john_markanich

<p>For what it's worth to the OP I have a 28-80 2.8-4L EOS lens (circa 1992) which was my main taking lens for 35mm film for at least the next 15 years. Compared to my other non-L FD lenses I can testify that the clarity, openness of shadows and overall warmth of my Kodachrome slides was, WAS, noticeable.<br>

I haven't had a chance to do any comparisons on a digital sensor but am eager to try.</p>

<p>Mpix, Mpix, Mpix.....</p>

<p>Here are my votes: The info is a bit dated but the first story is a comical head-scratcher.<br>

Worst: (in the film days) FD 200mm f4 Macro. I came new, direct from B&H, without any internal aperture mechanism whatsoever. Just a tube with some lens elements inside. No joke. It took a nearly a year to sort out the return/refund deal but I eventually got the FD 100 f4 Macro which was superb.<br>

Best: (again in the film days) EOS 28-80 f2.8-4L zoom. My first L lens. A real eye-opener as to what good glass can do to the overall look of an image. I plan to take this lens into the digital arena as soon as Canon either produces a 5D Mark IV or the equivalent of Sony's a7R. </p>

<p>Yeah, 1-800-OKCANON<br>

In the future read before you proceed.</p>

<p>It isn't the camera that makes the image anymore than it's the typewriter that makes the novel.</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me what would be a starting development time/developer for HIE shot a ASA 200 with a #25 red filter.</p>

<p>Consider yourself lucky. In 1991 I bought an FD 100mm Macro Lens. It had a front element and a rear element but from what I could tell it had <strong>nothing else in between</strong>. No joke, not even the aperture mechanism. It took B&H a year to sort that one out but they eventually sent me a new one.</p>

<p>Hmmmm......sounds like the software moves the optic to the position where it is to be locked. Other than installing something like Parallels (a program that mimics Windows on a Mac) you're next best bet might be hand delivery to the prospective buyer or doing a careful move to a friend running windows where you can install the software and properly lock down the device.</p>

<p>Hmmmm......sounds like the software moves the optic to the position where it is to be locked. Other than installing something like Parallels (a program that mimics Windows on a Mac) you're next best bet might be hand delivery to the prospective buyer or doing a careful move to a friend running windows where you can install the software and properly lock down the device.</p>

<p>I like<br>

http://www.mpix.com</p>

<p>My manual shows where the locking screw is located (pg.14). When it was first removed it should have been stored in a matching hole at one end, on the bottom between two of the rubber feet. The screw itself looks like a specialty item so I wouldn't try just whatever fits. Some software clicking follows.</p>

<p>I've attached here the text from pg. 14. Sorry, the illustrations didn't paste in.</p>

<p> Before using the scanner for the first time, remove the optics<br>

locking screw on the bottom panel of the scanner with a flathead<br>

screwdriver. As the removed locking screw is necessary<br>

when transporting the scanner, tighten the screw at the<br>

storage position for a future use.<br>

TRANSPORTING THE SCANNER<br>

When transporting the scanner, move the optics to the locking<br>

position to prevent a damage and then tighten the optics<br>

locking screw on the bottom panel of the scanner.<br>

1. When the DiMAGE Scan Multi PRO Utility<br>

Software is in function:<br>

Windows:<br>

Press Ctrl, Shift and L key simultaneously.<br>

Macintosh:<br>

Press Command , Shift and L key<br>

simultaneously.<br>

2. When “The optics will be moved to the<br>

locked position.” appears on the screen,<br>

click on [OK].<br>

3. “The optics have been moved. Turn the<br>

scanner off and lock the locking pin.”<br>

appears on the screen, click on [OK].<br>

• Turn off the power of the scanner and tighten<br>

the optics locking screw.</p>

<p>William, you don't have to rely on the cloud for your PhotoShop work. Simply save any image you happen to be working on to a folder on your home based hard drive(s). The cloud feature, I'm guessing, is for pro's working in a mobile environment who need access to their files anywhere, anytime. As a lowly photo enthusiast I have no need for this feature. And yes, $9.99 per month is still a kick in the shin but is somewhat mediated by the provided software, the instant updates, and the would-be cost of upgrading to newer versions of PS in the future.<br>

Will Adobe find a way to sell us something else down the line? I'm sure they will as every business does.<br>

If this ten-bucks-a-month plan holds for an appreciable time I can personally justify the annoyance based on my volume and level of work. As always, your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>OP here: I may have found an answer to my own question at http://www.dpreview.com/<br>

You will have to dig down to the Sept. 4th posts. <br>

If true, happy days are here again.</p>

 

<p>I just received an email from a trusted source (Mark S. Johnson Photography</p>

<a href="http://www.msjphotography.com/">www.msjphotography.com</a>) who related the following:

