ross_lipman

I am selling 2 houses right now....a renovated flip, and a long term rental. I took several photos of the flip house, and they were just ok. I used an iphone and a Nikon D7100, with 18-150 lens and tripod. I turned on the lights in the house for warmth and set exposure for max depth of field. I figured I could crop etc in post processing to get the perspective(s) I wanted. As I said the pictures turned out just ok. Except for 2 iphone photos of the front of the house. I stood in the middle of the street looking straight at the front door, so the house was framed by trees. Light was late afternoon with a nice glow. I was far enough away to get that "looking down the lane" perspective that really helped to show the exterior in the best way possible. I had just laid sod in the front, so I tweaked exposure and saturation in LR to really play up warmth and the green of the new sod. I then hired a professional and his photos of the interior were better than mine. He used a Nikon D850 with a 14-24 lens, and a hand held flash. He was able to get better perspectives than I was, and there is a shine to his photos that I could not replicate. Still learning. I would suggest you take some pictures yourself to see what you can do, then consider hiring a pro. In my area the cost is less than $200 for a complete set of pictures. I attached copies of the iphone photos to show what *is* possible. The 2nd photo is the main listing photo and feedback to date has been universally outstanding regarding the quality of the photograph (and house). Now I have to find the right buyer..... The rental house is occupied by tenants who are neat, but also have a lot of 'stuff" so the pictures look cluttered. There is very little I can do unfortunately.

Google is your friend: free online image editor - Google Search And investigate PS CS edition I use LR 3.5 that I purchased years ago. Still works, and I have not had to pay any more money to keep it working or to retain access to LR processed files. Not a fan of paygo or ransomware.

Nikon D80, 1/100 sec, f13, 400iso, 300mm (70-300mm 4.5-5.6 lens) taken several years ago. Lens is soft at extremes, and auto focus is not accurate at infinity so I have to manually back focus slightly for sharp images (as sharp as the lens is capable of...).

Late to the show, but adding my comments to the record for future consideration. My progression is D70-D80-D90-D7000-D7100. I loved each body except for the 7000; I felt I was fighting the body to get a decent shot. All others worked well, and as I expected them to. Easy to use, good features etc. The biggest changes I noticed were going from the 70-80 then from the 90-7100. The changes were in resolution by increasing pixels and low light sensitivity. Resolution is self explanatory...more pixels allowed for more flexibility in composition and then post processing crops. Low light improvement meant I could use ambient instead of flash in more cases, or go with a lower ISO if needed. For someone going strait from a D70 to D7100 I think the difference will be shocking and for a period of time the camera will be more advanced than the user- there will be a learning curve to get the best from the camera because the limits of capability are so much greater. The shooter will have to re learn how to compose, what is possible in exposure options etc. On the other hand a D7100 can be set to "Auto" and produce images that will be significantly better than what was possible from a D70.....

Nikon 24mm-70mm f2.8 N G ED Lens With Box, Case, Hood, Covers FX Body Lens. Can be used on DX bodies with 1.5 crop factor. NM Condition Looks and Works Perfectly !! $1149.00 FREE US SHIPPING !!! International Buyers To Pay ALL Associated Costs And Fees PAYPAL ONLY !

Again, Thanks for all followup comments. I think some clarification is needed. App control would be for settings such as resolution, ISO and white balance. Exposure settings would be in the camera. The digital sensor should be as film like as possible, with minimal custom features. Once set, your phone goes in your pocket and you focus, set exposure etc on the camera body. Future versions could include wifi file transfer to the phone or another smart device. Removable micro SD may be feasible and attractive. Micro usb for charging. 24mp may be the sweet spot for such a device. Enough resolution to make people take notice, not too much as to be overkill for the application. I don't think processing technology will be the issue. Cheap, fast, small, and highly capable chips are available now. The issue will be sensor design. Once that is solved, everything else should fall into place.

