arnold_theisen1

The Canon A-1 with a 50mm F1.4 FD lens is a great combination. I used it for 15 years and got some of my most memorable shots with it. You may be reluctant to go back to your modern machines after you see what it can do. Just step back far enought to get the head and shoulders. Too close and you can accentuate your subject's nose too much. I prefer natural light if possible.

The Vuescan web site says it only works as a standalone application. You can't call it up from some other application. I haven't found that to be any kind of impediment. You can trigger Vuescan to open up your favorite editor automatically upon completion of a scan, but I found that to be a nuisance. I'd rather get the scan and then decide which application I want to edit it in as I may use several depending on my intent.

You may want to download a free trial version of Vuescan. I use it on my Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED and I prefer it over the Nikon scanner software. You can make Vuescan as simple or as complex as you like. Vuescan also runs my Epson 3200 flatbed scanner and numerous other scanners as well. If you decide to buy make sure you determine if you want the regular version or the pro version because the prices and features differ. The Pro version will create 16 bit RAW files if you like so that you only ever have to physically scan an image one time. After that you can rescan in 8 bit or 16 bit and make various adjustments to white balance etc., without having to pull out the slide or negative again. The trial version imprints some kind of watermark on your image, but at least you could see if you like the interface before buying.

Probably not worth your investment ($49.95 or $89.95)if you only intend to do this one weekend, but if you are a frequent user of rented scanners this could be helpful.

 

http://www.hamrick.com/index.html

Filemaker Pro works well for me. It is powerful and user friendly. It can handle any kind of data. I use it extensively for cataloging my slides. Once I've entered the information for each slide one time I can then use the data to print out all kinds of reports, including in my case a master index, slide labels, delivery memo, submission report, and a little 2 x 2 insert to replace slides out to publishers. There no limit to the kinds of reports you can generate.

 

For non-photo applications I use it to keep a personal inventory, track my gas mileage, print business cards, print labels for jelly jars, and maintain an address book.

 

It is a relational database as well, allowing you to link several files together and interchange information from one to another.

Thanks Chris. That makes the issue less of a concern than I thought. I've never seen a reference that identifies which edit functions will distort the histogram and which won't.

My intent was certainly not to start any kind of flaming contest, but simply to advise readers of my experience. I would be the first to admit that PSE is a great product at a reasonable price. I started with version 1, then 2, and now 3. However, my intended objecive in getting version three was to have an all-in-one package that would allow me to convert raw images, edit them in 16 bit and then archive them in 16 bit TIFF format. Especially frustrating to me is the fact that I can't use the speck removal or clone tools in 16 bit. I've already got one spot on my low-pass filter that will have to be removed from every shot until such time as I can get the filter cleaned. I can still work around the problem by converting from raw to TIFF in PSE 3 and them moving into Picture Window Pro for the 16 bit editing and speck removal. Knowing what I know now I would have opted for Nikon Capture (which I don't have) to do the conversion and PW Pro (which I do have) for editing because I already have PSE 2 to handle any 8 bit editing needs. I also like to print with the contact sheet and picture package features of PSE2. As it is, I'm now looking at a more complicated work flow.

 

The moral of this story: Caveat Emptor.

I just purchased Photoshop Elements Version 3 because if its touted

ability to handle raw files and 16 bit images. Much to my chagrin

after I opened one of my D70 raw files and tried to work on it in 16

bit mode I discovered that most of the editing tools don't work on

16 bit files. Specifically, the following tools won't work on 16 bit

images: Magic Wand, Selection Brush, Type Tool, Cookie Cutter, Red

Eye Removal, Spot Healing Brush, Clone Stamp Tool, Pencil Tool,

Eraser Tool, Brush Tool, Paint Bucket, Gradient Tool, Custom Shape

Tool, Sponge Tool.

 

When you try to use one of these tools on a 16 bit image you just

get a message that you shold consider converting it to 8 bits.

 

Needless to say, If I had known this before making the purchase I

would have saved my money, but none of these limitations are easy to

find out about in any of the literature I checked, including the

info on Adobe's web site.

 

Perhaps you can benefit from my experience.

I recently invested in the Tamrac Modular Accessory Belt system. (M.A.S.) after an unsuccessful venture with a Cabela's shooting vest which seemed like a good idea at the time (not). This seems like it might be a practical solution although I can't speak with a lot of field experience yet. I also ordered the M.A.S. Belt Harness which is essentially just a pair of sturdy suspenders so that you don't have to carry all the weight on your belt. With this setup you can order just the holders you need to carry the accessories you plan to use. For example I am starting with a camera case, a couple of lens cases, and a filter case. Later, other cases can be added as needed. The cases attach or remove from the belt easily so you are not committed to a specific configuration. As to style I guess that is in the eye of the beholder, but this belt system looks to be about as unobtrusive as you can be and still be a pro photograher on the scene. It is not as if anyone would mistake you for uncle Fred or aunt Lucy. Check out www.tamrac.com.

