mcg

<p>I am wanting to use Flickr to host some images referenced in a forum, and I was always under the impression that "Save for web" in Ps removed metadata.<br /> <br /> Apparently not. I did this with a test image and checked More Properties.<br /> <br /> I don't care about the basic camera shooting information, it's just that as part of my ingestion workflow, I add a metadata template including my personal phone number etc, and I don't want this accessible online.<br /> <br /> However, these details all survived "Save for Web".<br /> <br /> Is there a preference in Ps to set to resolve this? If not, how do I remove all this info (short of having to reapply blank templates)?<br>

It would be nice to be able to do it without having to download yet another utility program...<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>I solved it by (re)installing the Nikon codecs.<br>

Maybe I had originally installed them and they got removed as well?</p>

<p>I have just uninstalled an expired trial version of CS4 (I still have CS3).<br>

I noticed that NEFs no longer have their thumbnail when viewing a Windows folder (I have XP), but the generic unknown file type icon.<br>

So, I reassociated NEF files to be opened with CS3, and get the NEF icon now, but still no thumbnails.<br>

I tried the advice given in <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/009RbM">this</a> thread:<br>

<em> Just do this: Open any folder. In MENU click TOOLS. Click FOLDER OPTIONS. In the top of the window, click on FILE TYPES. Click NEW. In the FILE EXTENSION window, write .nef. In the same window, click ADVANCED. Click the ADVANCED FILE TYPE rollout. Scroll down to WINDOWS XPS DOKUMENT THUMBNAIL HAR... and click it. Click OK. Click OK again. You are done! I guess this works for many other image file types too. Good luck!</em><br>

but I can find no WINDOWS XP *** listed at all.<br>

My thumbails are still fine on my laptop, and I tried to see what might be associated with .NEF in the Advanced list of File types, as explained above, so I can reset it, but I can't see any way to find out, only to create a new file type.<br>

I don't think I ever had to download Nikon codecs to view thumbnails originally.<br>

Help gratefully appreciated!</p>

<p>Someone had suggested checking the lever at the back. I moved it back and forth for a bit, and it seems ok (for the moment!).<br>

When I looked at it, the lever was stuck in the max aperture position, so maybe I accidentally got it stuck there putitng the lens on wrongly? Who knows!<br>

Seems a poor show if someone else had to get it repaired twice for this, considering the price point of the lens!</p>

<p>I have a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR - my priciest piece of glass - and although about 4 years old, it has not often been used.<br /> <br /> It's recently developed a problem, which I have been told is likely due to the iris sticking and not stopping down: it's fine at f/2.8, but with smaller apertures I get increasingly grossly overexposed images.<br /> <br /> Is this a problem that many here have encountered? Is it a problem that tends to afflict some lenses rather than others? I'm bummed in that I've never had a problem with any consumer Nikkor I've owned, just now with this pro-spec lens.<br /> <br /> Also, for those who have had a similar iris problem, what sort of repair bill did you get?<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance for replies.... </p>

<p>I have some dust on my D300's sensor. But what mystifies me is that it only seems to be visible when I shoot at a small aperture (usually f/11 or smaller). At first I thought it was dirt on a (rear) lens element, but is present after changing lenses, and I did tests at various apertures (long exposures, defocussed, moved back and forth over a white wall, so the only thing that would be visible on the image would be dust).<br>

As I understand it, if the dust resides on the filter in front of the sensor, then lens aperture should make no difference at all to dust being recorded on the sensor. Why does it though? All I can think of is that the light rays are so "parallel" with a small aperture that the don't have a chance to "go round" the specks.<br>

(By the way, the D300's ensor cleaning has failed to shift it, so I'll have to elve inside I guess.)<br>

Here's a comparison of the dust taken at different apertures so you can see.<br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v285/bollyscot/0106-11416web.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. I live in the UK, so will see if I can source such a clamp here. It's a will since I've seem my supplied stand, but I was wanting to try an umbrella and so needed a substantial fitting.<br>

I want to leave my lighting stands for studio work - do these adapters fit only standard lighting stands, or tripods too?</p>

<p>I'm looking for advice on Adobe RGB, specifically, is it worth bothering with!<br>

I know about colour spaces and the fact that Adobe RGB affords a wider gamut than the standard alternative of sRGB. I also know that the output I typically use - whether web or printer - use sRGB and will my printer driver will convert an image using Adobe RGB into sRGB.<br>

