alex_feldman1

<p>Well, the head cleaning seems to have worked. I say "seems" because now it doesn't feed properly.</p>

<p>Feed mechanisms are notoriously fussy. I would buy a photo printer where every page had to be manually aligned under the print head. It wouldn't work for everyone, but I think some people would like it.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone, especially Charles, for all the help. The standard solution to so many of life's problems: lots of alcohol!</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I will try something and post a response.</p>

<p>I should also have mentioned that I like to do panoramas, which makes most printing services - even Costco - expensive or simply not an option.</p>

<p>I suppose I should upload a panorama. Thanks again everyone.</p><div></div>

<p>Hello, I stopped using my Epson Photo Stylus R1600 a few years ago, and now I want to print photos again. I called the local Epson authorized service center, and the guy said to throw it away, the head would be clogged and he couldn't fix it.</p>

<p>The printer takes 8 ink cartridges, each of which costs about $15 so I am not eager to test it unless I am pretty sure there is a strategy out there that will work. That was probably what the repair guy was afraid of.</p>

<p>One thing I did not like about this printer was how fussy it was about ink. I had to use it weekly and often had to recalibrate it. If I do have to replace it, is there a better way than these expensive and fussy inks?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Alex</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I should mention that the printer is an Epson Photo Stylus R1600. To test it, I would have to buy 8 new ink cartridges, which would cost well over $100., so I'm not eager to try anything unless it is very likely that it would work. I would be happy to bring it in for service, if the guy in town thought he could get it going, but I think he is afraid of the same thing I am.<br>

Thanks, I will try the digital darkroom forum.</p>

<p>I don't see a forum here to post technical questions about printers. Is there another place people recommend going?</p>

<p>Specifically, I have a printer I haven't used in a few years, the factory authorized service center says it can't be fixed (clogged print head), and I was wondering if anyone had another idea.</p>

<p>I have tried to contact Epson directly, they have not been helpful.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

I just posted a note in the Business forum about the conclusion of a copyright

infringement case that might be useful to some here.

Sorry to have missed the WDYSTW threads lately. I have some shots, but haven't

been processing them very quickly. I'll post some of them, eventually. I have

some interesting shots of gymnastics taken with my 400mm lens from the balcony.

I hope this hasn't been posted before, but anyway - an individual photographer

represented himself in court and won a lawsuit against what appears to be an

unusually slimy company that had stolen his image. It' not only a feel-good

story, there might be some useful how-to information here as well.

You can begin here: http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana

And then search around for the court documents, If you want.

Thanks very much everyone. I'll look at the software myself and get back to those of you who volunteered to look at the picture if it is necessary.

Ordinarily Gimp and its friends work great, but I haven't upgraded in a while.

I just shot some raw photos with my EOS 1dN. When I tried to look at them with

the ufraw plugin with Gimp, something was terribly wrong. The image was split

into four parts, each of which contained a little more than a quarter of the

original photo, but they were a ll mixed up. The colors were all wrong, and the

picture was very dark. When I shot JPG at the same settings, I got perfectly

good pictures.

I also tried converting the pictures with dcraw, same strange images. It's the

breaking into four pieces that leaves me at a loss.

I'm a Linux user so I can't use the Canon software. I've shot raw with my 350d

and it worked then, although I haven't tried it recently.

Thanks.

Hi Bob - I guess I was hoping someone else had experienced the same thing, and had discovered some strange fix - set custom function 33, or some such thing. It is odd that it works so well with most lenses, but my other camera, a 350d, works just fine with the 400mm lens. And if I may be so bold as to tweak your metaphor, it's more like saying the car starts but won't move. I can focus, get light meter readings, etc. I just can't take pictures.

Hi M - yes, same thing in manual focus. What were you thinking of?

Thanks.

My 1dN works perfectly, except when you depress the shutter release all the way

to try to take a picture. Autofocus works fine, so the camera seems to be

communicating with the lens, but it won't always take the picture. It works

most of the time with my 28-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, but it hardly ever works with

my 400 2.8 (all Canon). Last night it failed to work after I had spent an hour

walking to a good location from which to photograph the eclipse, but that's

another story. The contacts look perfectly clean. Do I have to send this in?

But with sports potential, and in case, totally cool:

http://www.ronkleinphotos.com/Lawrence.html

There is a new review of _Gimp 2 for Photographers_ on slashdot.org, with an

extensive discussion about the book and gimp generally. The direct link is:

http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/03/1445203

According to the exif data in the first picture, the shutter was 1/640 and ISO was 1600. I didn't check the other pictures, but you might want to check the settings on your camera. In any case, 1/640 is fast enough, you could probably slow it down to 1/500 without a problem. And your pictures appeared to be capturing plenty of light. I would begin by closing up the aperture a bit, maybe to 2.8 or 3.2. That will give your autofocus a little more room to get it right. As you begin to get better, you can open it up more so only your intended subject is sharp, and you could dial down the ISO a little then too, although thse look quite good for ISO 1600.

Just keep shooting. Don't stop. It's like riding a bike - you stop, you fall over.

Oh, I see. You burnt a bridge? OK, but each asst. SID must only be in charge of a few sports. Shoot the other ones. And the good news is, that position tends to have a high turnover.

By the way, I don't know what the bubbles at WSU are like, but the tennis bubbles at Boise State are translucent. It makes a huge difference whether you are shooting during the day or at night. Look at my nighttime shots in the What did you shoot... thread. Terrible. Anyway, they are different from most other indoor venues in that they let in a lot of sunlight, so the lighting is variable.

Hi Andres,

I used to run ultramarathons, before my body gave out on me. Some of my more durable friends have run in that race - Mark Hartinger, Gene Traherne, Chris Ralph, Tom Ripley, and Mike Miller are all friends from Washington state whom I have run with in races, and I think have run that race.

I never carried a camera when I raced - never carried much of anything other than a water bottle and a flashlight at night. But that wasn't your question. On the informal runs I have been doing lately, I have been carrying an Olympus Stylus 725 SW. Lightweight, and you can drop it in a stream and (supposedly) it will survive. It's adequate to the task, although the lack of a viewfinder is problematic in bright sunlight.

Post yourself on a flat or downhill. If you catch the runners coming uphill, they will in fact be walking, and it won't look impressive.

Splotchy sunlight coming through the trees and strange shadows on the faces can give the pictures a "tough" look, which might be desirable.

Warn the runners if you are going to take a flash shot at night. After you have been running all day, you aren't thinking clearly and may react unfavorably to a surprise. Flash shots at night can yield some very ghostly facial expressions, and any shots taken late in the race may feature blood and dirt on the body.

I agree that the telephoto probably isn't necessary, unless there is some special vantage point above a waterfall or some such thing you want to do.

Here is a shot I took with my Olympus on a 35 mile fastpack through Zion NP last May<div></div>