danield

<p>This is the main wheel located on the grip just next to the shutter button?<br> This might sound obvious, but check that you're not pressing the shutter button at the same time.<br> Otherwise I had a similar failure with an older EOS camera, it wasn't the same - just that the wheel would not work reliably and needed more turns to "register" a change. It's possible there are some broken contacts, maybe in your case a short that is tripping over the shutter circuit... Tough to fix that one. May be time for a new camera.</p>

<p>Second what Bob and JDM said. In terms of both build quality and sharpness the Tamron is better - but it's an oversized lens for APS-C. What the 55-250 would have for it would be a lower price and being smaller and lighter, thus easier to carry.</p> <p>Both the 55-250 or 70-300 are classed as telephoto lenses. Thus for "walk-around" - which means covering a wide range of situations - the standard recommendation is to pair one of these with a 17-55 (which you already have) for the wide to normal angle part. This combination still requires one to change lenses occasionally but one can get very easily accustomed with that.</p> <p>My suggestion is go for the 55-250 and try to consolidate the number of lenses you carry -e.g. by getting rid of the 24-105. That unless you plan to buy a full-frame camera soon - which brings up a whole other list of concerns (increased weight, incompatibility with APS-C lenses, etc).</p>

<p>On Mull don't miss going to Staffa and Lunga islands for the birds colonies that should provide ample photography opportunities...</p>

<p>Second what Lewis said. Rather than spending the money, find out first what the flash can be used for. The <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.ch/2006/03/lighting-101.html">Lighting 101</a> tutorial at Strobist makes a very good reading on the subject.<br> Otherwise a Canon 430EXII could be a good flash to start with.</p>

<p>As a side comment, the camera in the hands of the lady looks suspiciously Photoshopped ... I suspect they did so to make the camera even smaller than it actually is, looking at other pictures on the net it doesn't quite seem to be that small.<br> <br />Quite dishonest from their end if you ask me. But sadly rather the norm in advertising these days.</p>

<p>Yes, the film name indicates it is a ISO 400 film thus you should set the camera to ISO 400 as well.<br> In fact I think the camera should be able to read the DX code off the film canister automatically, but you should check this of course.<br> This film is well suited for shooting outside in daylight, as well as in moderate light (e.g. daytime indoors with good window light). Taking care to hold the camera steady you may be able to get away at shooting at sunsets when the light levels start to drop. Just keep an eye on the shutter speed.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Concerning the suggestion to use a high end DSLR to take photos of the negs I am yet to see anyone do this that produces results that are comparable to a dedicated high end film scanner.</p> </blockquote> <p>Here are a few people that tried<br> http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/<br> and<br> http://www.trippingthroughthedark.com/scanning/scanning-35mm-black-and-white-negatives-with-the-d800e/<br> And remember this is 35mm film.<br> From my point of view the results can match dedicated consumer scanners (aka Minoltas, Coolscans, etc), but flatbeds like V700 are left behind. And sure, a Hasseblad Flextight will probably be better but not many can afford that.</p>

<p>Well, the cheapest solution nowadays for film scanning is to use a digital camera (sounds like you have one)? You can give that a try - provided the camera produces A3+ quality output. And even if not, you can experiment with high magnification macro and photo stitching...<br> <br />Or alternatively, outsource the scanning to a professional shop and avoid investing into hardware.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"There are no longer any "professional" level film scanners being made"</em><a href="http://hasselblad.com/products/scanners.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">is not correct</a>. They do cost a lot.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed - I should have qualified that a price point.</p>

