bk_waas

<p>A friend's kid is going to take a photography class at camp. The instructor requires the students to buy a 35mm film camera for use in the class. The kid (age 13 or so) is very interested in photography but will not use the film camera after the class. So any lens purchased for use with the film camera should ideally work with an entry-level DSLR, preferably Canon.<br /> Does anyone have recommendations for a USED starter film+lens combination for such purposes that meets these specs? Also, where is a reliable place from which to purchase used gear? Thanks.</p>

<p>I am getting a strong magenta color cast and sometimes other color casts on my Canon i960.<br>

Photos look fine on my monitor and on other monitors. But when I attempt to print them, the print preview and final print show these strong color casts when I use the supplied Canon paper profiles. <br>

On the other hand, if I set the Lightroom 2.6 "Color Management: Profile" setting to "Managed by Printer" and set the "Canon i960 Properties" setting for Color Adjustment to "Manual," (and still using the appropriate Canon profile for the photo paper), the colors are heavily desaturated.<br>

I calibrate my HP LP2475w monitor with an X-Rite Eye-One, and if I print a photo from a Web site or as part of some other document, the colors are fine.<br>

Any ideas? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>This preview is much appreciated.<br>

And it would be nice if photo.net actually reviews this camera at some point. There was never an actual review of the Nikon D90, even though experts like Thom Hogan correctly note that the D90 and its predecessors/replacements are "the critical model(s) in the Nikon DSLR product lineup," i.e., the model(s) that marks the transition to at least a semi-serious amateur DSLR body.<br /> <br /> The absence of a D90 review seemed like an odd omission, given the importance of the product. I asked a photo.net editor about this, and he replied that "sometimes we can't get to everything." I wonder what the criteria are for selecting cameras for review? I sincerely hope that this time Nikon's critical DSLR model gets an actual review on this site. The absence of a D90 review only fuels the perception, correct or not, that there is a Canon bias on this site.</p>

<p>That is, take a light prime like an 85 1.8 for the portraits. For other things, take the 16-85. I have one and love it for travel.</p>

<p>I've been to India several times. I took the 80-200 2.8 the first few times and have left it at home during those trips ever since. It's just too heavy when backpacking. Another thing is that in my limited experience, the large, conspicuous telezoom attracts a LOT of attention in Indian urban areas. For street photography, I'd actually forget about the big heavy lenses and spend that $500 on a Canon G11. Those cameras have fixed lenses that will spare you a lot of trouble cleaning up the dust that is omnipresent in India. And do not underestimate the importance of the significantly lighter load.<br>

If you MUST use an SLR, carry a light prime, like an 85 1.8.</p>

<p>What is the best way to store archive DVDs? If I go to the expense of burning something onto an archive quality DVD, what should I use to store that DVD? Are there particular types of things to avoid? Thanks.</p>

<p>I just bought the Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II DX and tried it for the first time last weekend. I'm surprised at how much distortion there is when using this lens. A sample photo is available here:<br>

<br /> https://home.comcast.net/~wjoe/ANJ/Bday.jpg<br>

<br /> Is the distortion in this photo typical of this lens at 16mm? I didn't have anywhere near this much distortion on the 18-55 ED DX when I shot it at 18mm. Does 2mm make such a difference? I don't recall ever seeing this much distortion from my 24mm 2.8 when I shoot it on a 35mm film body.<br>

<br /> Another example, shot at more than 16mm (I'm not sure of the focal length), appears here:<br>

<br /> https://home.comcast.net/~wjoe/ANJ/Winston and the girls.jpg</p>

<p>Thanks, all.</p>

<p>I am reluctantly contemplating retiring my Viewsonic CRT monitor. It has served me well, but I think that I need to replace it with an LCD monitor. For work and budget-related reasons, I cannot simply buy a Macintosh setup for photo postprocessing. Consequently, I need an LCD that works on the Wintel platform.<br>

The last time I researched this topic (3 or so years ago), I could not find any Wintel platform LCD monitors that 1) were good enough for photo postprocessing, and 2) cost $500 or less. Has this situation changed? I am not a pro photographer, but I do calibrate my monitor and want something that will enable me to use RAW editing tools to bring out shadow detail, correct white balance problems, etc. And the monitor also has to be sharp. Please let me know whether anything viable is on the market. I'd like to keep the cost reasonable because i'd rather spend photo budget funds on lenses than monitors. Thanks.</p>

 

<p>An earlier version mistakenly referred to "Lighthouse." The product in question is Adobe Lightroom.<br>

I'm exploring options of outsourcing my color printing to a local or online lab (e.g., Digilabs, MPIX). The labs offer custom ICC profiles for use with their printers. I'm new to all of this and find only partially satisfactory answers in the Lightroom documentation from Adobe.<br>

In Lighthroom 2.4, as far as I can tell, the only way to create a file with a custom ICC profile is to use the "Print to JPG" option and specify the custom profile during that process. Is this correct? Is there no way (in Lighthouse 2.4) to create a TIFF file using a custom ICC profile? If so, how does one do this? My original "digital negatives" are in RAW format, if that matters.<br>

If this is an elementary question, please accept my apology in advance. This is my first foray into working with custom color profiles for external printers, and I don't know anything about this process. Thanks for any wisdom you can share.</p>

 

<p>I'm exploring options of outsourcing my color printing to a local or online lab (e.g., Digilabs, MPIX). The labs offer custom ICC profiles for use with their printers. I'm new to all of this and find only partially satisfactory answers in the Lighthouse documentation from Adobe.</p>

