melmann

<p>Tried upgrading to ver. 1.4 of body firmware but no joy. Had to hard reset camera body; now counter is showing correct image numbers for each card.</p>

<p>One of my bodies is registering the same image count (76) regardless of which CF card I use, even after formatting in the camera. I put all the cards in a different E-3 and the counts are what I expect for the memory of each card. When I fired off a few shots in the first body the image count decreased and now won't go back to a higher number after formatting. Has anyone encountered this problem and if so what's the solution? The body in question has well over 100,000 shutter actuations but never any problems.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>If you have a Four-Thirds mount get an adapter for the Zuiko 300mm f/4.5 lens from the OM days. Equivalent to 600mm on Four-Thirds, has a tripod collar mount and built in hood. I've compared it to the digital 300mm f/2.8 and in the f/5.6-11 range on a steady camera the sharpness is equivalent on my E-3 at ISO 100. Granted it'll be manual focus and aperture so not great for sports photography but works for me on wildlife.</p>

<p>I have a cable that plugs into the remote release port on my E-3 and runs to my PocketWizard into the Remote/Flash port. I want to use another PocketWizard to remotely fire the shutter and flashes (the flashes are Olympus models Fl-36 and Fl-50 set up with PocketWizards as well). When I trigger the remote the flashes go off and then the shutter. I can't find a setting that will trigger the shutter and flashes at the same time. My E-3 is set on Manual and I'm using Olympus E-lenses (same problem on all other lenses). Anyone who has tried this setup - have you found a way to have the shutter and flashes fire simultaneously?</p>

<p>The PocketWizard system works fine using the hot shoe to fire flashes remotely, and it works fine using the remote cable to fire the shutter remotely. It just doesn't seem to be able to sync the two. There are wildlife/bird images I want to work on but I have to have both shutter and flash in control.</p>

<p>The remote cable is a third party product - does Olympus make such a product?</p>

<p>I've tried the infrared remote built into the camera and flashes and it doesn't work for my application either because the distance between camera and flash is too great or the angle of the trigger flash is too narrow. I really need a non-infrared control system.<br>

<br />Thanks.</p>

<p>Sharp Photo in Wisconsin processed a couple of rolls for me as B&W and I really liked the result. You need to overexpose about 1/2 stop to bring out shadow details. It gives you a pretty contrasty slide, which could be a benefit for shooting on low contrast days. I've picked up 12 rolls that have been in the freezer since 2008 and am planning to work through them just for fun.</p>

<p>No, haven't disappeared, just trying different things out to see what happens. I've landed on processor speed as the issue - the read/write speed appears to be secondary. I've gotten so spoiled with fast computers it's surprising to be bumping up against the speed limit!</p>

<p>My iMac is RAM limited to 6Gb but read/write data doesn't indicate much is being written out to disk during processing. I can squeeze another 2Gb onto the board but don't think that's going to help me. PS runs at 100% efficiency while it's involved so that's not slowing down then handoff and receipt from NIK.</p>

<p>For background, as mentioned, I process RAW files out of Lightroom into Photoshop, where the NIK plug-ins reside. My file sizes are around 10MP going into PS and I work on them as Smart Objects where they show up around 57MP .psd files. The processing time once I hit the OK button ranges from 5 to 20 seconds, depending on the plug-in (Viveza appears to take the longest, followed by Color Efex Pro and Silver Efex Pro - these are all generation 2 packages). Yeah, seems silly to worry about even 20 seconds but when working on several images it adds up.</p>

<p>Speeding up PS with larger scratch space and shutting down other programs doesn't appear to have an impact on the delay so it must all be in the NIK package and how the CPU is running the program. I'm sure it's a processing-heavy piece of software and am almost always amazed at what it can do so perhaps a little patience on my part is in order.</p>

<p>At least until I can buy a Mac Pro with swift processors and on-bus multiple fast HD's!</p>

<p>I'm calling this one closed. Thanks to all for your insights and advice. Looks like this is an issue I just have to buy my way out of.</p>

<p>I have the latest versions of the NIK complete package running on an iMac 2.4GHz with 4Gb RAM and an external scratch disk (>400Gb space) on a Firewire 800 connection. All my image files exist on a separate 1Tb Firewire 800 external HD. My workflow is to push image files from Lightroom 3 to Photoshop CS5 and then use different NIK tools to process into a final form.</p>

<p>I am looking for advice on how to speed up the NIK processing. While running it doesn't seem to impact PS Efficiency or scratch disk usage, nor is it impacted by the amount of free space on my internal HD. I realize there is a lot of computing going on here but would like to have some options on controlling my wait time - bigger processor, more RAM, more HD space, etc.</p>

<p>The NIK site isn't forthcoming on what impacts their software's speed and I apparently can't phrase search terms properly so thought I'd ask the community here.</p>

