edward_c._nemergut

Problem solved re-installing the Camera Raw 4.5 update and new DNG converter. Sorry!

I recently purchased a Canon Rebel 450D (XSi) to use as a backup camera. The camera works beautifully and I have edited many photos

using Adobe Camera Raw (the new version 4.5, updated 7/28) within Photoshop CS3. In short, everything within Photoshop is fine and

working perfectly. However, I went to convert several of the CR2 files (made with the Rebel XSi) to DNG files using the DNG converter

and I get an error message that "The source folder does not contain any supported camera raw files."

 

I tried using the DNG converter on a different CR2 file made with my 1Ds-Mark II and there were no problems.

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks in advance....

You are correct. This is a prolem with MF cameras; however, as I understand it, only

cameras which revers off the roll (i.e. most 645 systems). I'm told that it is more a

problem with 120 film than 220.

I've had really good luck with Portra 400UC. I've used it for everything from studio

portraits to outdoor action.

 

I keep a fairly up-to-date film review at:

http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/film/film.html

I've had really good luck with 400UC. It has become my film of choice not just in the

studio, but I keep a 35 mm roll in my Contax TVS for candid shots. It has incredible

grain--honestly equal to any other film (with the possible exception of Reala). That

being

said, it is not the best all of the time: If it were, then kodak would stop making

everything else. Skin tones are wonderful but, after shooting over 100 rolls, a *little*

yellow - not much, but a very little bit. The contrast is relatively high and as such it

might not be suitable for certain subjects. For example, the film is les kind to the the

teenager trying to his/her acne. As the name would imply, the colors are very

saturated which may (or may not) be to your liking...

 

All that said, it remains my favorite print film...

 

I keep a relatively up-to-date film review at http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/

film/film.html

As I noted in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg?msg_id=005YJE">this thread</a>, Velvia 100 (not F) is new version of Velvia

that has only been released in Japan and possibly other parts of the "far east."

<p>

 

For those of you that have not heard of the film, it is supposedly similar to some of

the older, high silver versions of Kodachrome from the 1960's (ie ISO 12

Kodachrome). I have never even seen it.

My present setup includes a 180GB external hard drive attached to my Power Mac.

Since I'm using FW800, the drive is quite fast and backing-up my photographs is

easy. I also back-up larger folders (i.e. "Virginia 2002") on to DVD-R's. I keep the

DVD's in a separate location (normally at work) such that if my house burnt down,

my files would still be safe. I suppose

having a 2nd IDE drive is also a reasonable option; however having a external drive

allows me to move the drive from computer to computer, from home to work, etc...

<p>

 

<b>I would caution against using ONLY DVD-R's as a back up</b>. A friend of mine

that didn't want to invest in an external hard drive attempted this. When his hard

drive did fail, it took him a very labor-intensive week copying 50+ DVD's worth of

data to a new hard drive from his 4x DVD reader!

I owned and used a 2000P to produce fine-art photographs for about 2 years. I have

owned a 2200 for a little less than a year. The difference is night and day. Although

the 2000P produces very nice prints that *may* last 200 years etc..., the 2200

produeces printers that are sharper, more saturated, and display less metamerism. In

my opinion, unless you are producing prints that you really, REALLY want someone to

enjoy in 200 years, the 2200 is a better printer.

I've had relatively good luck using the Kodak Portra 160VC profile...

I'd give Kodak 400UC a try: finest grain ISO 400 film available. It won' be as fine

grained as Reala, but it will beat NPH for grain hands down...

Velvia 100 (NOT 100f) is a new film designed to produce totally over-the-top, ultra

saturated colors, even beyond that which Velvia 50 produced. Although I've never

used it, it is supposedly similar to some of the older, high silver versions of

Kodachrome from the 1960's (ie ISO 12 Kodachrome). Regardless, it is my

understanding that it has been released in limited quanities in Japan only. As such, it

may be very difficult to obtain, unless, by chance, you live in Japan...

I really like Portra UC. It is, however, not a low contrast film as stated above. I would

consider it to be medium contrast--like VC. It probably wouldn't be my film of choice

for a sunny day nor a scene dominated by black and white (like a wedding). I've

found that most people who don't like the film have bad printing. Printed correctly,

the film is lovely.

<p>

I mention Portra 400UC in my film review <a href=" http://photo.nemergut.com/

equipment/film/film.html">here</a>.

I carry a Contax TVS III. It's the perfect "pocket" camera...

<p>

 

I reviewed it <a href="http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/tvs3/

tvs3.html">here</a>.

FWIW, I find that 35 mm scans I made with my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (at

4800 dpi) do have more detail (not a lot, but a noticeable amount) than scan made

with my Nikon LS4000 (4000 dpi)...Given that fact, I would anticipate 5400 dpi scans

to be incrementally better...

Another vote for Astia...