So, my question is, is there any point working in Adobe RGB if it's going to be just converted into sRGB by my printer anyway? New pro level printers will handle 16 bit files etc, but my old Epson 1290s is 8 bit using an sRGB profile, so I'm left wondering if there's really any point to me using Adobe?<br>

Or is it the case that if I manipulate the data of a RAW image in the Adobe RGB space in Photoshop, that it will still be rendered in a superior manner when converted to sRGB than one worked on in sRGB throughout my workflow?<br>

Or even if the file does get converted to sRGB for output, is it worth having an archived PSD in Adobe RGB just to maintain that wider gamut in a working file? But if your screen just shows sRGB, how possible is it t use the wider gamut of Adobe RGB if it's not visible on your screen?<br>

I'm a little confused on this, so would value some expert opinion!</p>

<p>Although I use studio flash, I've never tried using my SB800 speedlight off camera on a stand.<br /> <br /> Can someone give me a specific name of a bracket I can use to hold the SB800 so I can just order one? Do such brackets tend to fit to any stand, or do stands vary in the size of their top fitting?<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>I was wondering if there was an issue with the D300 in question?<br>

I use 8 NiMH rechargables and when they are exhausted, my D300 changes to the internal Li ion no problem.<br>

That said, I've never got 700 shots on my rechargables (think they're only about 2500 mAh though).</p>

<p>Firstly, sorry for taking so long to respond to your replies.<br>

Secondly, thank you all for the really excellent advice you have given, which has given me plenty of food for thought. (And in pasing, the commentary here seems a lot more knowledgable and intelligent that on many other forums!)<br>

That was spot on advice about getting a lens to help my photography at this moment, Luis, et al. It may well indeed be a good few years before (if!) I get an FX DSLR, so I guess there's plenty of scope to sell a DX one later (if I don't keep it for my D300 as a backup system).<br>

And as Shun says, a new improved 24-70 may well be released long before I get an FX camera.<br>

As advised, I will certainly look into getting a second hand 17-55, as that seems the best option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, the 24-70 range on DX is more useful than the 17-55 would be. I really like having that "perfect" portrait focal length available on my normal lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree in some ways, Kent, that I would miss the portrait focal lengths, but I guess I can just get in closer. With a 24-70, I think I'd miss out on the wide angles, which I do sometimes need to use in tight spaces, and it would be a pest having to change lenses.<br>

So it comes down to changing lens constantly to go from wide angle to portrait, or just moving closer if required with the 17-55.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want something wider and compatible with FX/DX, there is the 14-24 and 17-35.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I realise that's an option, but my main interest is in portraiture, so I am happiest with the wide angles being at the lower end of a standard zoom, that having a dedicated lens for it. (Obviously if I had the money, I wouldn't hesitate to get one too!)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are programs avaliable that will analyze the EXIF data on your current shots to tell you what focal length is your most used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What programs are those, Sasvata? That would be very interesting to find out! Lightroom etc tell me lenses, but not individual focal lengths used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The issue with buying a DX lens now is that just like you, many will upgrade to FX soon (5 years = >60% FX imho), so, you will see the value of anything stamped with DX go down.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was a worry. As far as selling my D300 for a D700 now goes. I only recently got a D300, as much because a D700 was out of my budget and because the D300 had gotten cheap enough for me to afford! As I think it will be several years before I change camera again, and certainly not before FX cameras are available at a price level similar to the D300.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I personally use the 24-70 on either my D300 or D40 very often. It's my preferred lens for candid portraits (I rarely need to go wider when taking pictures of people), as its extra reach is nice to have when shooting close-up head shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Currently, my "standard" zoom is just the 18-70 from my D70. I like the 105mm equivalent I get form the telephoto end, and it'll take a bit of getting used to the 'mere' 82mm equivalent on a 17-55...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Event shooters, PJs, and wide angle shooters generally find the need to go wide with a normal zoom that's also fast, that's why the 17-55 f/2.8 DX is the "orthodox choice" as the standard zoom for the D300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That about sums up my needs perfectly!<br>

Thanks again for all the input, I now realise I need to concentrate on what's best for now and will stick with a 17-55.</p>

<p><em>I have had some mixed results with the dynamic AF mode in my D90. (<strong>Yes, I know D90 does not have the same AF engine as D300, but I suspect this is not a D90 specific issue</strong> )<br /> When I was shooting in one motor sports event, many of my pictures were focused in the background advertisements instead of the main subject. I had the middle focusing point selected and camera on Dynamic Area AF.</em><br>

