ralf_strandell

<p>I have attached two monitors to one dual-head graphics card on Vista. Vista recognizes them both as "Generic Non-PnP Monitor - NVIDIA Geforce 7800 GTX". One of the displays is a 17'' Dell 1703 FPs LCD and the other is an old 21'' Nokia Multigraph 445X CRT.</p>

<p>I have both calibrated and profiled these monitors using Spyder3. Then using Spyder3Pro software (Spyderproof) I have verified that the ICC profiles have been applied to their respective monitors. At least when I switch back and forth between "before calibration" and "after calibration" the looks of the screen changes on both devices (to better). A recalibration check tells that both screens are calibrated ok.</p>

<p>They should now look the same, right?<br /> No, they don't.</p>

<p>I even matched their brightness by trial and error (adjust, calibrate, repeat until good). The CRT still has a yellow cast and the LCD has a blue cast. Or maybe it's neutral, but relatively the CRT is warmer. A lot. Then I thought that maybe the screens frame affects visual perception. I looked at the screens through a tube to exclude environmental effects. The CRT is warmer.</p>

<p>Calibration (both monitors offer RGB adjustments that adjust color, somehow):<br /> LCD RGB=43%,43%,50% to produce pure white measured by Spyder.<br /> CRT RGB=56%,51%,46% measured. But if I change these *after* calibration and profiling to 45%,40%,52% then the screens look more like.</p>

<p>So... adjusting RGB on these screens makes white purer on both devices, but if I want identical colors I need to set similar %-values. Oops. Profiling is not supposed to work like this, so what's wrong?</p>

<p>Any ideas would be much appreciated. Thanks.</p>

Thanks for the info. I feel more confident buying the scanner now.

 

The slide scanning tips were great too. Thanks :)

Hi

 

I want to scan about 100 rolls of APS film (about 3000 frames) and about 1000 mounted slides and hundreds of 35mm

B&W and color negatives. After much thinking and wasting of time, I have finally decided to buy a Nikon Coolscan

5000. I hope that the task becomes manageable with the APS and slide feed adapters. I'm going to scan in Vista.

Maybe with Vuescan. I'm doing this as a hobby, but I really don't have loads of extra time. Nevertheless, I

really want to digitize my photos myself.

 

With the currect exchange rate I can save about 25% of the total cost (after shipping cost and tax) by buying

from U.S and having the scanner shipped to Europe.

 

Questions:

 

1) The Coolscan 5000 seems to be out of stock at B&H. Is this usual? Worth waiting? Alternative trustworthy

sellers? Should I just get the scanner as long as it is available somewhere? Beeing discontinued?

 

2) Does the scanner (sold in U.S) work with european voltage (240V, 50Hz)?

 

3) Does the scanner come with european power cord (too), or can any standard computer power cord be used?

 

Thanks

Same here. I am using a D70 with the 35mm f/2. That lens was never wide and fast enough. Solutions existed that would have provided a one or two stop advantage, but soon I can use 50mm 1.4 and gain five stops - or four stops plus a moderate wide angle. I also hope the D700 to reduce burnt out highlights outdoors... It's also small enough (could be even smaller, though). Just waiting for the price to drop by $500. Early spring, hopefully.

"get yourself Photoshop CS3 and start learning, this is the most important element of any digital workflow"

 

For some people that may hold true, but generally I disagree. Strongly.

 

The most important thing after the photo has been taken is to add metadata (like place, people and star rating) and make backup copies of the images. Soon you will have 10.000 or 15.000 images. How are you going to find the ones you want to see righ *now*? By browsing? Good luck... Your computer will also eventually fail. You need copies of your images. The really good images can be photoshopped later, if you have a need to start composing images, but for general "development" you could use more efficient tools such as

Adobe light room or Apple Aperture or DxO Optics. Once these two needs have been catered for first, only then think about Photoshop. Besides, Photoshop CS3 is not "budget".

Also do your self a favour, and study what a polarizer can do to your water/window/foliage shots (or portraits). It doesn't cost a lot but it gives you more options.

As a hobbyist only I would recommend DxO as it automates distortion correction and it also provides (optional) sharpening, noise reduction, dynamic lighting, colour rendering profiles and much more in a convenient and easy to use package. Photoshop is hideously expensive, at least if you want the 16bit version and not the light version.