 

I'm not a shill for the company, just a working outdoors and travel photographer.

From one D70 newbie to another - As a previous poster noted, you may get more shots from a card than you expect. I took my D70 out yesterday just to play with it. I set it to take RAW plus JPEG Basic in large size mode. The LCD said I could expect 43 shots, but I actually got 77 shots from the Sandisk 512mb card. Each raw shot (Nikon NEF image format) took about 6mb and each JPEG took about 600-800K. This was shooting outside in mostly sunny-partly cloudy weather.

 

One advantage to getting the JPEG shots in addition to NEF raw shots is that after you download the images to your computer you can view them all rapidly by letting the Windows XP Picture and FAX viewer browse thru the JPEGs in full-screen display. The picture and FAX viewer just skips over the NEF images when you do this. This will let you sort out the "keepers" from the throwaways so that you won't have to waste time converting raw files that will just subsequently be discarded.

 

The advantage to getting the raw NEF images is that you capture the full 12 bit data that the camera is capable of. These images can then be converted to 16 bit TIFF images by a file converter such as Nikon Capture or various other programs. Saving 16 bit images allows you do do more manipulation in an image editor without degrading the image as much as if it were a JPEG image. The TIFF images are much larger (about 35mb), but the compression used is claimed to be lossless and doesn't degrade with multiple saves.

 

I wish I knew what program to get for converting raw images to TIFF images. I like Picture Window Pro for editing 16 bit TIFF images, but it won't convert the NEF files, so I will have to use something else for that. The software that came with my D70 (Picture Project) will convert images from raw to JPEG, but won't save 16 bit TIFF images and JPEGs are all 8 bits.

 

I downloaded the trial version of Nikon Capture and I'm trying it out now. It seems to have some powerful editing capability and can edit NEF files directly. Version 3 of Photoshop Elements may be another choice. I think it will convert from raw to TIFF, but I'm not sure if you can edit in 16 bit mode in PSE 3. Lots of people praise Photoshop CS, but that price is beyond my means. It's a jungle out there.

Thanks for your suggestions. I've since learned from the maker that Picture Window Pro definitely will not convert raw files, so I will have to get some better converter than Picture Project.

I have been using Picture Window Pro to do high-bit editing on

scanned slides from my Nikon LS-4000. It works fine for that purpose

and allows me to do all my editing in 48-bit mode before converting

to 24-bit for printing.

 

Having recently purchased a Nikon D70 I'm now looking for a way to

edit the raw NEF images in high-bit mode, even though they are not

true 48-bit images. I loaded a NEF image into PW Pro, v3.5.0.9, the

latest version, and it opened the image in 24-bit mode and reduced

the size from 2000 X 3008 pixels to 120 X 160 pixels, thus rendering

the image completely useless.

 

I then looked to Nikon's Picture Project software that came with the

camera and which works fine for getting the raw image to a hard

drive. But Picture Project will only allow me to convert the image

to JPEG, not TIFF, thus losing the high-bit info.

 

Is there some way I can get these NEF images into the TIFF format

while preserving the built-in 12-bit data, short of spending $600

for Photoshop?

 

I did a search but didn't see an answer. Any help will be

appreciated.

 

Arnold

I'm not sure whether this answers the question or not, but I recently scanned a group of slides and then edited them in Photoshop Elements 2. I could see distinct differences in the histogram between unedited scans and edited scans. After editing there are gaps in the histogram where pixels are missing. The original images have solid histograms with no gaps. Seems like this might be one way to tell if an image has been edited.

With 35mm film on my LS4000 I found that the film strip scanning was not all that convenient, so I just cut the film into single shots and mounted the film in slide mounts and used the slide mount attachment. This works fine. Don't know if that will work with the size film you are using.

April is a good time to visit Arches National Park near Moab. You are likely to see clear skies and white puffy clouds which make excellent background for the red rock arches and other formations. Also, there will probably still be snow on the Lasalle Delores mountain range. When you frame the snowcapped peaks behind the red rock formations you have the makings of some beautiful photos. Take a look at the attached shot of Delicate Arch to see what I mean. This photo was shot in the month of May.<div></div>

I too, unlike most people here on photonet, don't buy equipment just to sell it later, I buy it to use it. Over a period of 15 years I shot thousands of photos with my Canon FD lenses. They produced superb images. At the end of that period when I chose to upgrade to newer technology I was rewarded with much higher resale values than I would have reaped with third party lenses. There is nothing cost effective about giving away third party lenses that have no resale value. Sooner or later every serious photographer has to deal with the issue of upgrading to newer technologhy. The most cost effective way to deal with this issue is to stick with the name brand products.

