AaronFalkenberg

<p>Bob, while I heartily endorse the "expert" approach, there is one thing here that no one has suggested and might save the day: Windows Shadow Copies. If you are running Windows Vista or 7, there is a good chance windows itself has created a backup of the folder you deleted without you even realizing it. <br>

1. Right click on the container folder, i.e. the folder holding the folder that you deleted. In this case, if it is Windows' generic "Pictures" folder, that folder is in your Username folder, probably called "Bob" or something. This is the folder that also has the Music, Documents, and Desktop folders, etc.<br>

2. Click Properties, and then "Previous Versions." If you're lucky (and don't clear the windows shadow copies cache) you can step back in time and retrieve the "Pictures" folder as if it had never gone.<br>

Someone once told me, after I had a similar incident, that no matter how many backups you make, the universe doesn't like your data. <br>

I really hope you get it all back (we've all been there), but if not, then all your prints just became limited edition, cha ching!</p>

<p>You should never apply the printer profile to an image. This is different than your working colorspace (i.e. prophoto, sRGB, etc). If you are scanning film, then scanning in and working in ProPhoto makes a lot of sense. Many slides encompass a color range greater than sRGB and even Adobe98. If, however, you are editing digital camera files, then ProPhoto is not as usefull especially if the files were captured in the sRGB color space to begin with. I recommend converting your images to Adobe98 prior to printing. Turn OFF all color management in the printer software and let Photoshop manage the colors. Select the appropriate profile for your printer/paper combination, and assuming you have a calibrated monitor, the results should be quite similar. Remember to view the prints according to how the monitor was profiled for the most accurate results, e.g. if your monitor is profiled for 5600K, and you view your prints in the light from a north facing window, they likely will not look the same. </p>

<p>If the orignial file started out life in the sRGB color space, then color range is neither lost nor gained by converting to Adobe RGB. In short, if the client first knows how to convert for printing, it is redundant to give them a second file. If, however, they aren't familiar with things like that, a second image in the Adobe98 space could help. NB: even though printing is usually governed by the print profile, I have noticed differences between the same image printed with sRBG vs. A98 converted profiles. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone. <br>

Michael, I did that. Shot them both at a range of about 20 feet instead of 5 and the fields of view were nearly identical. Interesting.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Aaron </p>

<p>I was playing around with a friends d300, trying some of his dx lenses vs some of my full frame lenses when I noticed odd angle of views between the 18-200 VR and my Sigma 180mm macro:<br>

<strong>Nikon 18-200 @ 200:</strong><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/18_200@200.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="319" /><br>

<strong>Sigma 180mm:</strong><br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/180mm_prime.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="319" /><br>

This is definitely not what I expected. I've read on reviews that the 18-200 is a little short at the telephoto end, but this is a huge difference. Does anyone know what focal length the Nikon lens actually is, or if the Sigma is actually greater than 180mm?</p>

<p>I highly recommend the scanscience fluid and mount. It's the only thing I will use for 4x5" and can't imagine why it would be any different for a Nikon 9000. </p>

<p>I've noticed that in the past year, P.net is changing the size of the photos I upload even if the image is within the 700px preview size. For example, here is a screenshot of an image's size in PS: <img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/PS_size.JPG" alt="" width="423" height="143" /><br>

and here is a screener of that same image once it has been uploaded to Photo.net: <img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/Pnet_size.JPG" alt="" width="414" height="199" /><br>

I know it is not my browser interpreting the pixel dimensions differently, so it must be something on P.net's end. The size difference seems to be a consitent 12px in both dimensions. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Actually depending on the connection type (usb vs. e-sata) they could perform equally. A USB connection has a much lower throughput (roughly 30MB/s) than either the 2.5" or 3.5" drive can handle. If the connection is E-SATA (possibly over 100MB/s) which I strongly recommend if your computer/motherboard has it, then the 3.5" drive will generally outperform the 2.5" drive. The exception being Western Digital's Velociraptor. As others have said, you generally pay a bit more for the smaller drives, not always, though, depending on where you look. </p>