<p>Hi Hannah<br> You will probably get many answers pointing to specific scanners, but let me ask you the question another way: are you sure you want a film scanner? Are you clear of the reasons for which your bf wants or needs a scanner for his film?</p> <p>There are several reasons I am asking this. First you say he is a professional - what is he doing now, is he printing his photos in a lab, is he scanning them somewhere else? The size of film he is using also matters greatly, you may have some options for 35mm film but for larger films good quality scanners will be above your budget.</p> <p>The other reason is that film scanners are a dying breed. There are no longer any "professional" level film scanners being made. The few scanners still being made are not that great, and the second hand ones are very expensive, hard to find, and likely to be out of serviceable life soon. A professional would not invest into that to be frank, as it will not pay off, unless he is doing some very specialized work.</p> <p>The last reason that is worth mentioning is that film scanning is SLOW and difficult. Even with the best scanners it takes well over several minutes _for each frame_ to scan. You also need to think about investment in learning scanning technique, as it's not really a simple push-button kind of thing, particularly if a high level of quality is requested.</p> <p>If it were me I would spend the £700 quid on digital equipment and for scanning film I would use something like this http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html . That link is well worth a read.</p>

<p>What Will said. I don't think there is a MkII of the f/4 version - may be confused with the f/3.5-4.5 version.<br> Both can be seen here: <br> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF80200mmf28L/index1.htm<br> It should be obvious how to tell them apart.</p>

<p>Well, I think the root of the problem is that grain noise in the Noritsu scans (which machine BTW?) is generally pretty bad for what it should be. I don't know why but grain seems to be significantly amplified, particularly on the chroma side.<br> So that someone found that noise reduction needed to be added is not surprising. However, as with any post-capture algorithm, it can't do wonders.<br> I don't think it bothers many people as this is not a route many people take. Those that tried in the past found the quality pretty poor compared with alternatives - with or without noise reduction...</p>

<p>I won't sell you on Geneva. You're better either in Lausanne or Montreux, or if not on the French side in Chamonix or Annency. While Geneva may be OK, it's just not as interesting as other places. Interlaken would be good too.</p>

<p>Well, a bit of a too broad question I think - Turkey is quite a big country with a lot of historical and nature sites. There's hundreds of miles of beautiful Mediterranean coast, hundreds of historical sites, huge cities, etc. A standard tourist guide should give you plenty of suggestions of locations to explore. Istanbul is probably on the top of the list - you can easily spend weeks there and not get bored....<br> Are you going towards any specific area of the country?</p>

<p>Second the other's oppinion about posterization - and two easy fixes:<br> - shoot raw<br> - use a lens correction tool in the raw the processing software to correct the lens vignietting before converting to JPEG</p>

<p>Not very familiar with the Nikon lenses but from my experience any macro lens would do. They are usually sharp enough to not be a limiting factor, I would not worry about that.<br> The more important aspects are the rig and the lighting. Not sure what copiers you have seen but they're worth studying in more depth. Do you have any links? Many people trying out digitising film go the DIY route. In any case the most important aspects to look for are:<br> - Film support and loading: how flat is the film held, how easy it is to switch frames<br> - Focusing: a focus rail is better than using the camera's AF<br> - Lighting: achieving uniform lighting across the frame. I recommend a remotely triggered flash with a diffuser but many other sources would do<br> And finally, much testing and calibration before launching onto the pile of film.</p>

<p>Not familiar with either the camera or its auto-ISO feature, but what was in fact the ISO in the shots that you were taking when this happened? Were you indoors or outdoors? Is it possible that the camera was stopping the burst when it metered an exposure it couldn't do within the auto ISO limits? (i.e. the scene was either too bright or not enough lit)</p>

<p>Not a direct opinion about the lens you mentioned but the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is the more usual choice for an APS-C camera. The 28-75 is an older "full frame" standard zoom. Unless you plan to upgrade to a full-frame camera at some point in the future the 17-50 f/2.8 is the better option as it covers a more "standard" angle of view on the 7D. The best IMHO is the non-VC version which is quite cheap and very good optically.</p>

<p>Well, how about suggesting to your boss to hire a professional photographer? He might be accustomed to the idea of paying professionals to do professional work.<br> Otherwise, if you still want to go ahead with the DIY solution there is no substitute for going to the location and setting up a dry run with a few volunteers from around the office. I don't think one can give an informed opinion on how to set up the lighting without having a very good idea of the location.</p>

<p>I do hope Canon includes support for older cameras (in particular my trusty old 400D :-)) and not just make it an exclusive feature. I never liked the Nikon ViewNX/CaptureNX two-class system for raw processing support, I hope Canon doesn't go down that road...</p>