When I sold all my Canon FD equipment to make the transition to autofocus equipment I learned quite quickly that the Canon lenses would sell immediately and in some cases would bring prices that exceeded what I paid for them when new even after 15 years of gentle use. My Kiron lenses with matching doublers, on the other hand, wouldn't even draw a bid. They were highly rated lenses when I bought them, and quite expensive as well, but nobody wanted them. If you care anything at all about resale value stick with the genuine Canon lenses. I'll let others comment as to relative technical quality, but the resale issue alone is enough to sway me to the name brand. I've stuck with the genuine article ever since and haven't been disappointed.

Try the Amana Colonies in Iowa. Right near I-80, Great food, great beer and lots of photo opportunities. Your wife will love it. A chance to step back about 100 years in time.

Marc,

I can't tell if your post is serious or not, but I can assure you that walleye, scientific name Stizostedion vitreum, are not found at Home Depot. In my case, they are found in the Columbia River. Elsewhere they are found in many other fresh waters including the Missouri River and many Midwest impoundments. They provide what is most likely the best table fare of any fresh water fish. My wine of preference with walleye is white zinfandel, but your mileage may vary. In my book any walleye exceeding 10 pounds in weight would qualify as a trophy. The fish in the accompanying photo weighs in at 12 pounds. Bring on the best-seller list.<div></div>

OK, since you asked:

 

If you are after trophy walleyes check out my new book, "Fishing the Mid-Columbia", published by Frank Amato Publications, Inc. in Portland, Oregon. You can review and buy it at www.amatobooks.com. Look under new releases. Or you can get it at www.amazon.com or www.barnesandnoble.com. Do a search on the book title to review the book or purchase it.

 

The book has everything you need to know to pursue trophy walleyes in the 39 mile stretch of river from McNary Dam downstream to Three-Mile Canyon, including river charts, navigation safety, plus where-to and how-to info and other resources including RV Parks, launch ramps, licensed guides, etc. There are also chapters on salmon and steelhead, sturgeon and smallmouth bass. I should stress that with this book you can get fish without a guide, but we have some good guides here and that is also an option.

 

The book is fully illustrated with about 100 of my photos.

Here is a short course that you don't have to pay for:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm

For images that I regard as "keepers" I prefer to cut the negatives into single exposures and mount them in 2X2 slide mounts. Then I can use the slide adapter in the Super Coolscan 4000 ED. I shoot mostly color slide film anyway and this lets me handle and file my negatives just as if they were slides. I think the film strip adapter is a little clunky to use anyway.

The AF-S and AF-C modes are only available when the camera is in autofocus mode. If you move the focus selection switch on the front of the camera from M to AF, then you should be able to select AF-S or AF-C.

I agree with Jim. I started with the Nikkor 28-105 AF 3.5-4.5D zoom and haven't regretted it in more than three years. It is a fine lens and very versatile. Relatively compact and easy to handle. I've since added three more lenses, but the 28-105 is my go-to lens for most situations.

Thanks for all the good advice and suggestions. It looks like I'll need to shoot in raw mode at least part of the time. But now I'm better equipped to determine when to use raw and when to use JPEG.

It is often stated here and on other forums that each time you save

a JPEG image it becomes slightly degraded. Yet, I read Ken

Rockwell's eloquent defense of JPEG

(http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm) and I wonder just how much

do we have to worry about this phenomenon. Rockwell doesn't address

this issue in his essay. I would like to ask him, but he requires a

tribute to answer emails. Right now his going rate is $2.00 a

minute, which is more than I can afford.

 

I tried a little test of my own. I scanned a good slide at 4,000 dpi

to both JPEG and TIFF formats. This gave me an image of 3,470 X 5263

pixels. The JPEG file size was 11.6 mb, and the TIFF file size was

27.2 mb. I opened the JPEG file in Photoshop Elements and saved it

20 times, each time using the save-as feature and renaming the file

each time. I then compared the 20th save with the original and can

see no difference on my monitor even at 200% magnification. It also

looks as good as the TIFF file made at the same time. I noticed that

the JPEG file increased from 11.6 mb to 13.1 mb after the first

save, then to 13.2 mb after the 10th save and then to 13.3 mb on the

20th save. Don't know what accounts for that.

 

I'm not a techie, so I don't know if I've proven anything here or

not, but I really would like to know if the JPEG degradation issue

is anything to worry about. Does it require hundreds or thousands of

saves to make a difference? Any insight will be appreciated. I'm

looking at the Nikon D70 and I would rather not mess with raw files,

yet the only choices are raw or JPEG. Evidently the D70 won't

capture TIFF images.

 

How about if I take an original JPEG and immediately convert it to

TIFF? Does that then protect against any further degradation?