 

I'm not that good at post processing photos, but with DxO I get good results fast. When I saw what DxO did to my AF-S DX 18-70mm @ 18mm, I decided to buy it...

 

I don't know the other correction software, so I cannot compare.

As you have those old lenses, I would recommend a D80 instead of a D40(x). If you don't care about manual focusing, then a D70 is an ok first dSLR. Also take a look at the buttons on a D200. Yes, they could make life easier if you photograph a lot. The focusing mode and metering mode selectors are nice. Not difficult on a D70 either, but I would still like to have those extra switches...

I own a D70. It is an ok camera, but I hate its viewfinder, as manual focusing is a nightmare. The viewfinder is tiny and there's no good manual focusing aids on visible. If you need to manual focus, get a D80 or D40(x) and also consider the Katz eye (haven't tried, but will).

 

My old all manual SLR had a HUGE viewfinder and a great angle of view. I still sometimes miss it very much.

 

Digital offers some great features, though: instant review, frame by frame ISO selection, embedded metadata (great with iView Media Pro, AcdSee, Fotoware...), and the wonderfull DxO Optics Pro.

Each time you save a JPG, you might loose quality due to compression. If the default quality is "90%", then the third time you save the file it is only "73%" of original... You could use TIFF to avoid this, but RAW or compressed RAW is considerably smaller and a lot more flexible. Use RAW as "film" and JPG as "print".

Heliopan, B+W and the multicoated/supermulticoated Hoyas are all very decent. The more coatings, the less flare (and better everything).

 

Brass rings are more fun than the sticking aluminum ones. That's why I like B+W more than the Hoyas. Obviously, B+W costs more.

 

Check the prices at bhphotovideo.com

 

If you don't know what filters to get then just get an UV filter for scratch protection/sea/high altitude. Get a polarizer to get rid of reflections and deepend the colours (won't work well at 18mm). Get a 6-star filter - it's fun. Or maybe you would like to try one of the UltraContrast filters to reduce contrast? Many more exist.

 

Make sure that you get a filter wrench (you'll avoid a lot of frustration caused by stuck aluminum filters), and also get some filter caps so that you can screw your five(?) filters together and add one filter cap on each end of the "tube". This is simpler than to carry one plastic case per filter.

"In digital post production every optical filter effect can be produced, with much more control than with on-camera filters. Except for polarisation! So, Michael, save yourself some money..."

 

Except for

1) polarization filters

2) infrared filters if you are shooting near fire that produces intense heat radiation

3) contrast filters (such as the Tiffen low/ultra contrast series; the ccd has its limits)

4) neutral density filters for long shutter speeds in bright conditions

5) gradient filters, if the dynamic range is too much for the ccd.

 

You should also try what effect an UV filter might have on exposure and white balance and noise when UV is strong. As we have these UV warnings... I have no certain knowledge, but I have a feel that it just might have an effect...

 

It's the polarizer that you'll probably need.

This will help a little bit (correct aberrations, vignetting, barrel automatically): http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/cameras_lenses

 

It's a great tool, at least for a hobbyist like me. Fast, simple, efficient. It doesn't replace good glass, of course.

I have read somewhere on these forums, that in good light the image quality difference is smaller. I cannot tell how much, as I haven't done any extensive comparisons, but many P/S cameras give very nice images in daylight.

 

dSLRs, however, give you the benefit of beeing able to buy good glass for your particular task and they let you focus easily manually in difficult situations and they have more often raw support (that is required by some rally good image correction applications).

 

The dSLR sensor is bigger and has less noise (and probably more dynamic range ie not so many burnt highlights) than P/S at each ISO level...

When you attach one of the faster (f/1.4, f/2) primes on your D50 you will be recoding beautiful pictures while your friends point and shoot camera records either pure black or severely underexposed useless images, or horribly pale flash photos with underexposed background and zero atmosphere.

UV filters are good for protection. It is simpler to remove fingerprints from a flat filter than from lens, and the filter is cheaper to replace after you detect the grain of sand between the glass and the cleaning tissue...

 

I got some multicoated Hoyas (and B+W filters too). Multicoated filters have better tolerance against flare than single coated ones. Super multicoated are even better but they cost A LOT and might be wasted money.

 

I have also got a feeling that UV filters help my D70 camera to expose correctly outdoors (esp. on hazy days).