<p>Hi John<br> Yours is a very open question... is there a difference between "home scanning" and "professional scanning" - well, it depends... you can do home scanning and get professional-looking results... but that depends a lot on hardware, software and most of all skill and experience.<br> Is the V700 a good tool for the job? So-so, depends what quality you expect, especially in terms of resolution. Now to your questions:<br> a) It obviously does, from what you are saying. I don't know the V700 software very well but negative inversion is very tricky, and can give different results depending on film type and exposure of the film and exposure of the scan. To do this reliably you may need a film profile. I would suggest looking into Vuescan and some of the scanning workflows described in their documentation (look for "lock film base")<br> b) The noise you describe seems to be film grain, which will always be visible in scans. The grain can be exacerbated by errors in the color balance, which seems to be a problem, so try to get that sorted first.<br> c) Re sharpness: there is generally no reason why ideal scans should be less sharp than prints. However, scans are often far from ideal because of many reasons: scanning hardware (the V700 has an un-verified 2400dpi true resolution, which is is just OK-ish), film flatness (which a very frequent problem), JPEG and other image processing artifacts and finally softness in the original.<br> Relative to your three samples, the color balance as it looks to me is not that far from what people get with negative film scans. I would for instance not expect to have the same "blue sky" in all frames - particularly since they appear to be shot at different exposures (weren't they?). And yes, they will all look like cheap 1960's magasines, because that's how those shots were made. It's all about that cool "film look", you know :-)<br> In one sentence: learn how to use Vuescan (takes months...) and make sure your films are flat.</p>

<p>I'm almost in the same boat - with similar equipment and similar use. What I would recommend as an "upgrade" is:<br> - The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC (I always recommend this one). This lens would be better for low light situations. It's just a bit bigger/heavier than the kit lens, but still the lightest of the wide-aperture standard zooms. Failing that the 18-55 kit lens with IS is an alternative, as it has IS and it may allow you to shoot at smaller apertures in lower light. You can weigh over the pros and cons.<br> - Upgrading the camera to one of the newer versions should improve on noise at high ISO. Either of the 100D, 1200D or 700D would have similar IQ - up to you to consider whether weight is more important than handling/more controls.</p> <p>I'm also keeping an eye on the new Canon 10-18, not sure if this would be better than the Tokina but certainly lighter. I'm not suggesting this an "upgrade" just as a left-field option if the weight is a problem.</p> <p>Consider also options to allow you to carry the gear easier - better straps, pouches, etc. These can make life easier when hiking more than 100g weight saving on a lens.</p>

<p>P.S. About your last shot - to me the white balance still looks a bit yellow-ish, but maybe I am tricked by the floor on the edges, which I would expect to be white. Again, here balancing with a gray card should do the trick.<br> <br />Finally, the last shot shows one more problem - lens distortion. You have some pretty strong barrel distortion there and that makes the carpet look crooked. Here RAW should come to the rescue again - particularly Canon's DPP converter should be able to correct the lens distortion and make the edges look straight.</p>

<p>What I would add to the above suggestions are just some simple steps (which effectively calibrate your workflow to the color balance of the scene):<br> First, switch to shooting all "raw". Yes, it makes for a longer workflow but the control will be better.<br> Secondly, what Matt said: set all exposure parameters to manual (exposure time, ISO, aperture, lights, etc) and identify the exposure settings that create a well lit shot. For instance in your shots things came out slightly overexposed - although this is generally good for sales shots (light makes people happy), don't overdo-it.<br> And last, take a shot where you include a gray card in the picture. Then create a custom whitebalance from the gray card, save it and use it with the RAW converter to apply to all images.<br> All you should need to do now is shoot and shoot and shoot and apply the white balance you created to all the shoots. Of course experiment a bit before and check that things are "right" but once you got things right you should be able to get through a high volume of shoots pretty quickly<br> You are in the lucky situation that you can control all aspects of the scene so make use of that as much as you can.</p>