<p>Heck, one more for the bandwagon.<br>

It looks to me like there is a red/blue cross cast on her skin vs. skin shadows.<br>

A bit of selective color, desaturating the teeth and wood, whites of her eyes, added contrast on her hair highlights. And some NIK skin softener to reduce the ruddiness/glare. I would love to see what Patrick would do with this. </p><div></div>

<p>Heck, one more for the bandwagon.<br>

It looks to me like there is a red/blue cross cast on her skin vs. skin shadows.<br>

A bit of selective color, desaturating the teeth and wood, whites of her eyes, added contrast on her hair highlights. And some NIK skin softener to reduce the ruddiness/glare. I would love to see what Patrick would do with this. </p>

<p>In my sink.<br>

I maintain it won't be the film producers which nullify the medium, but the end processors. Finding e6 labs is easy compared to medium and especially large format neg developers. But this tune has been sung before, and will continue. </p>

<p>Don's Photo does. They have shops in Edmonton, Sask, and Manitoba. <a href="http://www.donsphoto.com/photolabservices.html">http://www.donsphoto.com/photolabservices.html</a><br>

There is also Technicare Imaging in Edmonton. They service most of the pros in the area: <a href="http://www.carouselphoto.net/">http://www.carouselphoto.net/</a><br>

I'm sure there are other print labs in other areas as well on the west coast and for sure in the east.</p>

<p>Black and white, no matter the size, it's Harman FB Al</p>

<p>If it's a good lab, just let them know you want a 2-stop push. Assuming the images are well lit, they will look just the same as if you had shot them at iso100 except there will be visibly more grain and contrast.</p>

<p>I have used that, but have never experienced a reduction in file size. On large files, I have noticed that most of the frames are pretty low resolution and get pixely. I eventually got rid of this program in favor of OnOne's PhotoFrame v4. Much better program interface. Better and higher quality frames, too. Sorry, I couldn't be of more help. </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure there isn't any fungus, they're just dirty. I've never handled Kodachromes before and so don't know how they would react to a simple wash and rinse. They won't bloat or do something different than washing E6 will they? </p>

<p>I've got a couple of old Kodachromes that have a fair bit of grunge on them. It looks like it's just dirt/dust, hard to tell. Will the slides be safe if I clean them the same way as my usual E6 process? Just a rinse and a quick soak in dilute PhotoFlo. <br>

Cheers,<br>

Aaron</p>

<p>Pentax has always made an excellent cable release. Unlike cheap ones that use a weak plastic housing, the Pentax cables are woven - very durable. They are also inexpensive and easy to come by. </p>

<p>Correct. Vuescan offers both, but I believe Silverfast only has the latter. I prefer multisampling since it eliminates the possibility of registration errors between multiple full scans and is still excellent at reducing noise.</p>

<p>+100000000<br>

The 3800 makes fantastic deep glossy B+W prints. I love to print with Harman Fb Al gloss. Color is about the same between the two on either matte or gloss.</p>

<p>I don't have that scanner, but once when I was scanning MF on my V750, I was getting the same thing: I would select a frame, and in the larger preview scan it would be off a good 1/8" from what I had selected. It turns out I had somehow changed the crop offset. You <em>might</em> look into that, but like I said, I don't have that scanner.</p>

<p>Yeah, neither have I. The G10 is a different beast. Glad it worked for you.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Aaron</p>

<p>Similar to the OP, all of my software is up to date, and my jpgs don't show up either. BUT, I can get them through Bridge if use the "get photos from camera" function under the File menu. I just got the camera and haven't tried RAW yet.<br />Here is a screen showing what I get when I plug the G10 into my computer. None of the jpgs open through Bridge if browse to the files on the camera. I have to use the "get photos" function.<br>

<img src="http://www3.telus.net/picbin/bridge_g10.JPG" alt="" width="756" height="629" /></p>

<div></div>