tonysvision

<p>I've been happy with an Epson R2400. Yes, if I leave it idle for several months it will require a couple of cleaning cycles. But despite those long periods of idleness it has never irreversibly clogged. No issues with rejecting genuine cartridges. And with a calibrated monitor it does the job of getting the color and tones right. About $100 used, or $250 new on eBay. </p>

<p>Robert, I use a monopod on occasion and have been successful with it in combination with VR for deep DOF landscape shots down to about 1/15 sec. at the wide end. The advantage of the monopod is quick setup. The disadvantage is that mine (Manfrotto 681B) is nearly as heavy (38 oz) as a light tripod.</p>

<p>Thanks for reminding me of it - it needs to get out more.</p>

<p>http://tonymindling.blogspot.com</p>

<p>At some point in my evolution as a photographer a light dawned and I realized that unsharpness in images was nearly always the result of camera shake, and not the fault of the lens. So for a long time I made sure i obeyed the "reciprocal of the focal length" rule for establishing a minimum handheld shutter speed. Then along came digital and sub-full frame sensors, and shutter speeds had to be even faster than allowed by the rule due to the magnification factor.<br>

In short, I am very happy to have VR on my 18-200mm on my D300. Since it is a walk-around, do everything, travel sort of lens it gets used mostly when the tripod is back home or in the car. I love the extra two stops of steadiness it allows for realizing sharpness in landscape shots at the wide end, when stopped down for near-to-far depth of field, as well as the shake it reduces at longer focal lengths when photographing wildlife. I recently enjoyed several days of photographing shore birds from a kayak, and the VR was a godsend! I love seeing it click in when the release is half-pressed. <br>

Here's an example of a great result from a rare wildlife encounter that would not have been possible without VR:<br>

<a href="http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitol-gorge-chukar.html">http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2012/01/capitol-gorge-chukar.html</a></p>

 

<p>OK, I'll stick my neck out here, just to see if I can get it sort of right. I'm sure I'll get corrected as necessary.<br>

EXIF is one of the sets of data that can be written to, and read from, the image file. Another one is IPTC. Exif seems to cover the technical stuff that digital cameras write along with the image data, like the time stamp, camera make and model, focal length, exposure info, ISO setting, and so forth. Very useful for "debriefing" the image to see what went wrong or right.<br>

IPTC seems to be user-added data, like copyright info, photographer's contact info, subject description, caption, location info, and so on - lots of stuff necessary for a professional but with many fields I can't be bothered to fill in. I do use the Title and Caption fields, though - they can be used to search on in software like Lightroom, and also get uploaded to photo sharing sites so you don't have to write it all over again.<br>

Outside of Lightroom, I use a nifty little utility called Opanda IXEF 2 that lets you read and write all this stuff and do many other wondrous things I haven't gotten into.<br>

Hope this helps.<br>

<p>I feel your joy - it's a beaut. Speaking of getting used to oddness, I still fumble with the left-handed operation of my "new" Exakta", despite having used my original one for about ten years.</p>

<p>The example description is pretty lame, but on the other hand, the idea is sound. But rather than outsourcing to, and paying for descriptions, imagine hooking up the GPS metadata (since camera's are beginning to offer this as a built-in feature) to Google data. I wonder if the Google folks are looking at this idea. I think, rather than printing out the captioning data, it could be simply written to the caption or description metadata. For example, "Taken in Anza Borrego Desert State Park near the town of Borrego Springs".</p>

<p><a href="http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/">http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/</a></p>

<p>Rick, your comment about photographing re-enacments has reminded me that one of my first outings with an Exakta VXIIA, purchased about a year ago in memory of my first "real" camera, was to a vintage travel trailer show. I had a great time, both using it, talking to folks there about it, and with the post processing (<a href="http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2010/09/masking-for-vintage-look.html">http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2010/09/masking-for-vintage-look.html</a>).<br>

Of all my old gear, that Exakta is my most precious. Inspired by our conversation, I'm pretty sure it will be coming out of the display case soon. A back-burner project to run some black and white film through it and see if I can still wind it onto a Nikor reel just might happen. Thanks for the inspiration. A bit more about that Exakta here - <a href="http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2010/09/so-pretty.html">http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2010/09/so-pretty.html</a><br>

Best of luck with your "new" gear, and looking forward to seeing some images.</p>

<p>Rick, it's encouraging (or kind of an act of co-dependence) that you buy film as well as cameras. I'd just decided to banish all my old gear to a display case (<a href="http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2012/04/black-and-white-and-square.html">http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2012/04/black-and-white-and-square.html</a>). Now I'm going to have to re-think that decision.</p>

