emwalker

Is it just me, or is the 35mm film strip tray with the Epson 4490 the

flimsiest, most cheaply made peice of s**te you ever saw? The scanner is

pretty nice, but these trays are poorly made, hard to manipulate, and taking

almost as much time to 'set' as I'm spending scanning. I have seen some

custom trays online, and I'm wondering if anyone is familiar with the third

party items available and any improvements/advantages. What I see with the

Epson product is the thing is too soft and flexible, and the snap-locking

mechanism is poorly designed and doesn't line up right in at least two places

at any given time... thanks for advice or review of the other products.

 

-e-

I have a bunch of uncut roll film which I want to scan on my flatbed. The

film is rolled in tubes, and it's a bear to get it in the holders and it still

curls lengthwise when it's placed. I'm trying to figure out a way to press it

flat for scanning, but nothing I've tried so far is working out. Any

suggestions would be helpful, thanks.

 

-e-

Canon has a wireless system, which is pretty cool, but costs a mint (more than my 20D did new) It seems strange to me, too, since my wireless router only cost 50 bucks and every notebook comes wireless enabled these days... I'm wanting a wireless USB transceiver and a reasonably priced alternative to the pocket wizard (it's a remote controlled switch for chrissakes!) but as with all camera gear, the stuff you want will cost you a mint for the foreseeable future...

Excellent image quality and technique is what it's all about, and if the results are great then it really doesn't matter whether you use a Hasselblad or a point and shoot. The 400D will give you excellent image quality if used well, so the rest is up to you!

Now, my technique is not perfect by any stretch, but given more time I could improve on this by deadening the white flash highlights on the skin and making finer-tuned adjustments overall, but exposure-wise this may (or not) help you in the right direction. I'm assuming, of course, that you're using PS, otherwise this is moot. Here's the PSD file with my adjustments so far...

Here's my 'quick-fix' version in PS... this should be easier to adjust with the original file, but I think this helps a little with what you've got... not perfect, ind you, but coing along- I'll post the PSD file too if you want to explore the layering technique I've used here. I used three layers, masked the top two and selectively blended your couple onto the background after some curve adjustments (two brighter steps). I used the top layer for hihglights and the middle layer as my 'base exposure' for the couple. I've done a wee bit of selective color and contrast corrections on the top layer only, though you could use this more extensively throughout to tweak your tones a bit. I also brightened up the grass a bit to expand DR a little. This shot's not a total loss, though preparation and solid technique at exposure time will definitely cut down post-processing work. Good luck.

 

-e-<div></div>

I'd practice in your off time a lot. Try a reflector on the bride's side and off-camera fill from the groom's side at about 45 degrees, set to get full exposure of the couple, and underexpose the background by 1/3 to 1 stop to catch the sunset color. Play around with the setup until you're comfortable and know what to expect from your equipment. It looks here like your fill was confused by the over-bright background. You might get better exposure of the couple using center-weighted or spot metering using on-camera flash. I'd also suggest a slightly wider shot here to catch more of a full scene- get several shots and bracket your exposures to hedge your bets on these. Good luck.

 

-e-

Whew, I thought it was actually going to be something IMPORTANT that we all needed to know! I don't have your spool.

It seems tome,in my experience, that in general many Kodak films are better balanced for warm tones while Fuji films are great for blues and greens. In many subjects the difference can be subtle, and many films are 'balanced' in different forms such as 'NC' and 'V' designations for use with skin tones, daylight, etc. I would recommend ordering a variety of films through B&H, as they have a good selection and much better prices than my local outlets. If you're scanning, color slide films can be rewarding too, such as Elite Chrome and Velvia. You can also experiment with cross-processing slide film in C41color negative chemistry at your local one-hour place with interesting results. I have a few examples of this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=626925">here</a>. Film is fun, and one of the things that makes it interesting is trying out different things. I'd recommend reading the product specs tosee what the manufacturers have to say, and searching some more for opinions and advice.<BR><BR>One of my favorites is Fuji Reala 100- it has pretty heavy saturation and fine grain, and I find it to be a good all-around film. The Superia 400 I find lacking a bit in tone and grain quality, though not too bad. I'd agree Kodak UC400 is a great place to start with higher speed film. Also, you could try some Superia 1600 for extra speed if you're shooting low light. It's a little more expensive but it's 2 stops 'faster' than the 400 stuff...<BR><BR>Have fun, shoot a bunch, and enjoy the results. Don't forget the black and white films, either... personally, that's where I think film's really strong suit is these days compared to digital. Pick up a roll or two of Ilford HP5, and I think you'll be pleased. <BR><BR>Good luck! Postsome results in your portfolio :o)<BR><BR>-e-

Perhaps you could try getting the flash off camera and setting it up about 30-45 degrees to the right of the frame here. What I'm seeing here is that despite slight underexposure, you're getting a hot and very white reflection on the skin from the flash. The reflector is a great idea too. Good luck.

Some good, fine grain pro b/w film will give you >20MP of usable resolution. Crappy comsumer color 400 speed film will give you <10MP. Some digital cameras are <6MP. Hasselblad makes a 39MP digital back.

 

The biggest difference is in grain, which is absent in digital. Good digital sensors give very low noise (somewhat equivalent to grain) at low ISO values.

 

My 20D produces more usable information than Fuji 400 consumer film, in my experience, but cannot come close to IlfordHP5. So, as always, it depends on how you look at it, and which digital camera you compare to which film.

 

And no, medium format film (the fine stuff) will still outcapture the 35mm frame digital.

