise to use nothing but paper and staples if I do this at all. And I promise that not a single line-man will be injured by the addition of two more staples in a pole that's already covered by thousands of them. Nobody will pay a penny more in utility bills, because they don't remove the damn things. If our bills go up it will be because the oil and coal industries and Sachs-Goldman have been gaming those very laws that we all hold in such high regard to fleece us of all they can, not because of some bonehead with a stapler. What I AM guiltily of is causing our poor moderator to have to delete this political outrage posted on a "casual photo conversations" forum. My apologies for THAT and nothing more. There are indeed injustices and cruelties being perpetrated by humans on humans and everything else on this planet at this very moment, but how many have never once written a sentence condemning genocide or state sponsored rape of its own citizens or any other of thousands of crimes against humanity? Some perspective, maybe.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards just laminating and staples. I love your gorilla permanent idea, Luis - but I am NOTHING if not a law-abiding citizen! </p>

<p>Thanks guys!</p>

<p>I am wanting to make small prints and nail them to telephone poles around the city - anybody have any ideas about how to make them weather resistant?</p>

<p>I thought maybe sticking them to plastic and then painting over the whole thing with a urethane varnish.....</p>

<p>Yep, I agree with you and with JDM. My files are all like this: YYMMDD-Tokyo-00X That way they all sort out by date into the chronological order, you've got a place name or event to trigger memory, and a sequence # for ordering all the shots in a day. And I put them in folders; "year" and then "client" and then "project". I've got a 4-bay Drobo for primary storage and back up to a single bay Weibetech external drive enclosure. And I burn DVDs of my raw files and "as-delevered" files. So far so good...</p>

<p>I'm sorry, the photo didn't load...........</p><div></div>