<p>Good point that depth of field does not change that much, and a good thread. I think the best comment was to use the A mode to fix the aperture at the lens's sweet spot. I recently ran through the apertures on some lenses for my Lumix GH2 and Nikon D300. I confess despite years of photography I've not previously made the effort to do this. But i was impressed with the obvious improvement in quality, particularly off center, at the smaller as well as the larger apertures. Since my G12 is always with me, this thread has convinced me to find the sweet spot for it as well. </p>

<p><a href="http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/">http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/</a></p>

<p>The Mamiya C330 is a great camera. I bought one with three lenses in the late 1970's or early 1980's. I loved using that camera and working with the large negatives.<br>

All of my lenses - I believe I have the 65mm, 80 mm, and 180 mm - are having shutter issues due to the aged lubrication. I suspect that is likely the issue with yours. I believe the last time I checked that cost to refurbish the lenses was about $200 per. You might be interested in my recent blog post where I discuss that camera, the square format, seeing in black and white, and my decision that it is going to remain unused in my display case ... <a href="http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2012/04/black-and-white-and-square.html">http://tonymindling.blogspot.com/2012/04/black-and-white-and-square.html</a></p>

 

<p>Now that I've figured out the basic geometry needed, I think i will still make a folding cardboard version. I'm a bit worried about the weight on that plastic tray, plus it wold be nice not to have to scratch my head wondering,"Now, was it the Judy Collins or the Joan Baez songbook . . .?"</p>

<p>Steve, thanks for the idea. But it looks like wedging the tray up distorts the interior of the printer a bit. Also, in my case, the tray hangs out into space. So I ended up using two softcover books totaling about 1-1/8" high so the print comes out without drooping. The one on top is thinner, and is set up to make a ramp, and has a glossy cover so the print slides out freely. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Problem solved, and thanks for the help. To re-cap, I was getting scratches in the direction of printhead travel about an inch in from from the leading and trailing edges of prints on 13X19 Ilford Gold Fiber Silk.<br>

<br /><br>

Increasing the thickness and platen width settings removed the marks on the leading edge. But the trailing edge scratches, which went through to the paper base, persisted until I followed <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=284018">Ben Bangerter</a>'s suggestion of using magazines stacked on the output tray. This keeps the paper horizontal as it comes out, rather than drooping down, which apparently lifts the trailing edge into the print head.<br>

<br /><br>

The problem now is that the process must be monitored, since you can't add the magazines until about half the print has emerged, lest it jam against them. I think I'll make a ramp from some mattboard scraps.</p>

 

<p>I've begun getting print head scratches on Ilford Gallerie Silk, loaded as Fine Art Paper in my Epson R3000. But when i load it up as poster board that source option is grayed-out in the printer driver.<br>

i'm printing from Lightroom 3.<br>

I've been careful to follow the procedure in the manual for loading thick paper as poster board, and the LCD monitor confirms "poster board loaded". But the driver persists in refusing to present the poster board option despite turning the printer on and off, as well as re-booting the computer.<br>

Any suggestions would be most welcome, of course!</p>

<p>Open the three images in CS5, then Edit>Automate>Merge to HDR Pro and then select "Add Open Files" in the dialog box.</p>

<p>I used Friedl's plug-in for a while, but then also got frustrated when trying to update it, and went to Lightroom's Publish system in LR 3. I find it works very well - the only glitch I've found is that if you want a caption to carry through to Facebook from your metadata, you need to have it entered in the "Title" field. Here's the help link I used to get it set up - if I could do it I'm sure you can!<br>

<a href="http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS43660fa5a9ec95a81172e08124a15d684d-7ffe.html">http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS43660fa5a9ec95a81172e08124a15d684d-7ffe.html</a></p>

<p>My main squeeze is a Nikon D300. My everyday, walkaround, hiking, weekend with the wife camera is the Canon G12. I enjoyed my G9, and am now liking the G12 even better. Lots of controls on the body, articulating LCD, good quality sound recorder, and even decent video. Over $200, but i would not be satisfied with less quality and functionality.</p>

<p>I enjoyed reading about your love of the FE-2, and truly empathize with the pleasure of returning to one's "root" camera. I still have my two original FE-2s. But returning to my root camera meant trolling back a bit further in time to a 1958-vintage Exakta VXIIa. Also eBayed for a fraction of the cost of the original. But miraculously, in excellent working condition. I love the contemporary Schneider and Zeiss lenses also. Altho the cost of film, after being immersed in digital, is a bit of a damper, it is great fun to shoot with and always attracts attention and results in a conversation. <br>