I think the problem occurs because the D300 has 51 focus points, and the D90 only 11( IIRC?). So the focus is more likely to slip to the background as the subject moves between focus points.</p>

<p>I own a Nikon D300 (with a APS-C or DX sized sensor), and the next lens I plan to get is a f/2.8 standard zoom.<br /> <br /> Obviously these are pricey, so I also have to look to future camera upgrades, as it is a long term investment.<br /> <br /> Before FX full frame sensors were released by Nikon, it wasn't really an issue, the<br /> <br /> Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 G DX AF-S IF-ED Lens<br /> <br /> was the option to go for (unless going for a cheaper Sigma...)<br /> <br /> But now, with the possible prospect of a future D500 or whatever having an FX sensor, or if I upgrade to a D3/D4 whatever, I don't want to spend $2k on a DX lens that may only see me through a few years before I change camera!<br /> <br /> I suppose I could buy one and sell it when I get an FX sensor camera, if I am prepared to take a loss, but otherwise that leaves the new:<br /> <br /> Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens<br /> <br /> which has been acclaimed as Nikon's best ever zoom.<br /> <br /> It would be future proof (in sensor terms), but obviously the thing is, if I went for that, then I'd lose out for the moment on the wide angle part with the D300, when I might need it.<br /> <br /> There's a much cheaper Sigma :<br /> <br /> Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens - Nikon Fit<br /> <br /> But I was thinking if I'm going for a quality 2.8, I'd be better off saving for the Nikkor, unless I get this or the Sigma DX version and sell it later.<br /> <br /> I can't made up my mind what to do, so any advice greatfully received!</p>

I suppose to an outside, Ellis, but the person using that system would know which way round it was.

I hope this is the right place to ask - the topic didn't seem to fit in any of the other categories!

 

I was wondering how people name their files during workflow, if at all. Do you batch rename? Do you reference the

date? Do you change the original filenames to a system like:

 

{project_number}_{file_number}

 

so 0034_8377 would be file 8377 in project number 34?

 

A further refinement I just read about is the use of a letter to indicate the media card in the sequence during a

shoot.

 

So 0062-B-0321.NEF would file 0321 on the second media card used in project 62.

 

Using a project number would mean having a list of project number and descriptions, would make cataloguing and

searching easier, and would be handier for proper shoots, though not necessarily for personal shots of mixed nature.

 

At the moment I just use the names generated by the camera, with addition number inserted for the thousands. So a

file DSC_4190 would become DSC_44190 as I am now in the 40K range.

 

I thought it would be interesting to hear what others no, as I'm looking for a better system to adopt.

Is there anyway to automate printing in PS CS2 or Elements 2?

 

Say I have a dozen image files from flatbed scans in a folder on my HD and I

want to print a copy of each one.

 

At the moment I have to open each file individually and print, one after the

other in sequence. This is both tedious and time consuming.

 

Is there a way to get it to print the contents of an entire folder with a single

command? (The only adjustment I would want to make to each file is to select

"Fit to Page".)

 

Thanks in advance for any replies!

Thanks Edward, I never knew about it not being any use for an LCD screen...

I have a new Dell laptop and was trying to run Adobe Gamma on it.

 

You are first asked to adjust the screen contrast to maximum, but I have

discovered I cannot do that on my Inspiron 1300 - you can only adjust the screen

brightness.

 

Dell have told me that screen contrast is adjusted "automatically".

 

Is it worth continuing with the rest of the Gamma wizard to try to get some sort

of calibration or might it introduce problems if I can't adjust screen contrast

in the first step?

 

Generally I really only use the white point dropper tool to pick out a neutral

area to remove any colour cast, rather than manual slides, but I guess if the

calibration isn't correct I might miss a slight cast in the first place.

 

Anyone with a similar computer able to offer any solutions or advice? Thanks in

advance!

While opening a NEF in Photoshop, I received a message stating that Adobe Camera

RAW has been overridden by a Nikon NEF plugin, and that this would process the

NEF, and to just to remove the plugin if I wanted Adobe Camera RAW to do it instead.

 

I was just wondering - which do you think does the better job? Or does it really

make no difference at all? Perhaps it comes down to interface, as the Adobe one

looks like it gives you a bit more control over importing the NEF files.

 

Do I get the same end result, whether the NEF is processed by ACR or Nikon (i.e.

it basically comes down to interface preference), or is there a actually a

subtle difference in the processed image?

 

Comments most welcome!