<p>As you think about advice keep in mind I'm using a Mac and will continue doing so - tell me about your NIK speed improvement on a PC only if it was the result of some non-operating system dependent change you made to your system such as increasing RAM, expanding scratch disk size, putting data on a separate disk, etc.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I'm researching whether to upgrade my iMac and Macbook Pro to the latest operating system and printing is a concern. My iMac runs Leopard (OS X 10.5.x) and my laptop runs Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6.x). Although I usually print off the iMac there are times when I use the laptop to print. I've noticed a difference in the print menus between the two operating systems when printing from Photoshop CS5. In Leopard, whether I select Colorsync or Canon as my Color Matching when I go to the Color Options screen I can move the sliders around for both color and brightness. The same menu in Snow Leopard only allows me to move the sliders when I have Canon selected as my Color Matching scheme; when I select Colorsync all the sliders are grey and unresponsive.</p>

<p>Now in all reality I never actually use these sliders to make adjustments during printing - I use profiles for the papers/inks I use on a specific printer and adjust in Photoshop as needed. Nonetheless, it seems odd that there would be a difference just based on operating system, and concerns me about upgrading. What other functionality might I lose?</p>

<p>Has anyone experienced this issue? If so, is there a solution (maybe I've got something turned on/off wrong)? Or is it just a bug that has no real impact on print control? I hate to change things that are working for me but technology keeps advancing.....</p>

<p>Not surprising. Was never about the film - it was the dedicated processing that limited who could develop the slides.</p>

<p>I did find a lab who will process Kodachrome as B&W (which it is anyway) and my first two rolls came back sharp and contrasty - pretty cool. If I get more it looks like about 1/2 stop overexposure will help with shadow details.</p>

<p>The real question is when are the sensor guys going to talk with the paper guys and sync up sizes!</p>

<p>Not an issue I've seen. In Lightroom there isn't a Library and Develop version of your image - there's only one version of each image file. My understanding is the screen image is Lightroom's presentation of the RAW file with all the "adjustments" added - not sure if that's a JPEG or not.</p>

<p>When in Develop module, look to the left column and make sure you have the top-most instruction highlighted. That will be the last thing done to this image file (could be a Develop step, print step, export step, etc.). Could be when you switch back and forth from one module to another it is displaying different "states" of that image.</p>

<p>I do notice when I have an image sent from Lightroom to Photoshop, do some work in PS and save it, if I go back to Lightroom before the save is complete I'll see a change in the Lightroom image as it "updates" the image file.</p>

<p>Lightroom - digital asset management (easy to store and find specific images), import upon plugging in camera or memory card, good global image adjustment capabilities in RAW format, non-destructive editing, some local adjustment capabilities, nice print engine, create slideshows, easy to connect with social media sites<br>

Photoshop - destructive editing, not a digital asset management tool (Bridge is a part of PS but Lightroom is easier to use), best for very local adjustments (pixel level if so inclined), layers capability to fine tune image adjustments, graphic design tools included<br>

Not an Aperture user so no help there. I use both Lightroom and PS as part of my unified workflow and would hate to figure out how to give one up.</p>

<p>Great responses and advice. Thanks to all for sharing your experience.</p>

<p>I'm fortunate to live in a city where I can get 4x5 sheet film processed locally, both B&W and color transparency, but I can see moving elsewhere in the future and I'm wondering how to deal with processing where I can't just drop it off at the local lab. What is the best way to package up film holders to ship for processing? Do processors ship the holders back as part of the processing service or do I have to provide a return shipping package? How about protection from the Post Office's package scanning - wrap in lead foil? Any other concerns to address so this will be as foolproof as possible?</p>

<p>Don't need to worry about this right now but want to be prepared for the future. Any shipments would be within the 48 contiguous United States.</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions.</p>

<p>I use a version of this scanner. Treat the scanner like a digital camera - get the most exposure to the right of the histogram as possible, with as flat a contrast as possible, and colors as neutral as possible. Then use your photo editing software to make adjustments to deliver the final image to look as you want. Watch out for color casts if the scanner isn't warmed up prior to use (at least 15 minutes). They are a pain to get out later.<br>

Using 16 bit is good to get full color depth and AdobeRGB instead of sRGB. Unless you want really big file sizes I'd come off the 5400dpi - my research shows about half that resolution will give you all the detail you need for printing. If your slides are particularly dusty then clean them with compressed air and soft brushes and leave the ICE off - it seriously slows down the scanning process.</p>

 

<p>Harvey,<br>

I recently printed some 40x30" images on metal and fine art paper - both from my E-3. I used Genuine Fractals on one and Photoshop CS5 Bicubic on the other. The two interpolation methods fit different needs - sharp edges vs. smooth pixel generation. Viewing distance is critical, as JC says - at 6 inches the images are obviously not "sharp" but at 6 feet they look good. My client was very happy with the results.<br>

In contrast, I enlarged an image from a medium format digital back to the same size and the level of detail and sharpness was noticeably better. Bigger print images require more digital information if you want up-close detail.</p>

<p>Charles,<br>

If you're working in Photoshop and it supports Smart Objects consider doing your editing in that mode. Much like Lightroom the software builds a "catalog" of your instructions to be applied when you want to export it as a JPEG or print it, but it doesn't create all the extra layers that add to file size. By saving my files out as PSD's with the Smart Object layers not flattened I can go back later and change the adjustments I made using NIK plugins while keeping my image files at their original size.<br>

