mike_r4

I have searched, and have found lots of comments about Vista, but none that

address this particular issue. I just bought a new computer, and it came with

Vista. I'm FAR from being a techie, and bought this because it seemed like a

good deal, and all the new machines they had came with Vista.

 

Does anyone know if Photoshop 7 will run on this machine? The computer is

still in the box. I'm now considering taking it back, and looking for

something with XP. I guess I could come up with the bucks for a newer version

of PS, but 7 has been serving my needs, and I do have a limited budget.

 

Now, I'm concerned that my broadband router, scanner, printer, etc, won't

work, and other software like Office 2003, etc. Lot's of old (pre-xp) software

worked on my XP computer, and I guess I just expected this trend would

continue with Vista as it has with other windows 'upgrades'. If anyone can

offer any answers, advice, comments, etc, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Thanks. I did pick up some XP2 today. I'll leave the old stuff in the fridge for now.

As Jay pointed out, TP is getting too rare, and expensive to take risks with. I've stocked up with all the TP I could get, and recently bought up some Technidol locally for ~1/2 price. I do want to try TD-3, as well. TD-3 sounds fairly inexpensive, too.

Sorry if this is the wrong forum. Should I have posted in color film and processing?

I have a couple of rolls of 120 T400CN (C-41). It's dated 8/01, and 12/01. I

bought it a year or two ago (already outdated) at a camera store, and put it

in my fridge.

<p>

Any guesses on how well it will perform?

<p>

Thanks.

<div></div>

Just what's in your budget? You can get a Scan Dual IV 35mm film scanner, AND a lower end Epson flatbed for about the price of the 4990. KEH has the Scan Dual IV new for $228. Used(like new -) for $189. I think this is the best option for scanning 35mm, medium format, and prints on a budget. SD IV does not have "ICE", though.

Thanks for the link, Michael.

Does anyone know the expected shelf life of unopened packets of

Technidol Liquid Developer?

A local shop has their remaining stock on sale. I think it's already

fairly old, I don't think they ever sold much of it. I did a search

here, and read posts that said it has a short life, but I don't know

if that was referring to the mixed developer. I use it as a one shot

developer with Tech Pan. I am also going to order some TD-3 as I

have stockpiled a good deal of Tech Pan. I don't know if I should

buy the Technidol, or just plan on using up what I have, and use TD-

3 in the future. I expect my supply of Tech Pan to last a few years.

 

Thanks,

Mike

I have not used the Canoscan, but I have a SDIV, and I'm very pleased with it. I had an Epson 4180, and I was not at all satisfied with 35mm results. M/F scans were good on the Epson. 35mm scans on the SDIV are excellent, IMO.

Jim has a good point about the inverters. I have a modified sine wave inverter in my truck along with a marine battery which I use to run power tools with. I would not I would not use it for a computer, or other electronics, though. You may want to check with the manufacturer of your strobes to see what kind of power source is required. You may need a pure sine wave inverter. A generator might be better if you can put up with the noise. Some of the more expensive ones are quieter, I think.

<p>

I was wondering if the "clipped" sine wave Jim mentioned was square, or modified sine wave, and I did a quick search. I found this thread on the subject with a question similar to yours:

<p>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/216510/0

Apparently, the question has been addressed a few times there.

I'm trying to decide what printer to buy. I have only an R200 now.

What would you estimate the average lifespan of an Epson printer to

be (1280...2200...R2400...4800)? Would you base it on number of

prints made, or age, or a combination of the two? I know it's early

to guess at the new series of printers, but based on experiences with

2200, 4000, etc? I know some have had mixed results with the 1280,

but I can get one cheap enough that if it lasts 1 year, I can live

with that. If I get the 1280 I'll be using mostly b&w inksets (ut2, I

think)

<p>

Too many to choose from! If they lasted as long as an enlarger (a

lifetime?), I would just save for a 4800. Computer/electronics stuff

all seems to be "disposable", though. Would 5 years of light to

moderate use seem overly optimistic? Epson estimates 10's of

thousands of prints for the 4000, it would take me many years to make

that many. I did not see a number for the R2400. I don't make lot's

of 4x6's, mostly larger prints, and not a large amount.