<p>In Lighthouse 2.4, as far as I can tell, the only way to create a file with a custom ICC profile is to use the "Print to JPG" option and specify the custom profile during that process. Is this correct? Is there no way (in Lighthouse 2.4) to create a TIFF file using a custom ICC profile? If so, how does one do this? My original "digital negatives" are in RAW format, if that matters.</p>

<p>If this is an elementary question, please accept my apology in advance. This is my first foray into working with custom color profiles for external printers. Thanks for any wisdom you can share.</p>

<p>I have a Canon i960 printer, and, according to Canon's Web site, this printer IS NOT compatible with Canon's new, Photo Paper Pro II. The printer IS, however, compatible with Canon's new Photo Plus Glossy II.</p>

<p>My question is whether the OLD Photo Paper Pro is better than Photo Plus Glossy II, or vice versa. If there are any differences, what are they (besides the obvious difference of weight)?</p>

<p>I find it odd that the printer is compatible with Photo Plus Glossy II but not with Photo Paper Pro II. But that's what Canon's Web site says. Thanks in advance.</p>

I'm evaluating ultraportable computers and want to know which work best for examining DSLR images in the field.

By "field" I mean mostly hiking around mountains, etc. It has to be an ultraportable, because minimizing weight

is a top priority. The system must be Windows-based. (Yes, I realize that Macs are great. But for business

reasons, they are not an option for me.)

 

I am particularly interested in people who have first-hand experience using an ultraportable or even a slightly

heavier laptop for photo previewing in the field. I am looking closely at the Lenovo x61s, but its display

doesn't seem to be all that great. It also seems to throw out a lot of heat, which is not a prospect that

particularly jazzes me. In any case, if you have an X61/X61s, I'd really like your opinion of its usefulness for

previewing digital photos. Thanks.

The 9300k does seem blue, after having the new profile in use for a week or so. But there doesn't seem to be sufficient contrast, even when the contrast on my monitor is set to 100 percent. Maybe an ambient light problem? What should the luminance setting for this thing be, anyway? Sorry, but I'm new to calibration, and the documentation for this unit provides no guidance on this subject. Thanks again.

A problem is that the Eye-One Display2 LT software does not allow a white point setting higher than 7500k, which is labels "cool white" and the Viewsonic G90f does not have a 7500k color setting. I tried using the user custom settings, but I can't quite get everything to line up on the 0 points for each of the three channels.

I used 9300k. I know that the 6500k is recommended, but it looks yellowish as well.

I recently purchased an X-Rite Eye-One Display2 LT color calibration device. I ran the software and followed

along. Everything seemed to work fine. But the ICC profile that the process produced turns the white pages on

my web browser and everything else white to a light yellowish cast.

 

My monitor is a ViewSonic G90f CRT, if that matters. Any advice? Also, I don't know whether this is relevant,

but the shipping box from B&H was kind of smashed up a bit, enough to smush up the Eye-One item's own box. The

device itself did not sustain any obvious physical damage, but I thought I'd mention this anyway. Thanks.

I'm in the market for my first monitor calibrator. I work on some scans of

slide film and some RAW files. I work entirely on one monitor at home and have

no plans to acquire a dual-monitor set-up. If it matters, my monitor is a

Viewsonic G90f Graphics Series 19" CRT from about 2005.

 

Given these parameters, are there any reasons to buy the i1Display2 instead of

the i1Display LT? If so, what are they? I'm willing to spend the extra money

if there's real value added, as long as these things have a reasonable life

expectancy. But unless that value is added, I'd rather save the dough. Thanks.

Thanks, John. There was no warming filter. Only a UV filter to protect the lens.

I contacted the firm that scanned the negative. Note that they did this as a "proof scan" of the entire roll of film. It was not a custom job. This was their reply: "After talking to the technician, he said that because it is just a standard machine scan, everything is calibrated but there is no general tweaking going on. On our monitor, parts of the image seem neutral and parts (like the grass) seem yellow. How is your monitor calibrated? if we pulled opposite, the dirt in the background would go blue in order to neutralize the green grass."

Here's the TIF file, for those who requested a chance to look at it and the EXIF info:

 

https://home.comcast.net/~bkwaas/0005766-R01-049-23.tif

 

Bill, thanks for the empathy. Fortunately, most of the film I used on this trip was Velvia. I only picked up the negative film because I needed a few more rolls. Fortunately, that accounted for only 3 of the 15 rolls I shot on the trip.

 

What does it mean that a Frontier scanner should have a "channel" for 160S? I'm sure that if I can convince the shop that they did a poor job, they will re-scan the film.

Bill, the lab used a Fuji Frontier scanner. Thanks.

Addendum: I thought it good to use low contrast film in that environment because the sun is extremely intense.

Folks, I very much appreciate all of these comments, and if anyone has more to say, I'm eager to hear it.

 

I'm relatively new to photography, so I'm trying to figure out whether the source of any problem is:

 

* the use of low contrast film per se

 

* the film itself (I bought it from Ritz, which failed to refrigerate it--stupid of me, I know, I know, but I needed to buy the film that day)

 

* the pro lab "economizing" on labor expended to do the scanning job for a customer who is obviously not a pro

 

I realize that the photo itself is very boring. But of all the pictures on the roll, this shot does the best job of illustrating the flatness of the colors.

 

I may have made a mistake by using 160S for this kind of picture. But this was shot in the Indian Himalayas at an altitude of at least 10,000 ft. So I thought it might be a good idea to use low contrast film. But this may not have worked so well, eh?

 

FYI, the original scans are indeed 8-bit TIF.

I shot the attached picture recently, and the colors are awful. I'm puzzled.

The negative was scanned by a highly regarded pro shop in Washington, DC. I

used a Nikon N80 and a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens for the photo. Why does this

picture look so bad?<div></div>