Anyone else taking this approach? Any novel workflows using SO's we can learn from?</p>

<p>I also use NIK HDR Efex Pro and want to get a more natural look. I'm finding I pull the Tone Compression down (to the left) so I retain more difference between light and dark areas, and set the method to Clean or Natural at about 20-30%. I'll then tweak the Black and White to get a contrast that looks good. My images are looking less HDR-ish to my friends.<br>

As far as range, the earlier comments about adjusting to for the scene are right on. One universal setting won't do - you have to consider the exposure range of your composition and lighting. Advice I've found on blogs with great HDR images recommend more exposures at smaller increments to really capture the details throughout the range. For stationary compositions I'll go to 7 or 9 exposures at 0.3 EV increments above and below mid-range.<br>

Yes, natural things move but to compensate for obvious movements I usually set my camera for 5 images @ 0.7 or 1.0 EV steps and then burst firing (I'm going at 6fps) and shoot off 5 shots. Except for >20 knot winds I usually get trees and clouds close enough to the same location in one second that the ghost removal functions takes care of the small differences.</p>

<p>If there is a thread that answers this question someone please post a link.<br>

I infrequently (once or twice a week) print on my Canon 9500 Mark II but when I do it's usually 3-6 images, a combination of color and B&W. I notice the first print takes quite a while as the printer apparently "charges" the head. To conserve ink should I leave the printer on all the time? Will doing so actually conserve ink? Are there any negative effects of leaving it on all the time?<br>

Thanks for the advice.</p>

<p>After receiving my copy and reading it I traded a few emails with Bob about different films and thoroughly enjoyed the conversations. Then a few weeks after I was at a workshop and rode around with a former Kodak engineer, chatting about the technology and its evolution. It's an amazing story many photographers probably don't even realize, the precision technology to design, develop and manufacture something many of us just take for granted. Sad that all these very smart and dedicated people should see the work of their lives dwindle away like this. Wonder if there's a lesson here for sensor designers?<br>

As Kevin says, use it. Keep buying film and making photographs, if only in tribute to those whose shoulders we stand on.</p>

<p>Friedemann,<br>

I'm looking at my Markins Q-10 right now sitting on my Manfrotto 055 tripod. The diameter of the bottom of the ballhead body is a millimeter or two larger than the circular tripod plate it mounts on. My legs don't reverse-fold but if they did with their current mounting systems the ballhead would fit within the folded legs. The big locking knob will have to fit between the legs - it sticks out an inch from the ballhead body - and you'll have to figure out where the rotation locking knob goes - it is 45 degrees from the big locking knob and probably would interfere with one leg folding upward.<br>

I saw someone trying to put a RRS head on a reverse-folding tripod and it didn't fit - too large a diameter; don't know what model they were working with. Most of the people I know who use reverse-fold tripods take the head off to get the full advantage of the benefit.<br>

Hope that helps.</p>

<p>I recently bought a Fotodiox adapter to mount a OM manual lens to my digital E-3. it does work but I found fit to be just slightly off - the opening that mounts to the lens is not quite round - and the lens moves just slightly when carrying it around. Doesn't seem to affect the focusing but would prefer a tighter fit. For my next adapter I'm going with a different brand.</p>

<p>I'm in the Canon camp with a 9500 I'm very pleased with, both for color and B&W. I print color on Canon semi-gloss and B&W on various fine art papers. Had the printer about a year now, trouble free.</p>

<p>Tried Canon and Epson while in photography school and decided the Canon met my expectations. I buy the ink in sets unless I'm doing a lot of B&W then I'll get separate black or grey cartridges. Check the various photo discount stores - they usually have ink prices better than retail or directly from the manufacturer.</p>

<p>Greg,<br>

I've rented the 300mm f/2.8 as well as the 90-250mm for wildlife workshops. They are wonderful lenses but really take some time to get used to in order to get sharp images. Oh, and they are both really heavy. I've seen claims for hand-held but for me these are both tripod lenses.</p>

<p>Ran the 300mm manual lens through some paces today and I'm very pleased with the output. The focusing is smooth and even, aperture clicks are solid. I even tried some hand-held shots (Olympus' image stabilization being in the camera is a plus for manual lenses) and was pleased. The two stops I lose from the f/2.8 I can make up with ISO so that isn't much of an issue.</p>

<p>I made a misstatement in my original post. I'm shooting in APERTURE priority, not Shutter. That way I get shutter speed set automatically once I manually set the aperture on the lens. I can use exposure compensation to fine tune as needed.</p>

<p>I just received the 300mm f/4.5 Zuiko lens (OM manual version) and adapter to mount it on my E-3. The few first shots I've made look nice but are all indoors. Will be out this weekend working with it outdoors. </p>

<p>Those of you who have experience with this combination - any tricks of the trade or issues to watch out for? I'll be shooting in Shutter priority, trying to keep the aperture in the f/8-f/16 range to maximize sharpness on a tripod but would love to hear any advice on other uses, particularly wildlife.</p>

<p>I'm hoping this reduces the temptation of the big-bucks 300mm f/2.8 digital lens......</p>