<p>

Put another way, how long might one of these printers last if I did

not "wear it out" by making a lot of prints?

<p>

I realize there may be a large difference from one individual unit to

another. I'm just looking for a "reasonable expectation". Just trying

to come up with some kind of a $ per year kind of estimate.

<p>

Thanks for any input, educated guesses, random thoughts, etc.

Ahhh. Ok, thanks, Elliot. So simple. It did not occur to me to simply leave those fields blank. I thought there would be a simple solution. I struggle along with photoshop, some things seem intuitive, yet some simple things I miss.

Thank you Edward! I just tried that and it seemed to work. I'll do some more experimenting.

Is there a way to crop a section of an image without changing the

size/resolution, etc of that section?

<p>

Example:<p>

I want to print a "test strip" of an image I have upsized to 16"x20".

I only want to print a 1"x8" strip to check for pixelization, etc. I

want to print the test strip at EXACTLY the same settings as the

16x20 would be printed. Paper can be larger than 1x8, but I want to

save on ink. After getting the results I want, I could get the large

print made. Basically, like setting an enlarger up for a 16x20 print,

but only using a 1x8 strip of paper. How can I do this?

THANK YOU to everyone who responded! I think the 100 will be just what I need. The 200 would be nice, but money IS an object, and that's not in my budget. The weight and sturdy tripod would not be a problem, though. The 100 sounds like it will be a fine lens, and it sounds like the working distance will be much easier to deal with than with the 50.

<p>

I'm still a bit confused about the DOF issue. I'll look into this further for my own education. I don't think it's a major issue in my decision here, anyway.

<p>

I do appreciate all the advice. My next purchase will be a 100 macro.

Follow up question to a previous post in which I recieved much good

advice.

<p>

I want a macro lens mostly for flower close ups, still lifes, etc.

Mostly in the 1:5 to 1:3 range, I think. No "copy work". I will buy

either a 50 3.5 or a 100 4.0. Price is close enough not to be a

factor (KEH bargain prices). I will be using mostly Kodak Technical

Pan film, and I want to be able to make the biggest enlargements

possible/practical from film scans. I will be using a tripod, and

doing everything possible to ensure sharp images. Of course, I have a

limited supply of TP film, and I want to maximize it's usefulness.

<p>

So... my question is which should be the "sharpest"

(resolution/contrast) lens? I can get a 50 (I think "new fd"?), a 50

s.s.c., or a 100 s.c.. If they have been sold, I'll be looking again

at all s.c, s.s.c. 'new', etc. I have really tried to research this

question, but have not been able to find a direct comparison of any

kind. I have found many comments that each is "high resolution".

<p>

I understand that there may be some "distortion" from using the 50 at

very close distances. The 100 may be preferable for that reason.

Also, the working distance involved would seem to make the 100 more

desireable. The 50 would have a bit more DOF, though.

<p>

How would any of these lenses compare to my "normal" 50 1.4?

<p>

I will probably get the 100 s.c. unless someone can tell me it isn't

quite as sharp as one of the 50's (or if it's been sold). If they are

so close that I'm nitpicking, well, I'm sorry. ;^)

<p>

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Yes, I was reading meters on both lenses, not feet. And no, I never worked on the Hubble Telescope! Doh! ;)

<p>

Thank you very much for all the help, and information. This has been extremely informative for me. I will be shopping for a macro lens in the near future. I just purchased yet another lot of Tech Pan, so I've spent my "allowance" for this week already! I'll probably go through KEH for the lens, since their (bargain) prices seem to match the auction prices I've seen this weekend.

My experience is about the same as Nick's. I think any ordinary one should work.

<b>"Common misconception, but not correct. I think the reason people believe this is that the OOF areas are magnified at longer focal lengths, which gives a visual impression of less depth of field.