I'm not sure why the above poster suggests that "...Portra 400UC is best avoided" as I

consider 400UC to be the best all-around ISO 400 film around. I

have now shot nearly 50 rolls of the film in many situations (mixed-light,

available lihgt, oudoors, studio) and can honestly say that "the hype"

regarding its fine grain is true. Indeed, when I compare it to Fuji Reala (which I

consider to have the finest grain of any color negative film available) I find that 400UC

to be

<i>almost</i> as good. Regardless, it certainly beats <b>any</b> ISO 400 film

available

by a long shot. What's really special about the film is its ability to maintain very nice

and neutral skin tones despite having nicely saturated colors. Given your situation, it

would be film of choice. I might also bring along

some NPZ (or Portra 800) for nigt and low-light situations....

<p>

I maintain a fairly up-to-date film review <a href="http://photo.nemergut.com/

equipment/film/film.html">here</a>.<p>

I shot a Pro Pack of the E100GX about a month ago. I found E100GX (which replaces

E100SW) to have decidedly less contrast than Provia 100F. Compared to Provia F, it

has slightly less

saturation (especially in the blues and greens as noted above) and is *somewhat*

warm biased. With it's lower contrast, I thought that it a better comparison for Astia.

Of course, with Astia 100F due for release this fall, that comparison may no longer be

valid...<p>

 

I keep a pretty up-to-date film review <a href="http://photo.nemergut.com/

equipment/film/film.html">here</a>.

Although I fear this may be a unpopular opinion, I really feel that questions like this are not entirely appropriate anymore. The advantages and disadvantages of both printers have been discussed in great detail on photo.net (in this forum) and indeed reviews abound in both online and print sources. Is a question like this any different from the silly "What's better the nikon 50/1.4 or the Canon 50/1.4" which were so common five years ago. Is it time to establish a moderated, archived digital imaging forum and (as in the main photo.net forum) an unmoderated, unarchived forum?

Below is a review of the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (not the II that you've asked

about). Nevertheless, there is a comparison with the Epson 1640SU. I know, I know,

that you're not looking at the 1640SU, but the comparison is still interesting...

 

http://www.photographical.net/minolta_pro.html

It sounds to me like something is definately wrong with your computer: I use a

Dell Insirion 4600 Laptop (1.3 GHz Celeron, 384 MB RAM) to process images all the

time. Normally, for a 200 MB scan from 6x4.5 source takes around 35-40 minutes... I

don't run any other applications at the same time--maybe that's a good place to

start.

 

Let me know if you figure it out...

I pray to God this is an April fool's joke.

Yes: AV is changed with dials on the camera body (just like modern Nikon, Canon, and Minolta 35 mm systems).

 

The Mamiya website features a Popular Photography study comparing the Mamiya and Contax (Zeiss) lenses. Despite the favorable review of the Mamiya lenses, I consider (even as a Mamiya user) Mamiya and Pentax (and Contax) to be essentially the equal...

I'm not sure where all this "film flatness" garbage came from. The film flateness "problem" with the Mamiya 645AF is not unique to that camera, but really inherant in ANY reverse-loading MF camera. Even then, the problem only emerges when a single roll is shot over an extended period of time (ie several days)--long enough for the film to be come "bent" under to rollers. As this is not a problem for professionals who go through a roll very quickly, almost all of those who reort this "problem" are not professionals and will admit to leaving a half-shot roll in the camera for several days.

 

Film flatness aside, I believe both cameras have their advantages. The Pentax is definately cheaper and practically speaking, just as good. In my opinion, the Mamiya and it's ability to take multiple film backs (and digital backs) maes it a clear winner for me...

I'm not sure exactly how important "brightness" is as most calibration software will decrease the brightness to around 100-120 cd/m2 for color critical work. Contrast is definately important; however, remember that a contrast ratio of 1:500 (roughly 1/2^9) only provides about one more "stop" of light over a monitor with a contrast ration of 1:300 (roughly 1/2^8). Viewing angle is critical--get the widest you can (about 170/170 degrees).

 

I'm not so sure I agreee with the poster above who indicated that CRTs were probably better. Although one could argue that some CRTs have a *slighly* larger color gamut, LCDs certainly have less distortion. Both monitors have their strengths and weaknesses. For me, the bottom line is CRTs are much less expensive.

 

Try:

 

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/acd/acd.htm

 

For a Apple Cinema display review.

I really don't agree with the poster above. I find PW Pro to be much easier for the average photographer to learn than Photoshop 7. I also don't agree that "PWP is an excellent choice if you do not see yourself getting really deep into digital post-processing." I've worked as a photographer and sold $1000s worth of prints using PW as my only editing program. I've never thought, even once, "If only I was using PS, I'd be able to [fill in the blank]" Fact is, when I fisrt purchased PW Pro, I didn't have the $699 for Photoshop and thus was principly attracted to the price (and the ability to handle 48-bit images). Now, I have $699 to spend, but I'm not sure what Photoshop would give me.