Make sure it includes all the original accessories and software if you do go for it. I don't think being without PS Elements would be a big loss, but the DPP software from Canon is handy if you want to shoot RAW.

For features and build, easily available functions (the function wheel is your friend), frame rate, viewfinder, AF functionality, and handling I think the 20D is definitely a winner. I would go with the used 20D over the new RebelXT myself, if it is in prime condition and still under warranty. However, as you seem to fear, there is no way to know how long or well a used item will hold up. However, for the same price as the XT, the used 20D will likely hold its own at least as the shutter service life is rated far above that of the XT. Given this, I again recommend the 20D- I made this choice between new models when i bought the 20D, and have not regretted the decision or the extra expense once.

I second the light leak hypothesis- my A1 did this when the light sealing foam around the door went out, and I ended up with several rolls of striped film.

Sorry, Canon EOS viewer utility is the program.

1. Try another card reader

 

2.Reboot your computer

 

3.Canon cameras do show up as a virtual drive, but with the 20D there is a hardware interface which requires software support to transfer. You have to install the software to use it. I remember having a problem accessing my raw files a while back, but don't remember exactly how I remedied it. I think the canon raw viewer software might be what you have to use. This is a weak link in the Canon suite as far as I'm concerned, but I don't hook my camera up to my computer directly as the transfer is much much faster if you can use your card directly.

 

good luck.

 

-e-

It is my inexpert opinion, from the information which i have seen, that the film fogging issue with xray machines is an urban myth. It would take extreme conditions or special film to fog under xray bombardment at levels similar to the airport machines. Medical xray images are created on film by placing the film next to a phosphor screen which lights up when hit by the xrays. The xrays themselves have a negligible effect on the film. I have only heard anecdotal evidence implicating airport xray machines in film fogging, and I suspect that the vast majority of these cases are due to mishandling the film at some other step in processing, and nothing to do with the airport at all. Keeping in mind all the steps at which film can be mishandled, from improper or prolonged storage to light contamination during processing, I think without a truly scientific study it would be very very hard to connect airport xrays with film damage. Just my amateur observational opinion...

 

-e-

I don't recall ever hearing definitive evidence that the airport xray scanners have ever damaged film. Giving the number of mishaps that might end in poor quality of a roll, I would be skeptical of reports of damaged film from xrays like this. Even radiograph films require a phosphorous screen to provide light for exposure... so. it's my beleif that most rolls of film 'damaged' by airport xray machines were actually mishandled or improperly stored at some other point...

Well, yes and no. Digital is not film, of course. For printable quality, films are quite variable depending on speed and design. For usable detail, gain is often a limiting factor in film. Some b/w films will deliver something in the 20+MP range in usable detail, while some fast consumer color films will give something less than 10. However, with digital there is no grain. Noise is another issue, similar to grain, and increases with ISO sensitivity. I have made prints up to 20x30" with my 8.2MP 20D which I was happy with. At 12x18 thay look fantastic. Generally, for printing, most people use 300DPI as the 'photo quality' standard, so 6MP at 300DPI will give (2000x3000)/(300)=6.6x10" at 'photo quality' printing. However, a lot of how a print really looks depends on how close you view it, and with interpolation you can create larger images to an extent without losing too much quality. So, no, your 6MP won't deliver nearly the amount of image data that a slow professional fine-grain b/w film will, but it will keep up with a lot of color films and will often offer 'better' quality as there is no inherent grain to deal with. I don't know anything about the noise performance of the Pentax cameras, but I know my 20D gives a super smooth, nearly flawless image at 100ISO when viewed full size.<BR><BR><center><image src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4893182-lg.jpg"><BR>Canon 20D output, 100%, no sharpening yet<BR><BR><image src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4893341-lg.jpg"><BR>Ilford FP4 scanned at ~26MP(4800DPI), full-resolution crop<BR><BR><image src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4893190-lg.jpg"><BR>Fuji Superia 400 scanned at 3200DPI and downrezzed to 8MP for comparison to 20D output at same resolution- note the grain vs the smoothness of the digital output<BR><BR></center>Don't get dragged into the digital vs.film fray, both have their strengths. As you can see from this absolutely unscientific comparison the b/w film far surpasses the data gathering capability of my 20D, while the color consumer film shows glaring flaws in comparison. Some people like grain. I still use both film and digital, though the convenience and economy of digital is ever more endearing to me.

Why are they so incredibly expensive? What am I missing here? Is there an

alternative to the PWs, or are they really the only thing out there? I shoot

Canon, but don't use TTL and want remote RF triggers for my Speedlite 199a

units for protable ligthing. It seems to me there should be something else

out there. Remote control units are pretty cheap, and triggering a flash is

an extremely simple task without the TTL bit. I have seen some cheap chinese

RF units on ebay, but I haven't heard much at all about how well they work or

if they are safe for my 20D. I know Canon also makes an RF unit which

incorporates full TTL function, but is similar in price to the PW units. So,

does anyone know why the Pocket Wizards are so expensive? And does anyone

have experience with a cheaper Ebay solution? I'm ready to get set up for

remote flash triggering, but i need to know what I'm missing first. hope this

makes some sense, thanks in advance.

 

-e-

Canon 1600mm f/8L... get an adapter :o)

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I6sn">short answer</a>

Spinal Tap is a movie spoof about a rock band... one of the more famous concepts is to be louder, all their amps turning up to 11 instead of 10. One of those 'you have to be there' jokes.

That is the heart of my inquiry, though. <i>Do</i> people actually gain customers from having photos rated highly? I have run into this assumption several times, but I have never heard any real evidence to support the notion.

yes, will, the 'd' is necessary.