Magnification is the only determinant of depth of field, assuming you hold the f-number and acceptable circle of confusion constant."</b>

 

<br>

I'm not sure I understand this. Looking at the DOF scale on my 50mm, the lens should focus from 2' to infinity at f22. My 135mm shows that it should focus from about 10 or 12' to infinity at f22. Similar difference at close up end of scale. Does this change at closer ranges? Am I missing something (probably)? If it's a common misconception, I must be common! ;)

<p>

<b>"Incidentally, the Canon FD macro lenses seem to work well at infinity."</b>

<br>

Another reason the 100 would round out my kit, as you said earlier. Would it be a decent portrait lens? Better than my (cheap) 135?

Oops! I should have said 1:2. I believe both lenses go up to 1:2. I'm not sure if both focus to infinity as well, but 1:2 will be enough magnification.

I don't know what happened to my last post. I'll try this again...

<p>

It sounds like the tubes would do what I need. I think I will look for a macro lens as Dave suggested, though. It sounds like it will cover just the range I need. If the macro will do the job without the tubes, for $75-100, and have better resolution, I'll go that way. I guess the 100 would give me more working distance, but the 50 should give me more DOF, right? Are they both about equal in resolution, contrast, etc?

<p>

Walter, the bellows is tempting, and looks like a nice piece of equipment. But, if it won't let me cover the 1:5 to 1:1 range it won't suit my needs. I should have stated the range I was looking for in my first post. Maybe I'll take another look at the bellows later, if I need to get closer than the macro will allow.

<p>

Thanks again, to everyone who offered advice. :)

I am very happy with my Scan Dual IV. An excellent value,IMO. As John said, there is no ICE, but that does not concern me. Quality is more important than time saved for me, and I don't really mind spotting dust. I do make every effort to eliminate dust before scanning. I have never been able to eliminate it completely, though. I can eliminate it in post-processing, which can be time consuming.<p>

With 3200 ppi scans, I can print at 8.5x11 with no interpolation at 360 dpi. Bobs suggestion to calculate how many pixels you need is a good one. If you are printing full frame 35mm negs at no larger than 8.5x11, you should not need more resolution (ppi).

<p>

If you feel you need ICE, or want to make much larger prints, you might consider another scanner. If you have a large quantity of negs/slides to scan, speed and ICE may be important to you. I have not heard of a Plustek scanner.

<p>

I have read that ICE can degrade an image slightly. I don't know this from experience, so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. This is another reason the SDIV suits me just fine.

Wow! Thanks for all the great responses!<p>

What I want to do is get closer than my lenses allow, now. 1:1 is probably closer than I need. It sounds like the set of tubes (12, 20 36mm) would do what I want. I would like to be able to cover the range in between what I can do with no extension, and up to around 1:1 at most. Actually, looking through my viewfinder, at closest focus, I can cover about 6"x9" with the 50mm. I'd like to be able to cover say, 3"x4.5", depending on subject size. I think that would be around 1:3?<p>

 

Mark, thanks for the link. Unfortunatly, the pdf file is hanging up my computer for some reason.<p>

 

Dave, there are several Canon 50mm 3.5 macro lenses for auction that are currently at low prices. Is this the lens you refered to? Would it be significantly better than my 50 1.4 for the magnification I described?<p>I think I will just get the tubes for now, and see if they meet my needs.

Thanks for the quick replies!<p>

Walter, I live in Florida, USA. A bellows might be another option for me, too. KEH has a "Bellows FL" in "ex+" condition for $65. Sounds like it would work, from their description. Looks like a nice piece of equipment in the pic. Magnification ranges from 1:1 to 3:1, so I guess I will not be able to shoot at distances in between 1:1 and what the lens will cover with no extension. I think I would be giving up a lot of range, there.<p>

Peter, the coupler I saw is a 52mm. Can I just reset the aperture manually?<p>

Jeff, when you say "improved results", do you mean improved image quality compared to using the same lens with extension tubes? I don't fully understand the part about making an attachment, can I just use the lens at f8, or f5.6, etc?

<p>

Is my 50mm 1.4 lens a good choice here, on my (low) budget?