<p>Friends,<br /><br />After all of the recent grumbling about Photoshop Creative Cloud pricing, Adobe has finally listened to photographers and come up with a plan that gives us all reason to keep being creative! Yesterday at Photoshop World, Adobe announced a Creative Cloud membership plan designed exclusively for photographers and priced just right. Here's an excerpt from their press release: <br /><br />"Since introducing Photoshop CC we’ve listened to feedback from a spectrum of our customers, from advanced professionals to casual enthusiasts. One common request was a solution specifically tailored for photographers. We listened and at Photoshop World we’re announcing a special offer for our loyal Photoshop customers. Beginning today, customers who own Photoshop CS3 or higher are eligible for a special Creative Cloud membership offer that includes all of the following for just $9.99/month (pricing varies outside of the US):<br /><br />Photoshop CC<br />Lightroom 5<br />20 GB of online storage<br />Behance ProSite<br />Access to the online video tutorials in Creative Cloud<br /><br />This is the ongoing price for anyone who signs up by December 31, 2013. So if you sign up in October 2013, then when you renew in October 2014, the price will still be $9.99 per month. We do not currently have any intention of raising this price."<br /><br />Adobe has announced that this offer will become available in a few weeks. When it is, I'll make an announcement on <a href="http://www.msjphotography.com/">MSJPhotography</a>, or you can check out the <a href="http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-5609242-10685983">Adobe site</a> to learn when the offer goes live.<br /><br />Best!<br /><br />Mark<br>

Mark S. Johnson Photography</p>

 

<a href="http://www.msjphotography.com/"> </a>

 

 

 

 

 

Back to my question: As a former CS5 owner I reluctantly bit the bullet and updated a single application, i.e. to Photoshop CC, <strong>before Adobe's last deadline of July 31st</strong> under a contract of $9.99 per month for the first year then jumping to $20 per month thereafter. Now, will I, as a "loyal PhotoShop customer", be eligible for the new $9.99 per month forever plan?

 

I haven't contacted Adobe about this as the new plan is not posted on their website as of yet.

 

Any thoughts? I'm sure a bunch of us are in the same boat.

 

<p>Well, I can tell you there is no objective measurement of a "good picture". Some of the most wonderful images ever captured display rule-breaking flaws that would exclude them from consideration as "wonderful images". <br>

Forget the objective rules. It is the eye and the minds-eye that rule.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>I've often had the same wish. I have hoped that Canon would take my film F1 and simply, and only, make it a digital capture machine rather than a film capture machine. An LCD on the back would be OK as would a variable white balance dial. An SD or CF slot would be required but other than these few additions to what is already the specs of a film F1 I would need nothing more to continue on making still images. I have no interest in video.</p>

<p>OK, we just answered our own question. What the industry needs is a larger-sensor "TOUGH" camera in order to make a RAW file useful. The camera would be a little bit bigger but I think the IQ and headroom afforded by the RAW file would be worth it. Who knew; Da vinci may have wanted to snorkel. Your thoughts. </p>

<p>The Olympus STYLUS TOUGH TG-2 iHS has just been announced. A very nice upgrade to the TOUGH series BUT why won't Olympus, or any other camera manufacturer for that matter, create a "TOUGH" camera that outputs a RAW file? That is exactly what the advanced enthusiast, like myself, wants. If I'm going to go through the trouble of skiing, snorkeling, skydiving or otherwise hanging out of the side of rocketsled WHY would I only want the output of the lowly JPEG?<br>

(yeah, yeah, I know we have the Canon and Nikon DSLR cinder blocks but I'm not a pro, just an advanced enthusiast).</p>

 

<p>Am I missing something here? When I convert a CR2 to a DNG I end up with a CR2 <strong>AND </strong>a DNG file of the same image in the same folder. No anxiety, just redundancy in a different file format.</p>

<p>My workflow. I don't shoot many commercial jobs anymore so this approach may/may not be of use to you. <br>

I always shoot RAW+JPEG. The JPEG serves as a 1st defense against obsolescence albeit in an inferior format. The best shots of a given shoot are copied to their own folders. These are duped as DNG files. The RAW file still exists right next to the DNG file in the same folder. This same folder will subsequently contain all the saved steps in my post-processing activities including all iterations of any purpose-modified files. Everything in one place. <br>

This saves me the storage space and the processing time of converting an entire shoot from RAW to DNG. After all, 99.9% of a shoot is chaff anyway. Neither myself or history needs to see my chaff. My intention is to display to the future my finished "Work". Not give them a wheelbarrow full of images.<br>

The whole mess is routinely backed-up to a Dual-1TP external Raid-1 array and another separate 1TP external drive kept off-site.<br>

The prints I make of my best efforts, of course, just like the old days, will only last as long as the ink and paper they're printed on. That's why the Egyptians carved things in stone I suppose. <br>

They made the Pyramids and somehow I don't feel as important.</p>

 

<p>Since you're on a tripod don't forget to disable image stabilization.</p>

West Milford, upper Passaic Co.

<p>Thanks Craig. I'm aware of the big houses (B&H, Adorama, Keh...) Unfortunately, from my end, there is no way I could put all this gear in a truck and motor on down to NYC. I am looking for on-site inspection. I could then help transport or transport the gear myself in a few trips if within a reasonable distance of northern NJ. If I have to be picked apart in chunks (say the enlarger, lenses, easel or the processors etc. so be it).</p>

<p>Can anyone recommend a contact for selling the contents of a complete darkroom in the New Jersey/Northeast area? I have a 4X5 Beseler Enlarger w/vaccum easel, a Jobo w/lift, an ICP42 and CAP40 roller transport processors plus all the tanks, trays, lenses, and accessories. I would like a one-stop purchase.</p>

<p>Earth to Irene. Your image looks fine. Just turn down the saturation a bit. When you're in a canopy of yellow/orange you're going to get yellow/orange. A little pump-up of the blue might help the sky but siince I can't see the rest of your series I can't tell how far off the mark (compared to the rest of the images in the series) you are.</p>