 

If you get these aluminum framed Hoyas, then maybe you want to buy a matching size "filter wrench", too? Not expensive. It can be really frustrating to try to detach stuck filters - especially the aluminum/thin ones. With one or two of these plastic wonders, it is easier.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=16966365

I need to clarify a few things in my post (as I cannot edit it anymore).

 

1) When I write about "limitations of the sensor" I don't mean megapixels, but dynamic range.

 

2) With "one cheap wideangle and one cheap telephoto" I mean relatively cheap fast primes, of course :) They don't cost $$$$

 

3) As you already have the 18-300mm covered, are you looking for better technical image quality or more artistic freedom with less DOF and/or better quality for the out-of-focus areas? The 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 are nice affordable fast lenses...

Images are made with lighting, lenses and filters (thinking of polarizers and ND-grads, low contrast filters, ...). The camera body records the result. In-camera algorithms and photoshop can do a lot too, but they do not polarize light or lift the limitations of the sensor. Sometimes you would need filters or better light because of too much contrast, for example. You need to know the limitations of your tools and choose accordingly. Lots of trials and erros result - studying :)

 

You probably know this already, but it's just fun to type:

 

You can go really really close to the subject while photographing to emphasize the front part of the subject and also give it some "distance" from the background, but you will need a wide angle lens so that the whole object fits in the frame.

 

You can also go far away to give a flatter look to a 3D object or make it look closer to its background. If you are photographing people, this might even make skin look smoother (depending also on lighting and filter use).

 

You can control the perspective by using the wide angle and moving the camera back and forth. However, if you move the camera very far away for a flat perspective, then the subject becomes very small and it is difficult to preview it in the viewfinder and the resolution becomes poor when you crop & enlarge the result. You will thus need some magnification - a telephoto lens.

 

Maybe you should then get one cheap wideangle and one cheap telephoto that give the two extremes that you want. In the middle use a 50mm "normal" lens that gives the same perspective as the eye at the same distance. The rest is just walking :)

 

Then with relatively little money you can do these perspective studies and buy a more easily operated tool (and more sharpness) when you can afford the pro zooms. Now you might ask why not buy a cheap consumer zoom instead... but another thing to consider is the depth of field and the quality of the background. If you want low depth of field (blurred background) then you will need a fast aperture. It is easier to get with f/2.8, f/2 and f/1.4 lenses than with f/4-5.6 consumer lenses. I have a f/3.5-4.5 18-70mm zoom but if I photograph a flower, I need my 50mm f/1.8 to get a silky background. The background is worth the extra price and hassle.

 

ps. I want the D200 too, but I cannot afford it because first I need more reach with smooth background for shooting animals and rockstars (=long fast lens, $$$$) and then I need more speed than f/2 for nicer backgrounds and also handheld night shots with a certain atmosphere.

What's the aperture? Have you locked the aperture ring?

Would a Manfrotto tower stand be high enough? Or maybe you find a suitable clamp in a hardware store? The net is probably attached to a pole...

Without knowing your parents I would generally recommend any camera that

 

1) has a multi voltage charger - usually called "travel charger"

 

2) offers a firm grip for old shaking(?) hands, yet is light enough. Too small camera might be difficult to handle, although your parents might also prefer a small camera...

 

3) has few but large buttons (see above) and has a fully automatic mode

 

4) is easy to use with eye glasses on

 

5) a vibration stabilized zoom lens or built-in stabilization might be a good thing unless the camera becomes unnecessary big and/or complicated then

 

I cannot really recommend any specific brand or model. Others here are probably more knowledgeable ;)

I can see the dimensions in brochures, but translating those numbers into carrying capacity is not always that simple. I might need to buy by post order, so the comments on the Domke bags were very helpfull.

 

I'll also study the Billingham bags and others more closely, although that LowePro SlingShot might be a little too technical for me ;)

Thanks. No bag... I had not thought about that. It is true that I have missed shots because of not beeing able to reach my camera fast enough. So, keeping the camera allways in hand would probably be a good thing to do.

 

On the other hand, I have a bad habit of sometimes ending up in places where showing a camera is not a wise thing to do - streets at night for example... in less wealthy areas... That plastic bag is not that bad an idea after all... But maybe I will still look at canvas bags too - not necessarily branded camera bags, though :)

What camera stores in Berlin would you recommend? I'm looking for one with a

large selection of equipment - including canvas bags.

 

There must be many stores in such a large city, but finding them might be a bit

of a challenge... Any ideas?