<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_G6H7pDkh1VY/TJbqoByrTCI/AAAAAAAAADk/vsEXe-dGHtQ/s1600/My_Exacta-8020.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /><br>

Most fun with it is shooting subjects of the same vintage: <a href="http://www.tonymindling.phanfare.com/4843808">http://www.tonymindling.phanfare.com/4843808</a></p>

<p>I've been using Manfrotto legs with various incarnations of their grip ball heads for several years. I like them for both landscape and studio work. They make framing the image quick and easy, allowing me to focus on the image rather than twiddling with knobs. It is also very quick to go from horizontal to a vertical orientation, altho like with most heads, there is a slight shift in camera position. In that regard, stay away from their "joy stick" version - mine has been on the shelf for a couple of years now. <br /> I also like the Manfrotto quick connect. It is small and light enough to leave on the camera most of the time, allowing easy mounting on the tripod. Since you are starting out, this is a great time to choose a brand and stick with it, say for aluminum vs carbon fiber. The different quick connect adapters I've acquired with my collection of various tripod brands is a bit of a bother.<br /> <a href="http://www.manfrotto.com/product/8374.31708.76901.0.0/322RC2/_/Heavy_Duty_Grip_Ball_Head">http://www.manfrotto.com/product/8374.31708.76901.0.0/322RC2/_/Heavy_Duty_Grip_Ball_Head</a></p>

<p>If I'm reading your question right, you are asking how a polarizer works in comparison to colored filters when shooting black-and-white. That's an interesting question, because I generally think of a polarizer as a tool for darkening skies when using color film, because obviously a colored filter won't do the job. Colored filters reduce the amount of light from selected parts of the color spectrum. Most dramatic is the red or deep red filter, which reduces the strength of pretty much all colors except red. Most reduced are the colors on the other side of the color wheel, i.e., the cool colors like blue. I think of it as the "Ansel Adams" filter for getting dramatic skies.</p>

<p>A polarizing filter ignores colors and filters out polarized light instead. Some ancient Eastman Kodak pamphlet taught me to think of polarized light as vibrating only in one direction, as opposed to radially. Skylight reaching us from that 90° angle to the sun and light reflected from nonmetallic objects is polarized. That same old pamphlet taught me to think of a polarizer as a blank disc with a slit in it. so depending on the orientation of the filter, more or less of that polarized light gets through. So when you crank the filter around so that it's "slit" is at right angles to the direction of vibration of the polarized light, the sky becomes dark and reflections are reduced.</p>

<p>Translating all of this to the comparative effects of a polarizer versus colored filters on black-and-white film, the polarizer will darken the sky like a yellow, orange or red filter (but only at that 90° angle, which leads to problems of non-uniformity with a wide angle lens), and would also, depending on its orientation, darken the foliage and water you mentioned by reducing reflections from those surfaces.</p>

<p>Hope this helps – think I'll just go out and try it myself.</p>

<p>Tony Mindling<br>

www.tonysvision.com</p>

 

<p>Dunno about LR 1.1, but in 2.5 at Edit>Preferences on the Import tab there is a box you can uncheck for "Show import dialog when a memory card is detected".</p>

<p>I purchased a Nikon-refurbished D300 through B&H about a month ago. It arrived with the body and all packaging appearing as new, and only a few hundred actuations. The cost was $1,350 and it came with Nikon's 90-day warranty. That makes it eligible for a Mack 3-year or 5-year extended warranty, at about $90 or $130, respectively. I purchased one, as I'd been able to use the Mack warranty I had with my first digicam - a Fuji S2 - when it went "black" to cover the $550 repair cost. I would recommend the D300 for photographing children - the 6-frames-per-second mode has already provided images I would not have been able to obtain otherwise. The camera is a bit heftier than the D80 which it replaced, but I like its solid feel.</p>

<p>It turns out that the July 3, 2009, newsletter over at the Imaging Resource site has an article on the problem of blown-out colors in flowers: www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/</p>

<p>I know the effect you mean, Gen. It sounds like overexposure - the brighter tones are overwhelming the sensor and "blowing out" the highlights. You can use the Exposure Compensation button to reduce the exposure. It is located directly behind and right of the shutter button on the top of the camera. Pressing the button while turning th command dial will adjust the exposure either + or - in 1/3 stop increments. On my Nikon I usually keep it set at at -0.7 - that's minus 2/3 of a stop. I know you said you have tried different metering options, but you didn't mention decreasing the exposure like this - hope this helps.</p>

<p>You will want a dedicated film scanner for the 35mm. A good flatbed will do for the large format images. A combination of the Plustek 7500i and the flatbed should still stay in your budget.</p>