All great comments. At present, the largest single part in a smart phone is the screen, followed by the battery. The screen requires a specific shape and interface to be effective, limiting what can be done to reduce size. A battery on the other hand, can be made into just about any size or shape, meaning it becomes less of a factor when trying to fit it into a confined space. I suspect the largest part of the cartridge (other than the housing) would be the sensor itself. The sensor has to be strictly designed to fit into the space between the pressure plate and film rails, and have a way to respond when the shutter is opened. Points made about preventing dust on the screen are well taken and are another factor to consider. Power requirements for wlan and bluetooth are not to be taken lightly and are more demanding than the power needed by the actual processing circuitry. I view phone app control (android and iphone) as crucial to this design as it would avoid the need to access the cartridge to change settings. On the other hand, the image processing and storage circuits can fit onto a small very efficient chip, contained in the cylinder located where a 35mm cannister would reside. Some bodies had removable take up spools, some had integrated spools and and take up mechanisms. The later would of course prevent all or most of the take up space from being used by the cartridge. Regardless of body design, what is common to both is the grooved spindle used to advance film a specific distance. I suspect this action can be used to prime the screen for use. One would have to use the advance lever to turn on the sensor and prime it for use. Subsequent advances would reset the sensor, with auto power down after 1min (adjustable setting within the app ?). Lots of questions remain. Power on-off when not in use ? USB port for download, or microSD slot ? How many MP and what size of the sensor pixels ? Protection of the fragile sensor ? Making the insertion, design and user interface "fool proof". Etc Etc. What prompted all of this is seeing the current state of the art in phone technology, and realizing that the limit of phone photography is not sensor quality, or processing chips, it is the lens. The lens is limited by the form factor of a phone, and the need to fit a lens the size of the nail on your pinkie into a space no thicker than a pack of matches. What if you combined the processing technology of a phone, with the lens technology of a real camera ? What if instead of producing a whole camera, with lens etc, you only produce what is needed to produce the image- a "sensor cartridge" designed to fit into the body of an existing manual body? What if the sensor cartridge were designed so that it takes on the size and shape of a 35mm cannister and the plane traveled by the actual film? Other companies are thinking along these lines. Most in the direction of a digital capture attachment (such as the above). However the MOTO Z line of phones is designed to accommodate external accessories to expand the feature set of the phone. One of the attachments is a Hasselblad branded mechanical zoom lens that promises true photo quality images, with the actual reach achieved by a mechanical zoom lens. As to price, I would not expect a $100 price, nor would I expect a $1000 price. This range is wide enough to drive a truck through..... Remember this would be just a digital sensor and processing technology- without a shutter, LCD monitor, viewing prism etc. Given the ever declining cost of technology, I suspect this could be produced in enough volume for a retail price of around $500. Not cheap. But it is low enough to be justifiable. Potential customers are hipsters (of course), and anyone with a 35mm film camera who laments the unavailability of film, but loves the convenience of digital. Would people respond ? Look at the robust size of the used market for 35mm film cameras, as evidenced by Ebay and the marketplace of enthusiast sites (like photo.net). I am surprised at the prices now routinely commanded by mid level and relatively common classic cameras. Imagine being able to make your Leica III / M, Contax II/II, Nikon F and other iconic bodies daily use cameras ! Like I said, lots to think about.

There have been various attempts to create a digital back for a film camera body. Most have been large kluge like devices, that may work but essentially turn the film body into an unwieldy brick. What I envision is a marriage of phone and digital technology in a film form factor. Open a film body and you see three sections, 1) a compartment on the left for a film cartridge 2) a press plate in the center to create a pressure source to keep the film surface at a consistent distance from the lens. 3) an open space on the right to spool film as it is used. I see the above and I see the possibility of a self contained cartridge that fits all 3 spaces, and includes a digital sensor located where the film is held and exposed, along with enough space on either side to accommodate necessary processing electronics. I envision something that looks like a 126 cartridge but sized for a 35mm body. There would not be a way to mechanically change ISO or other capture settings while the cartridge is in use, but wifi or bluetooth can be used to virtually connect the cartridge to phone or tablet app for on the fly changes. The cartridge would have a micro usb port for download connection. The trickiest part is creating a digital sensor that will fit in the very limited space where film is held during exposure. Current flat sensor technology may be advanced enough to create a digital sensor the size and thickness of 35mm film. I have no doubt that the necessary electronics can be installed into the right and left compartments. When you look at a phone, the biggest piece is the screen, remove it and you are left with a handful of circuit parts you can hold in the palm of your hand...or install into the sides of the cartridge. Thoughts ?

Thanks everyone ! I am generally satisfied with the sharpness of the 18-140. I have used many images captured at 120-140 without difficulty. But in comparison to the 24-70 (36-105 crop compensated), I have to say the FX glass is much better in every comparison. Color rendition, contrast, sharpness are better, and required less post processing tweaks for a final image. I went through a lot of pictures recently taken with the 18-140, and most of the close in shots were taken between 18-40mm, so the WA range is a necessity for me. I will investigate the 16-80. WA is more important to me than absolute reach, and with 24mp at my disposal in a D7100, I can crop to achieve a close up if needed. Consensus opinion is the 16-85 is the worst of the 3 lenses in direct comparison, and I am glad to receive feedback from those who have used all three. As to cost, well I rarely by new, and I sell off what I no longer need use or want....

I think the problem is form factor. Phone sensors and lenses are roughly the size of the nail on your pinkie. Current phone photo technology is insufficient to create images of the same quality as can be achieved with a basic DSLR and a kit lens. I've done some remarkable things with an iPhone SE (12mp f2.4 lens) and I am impressed with in camera image adjustments, but ultimate quality is worse than my old c2008 Kodak 6mp point and shoot. I am intrigued with the MOTO Z line of phones. This line has dedicated accessory backs, including a Hasselblad branded optical zoom lens. Reviews say it is about as good as a good point and shoot, which is to say better than any other phone, but not as good as a basic DSLR (or better point and shoot). One day phones cameras will be better, but that day is not here yet.

Thank you for the replies. My 18-140 is clean so that can be ruled out. I now realize the bottom shadow is due to using the body flash. Either I will get an accessory flash, or I will learn to compensate when framing, and crop out any shadow. Overall though, I guess it comes down to inherent differences in quality....you do get what you pay for in glass. This exercise has caused me to think about a better all around lens. How do the 16-85 or 16-80 compare to the 18-140 on the DX side ? Are improvements in IQ incremental or substantial ?

I recently photographed an event. Part of the event is held indoors and at relatively close quarters, and part is held outside/inside at varying distances. I picked up a Nikon 24-70 2.8 G ED lens earlier this year, and decided to use it for the indoor action. I use a 7100 body shooting A preferred (f11), with ISO set to 800 and the on body flash.. My process is to capture then load into Lightroom 3.5 for processing (don't laugh- I OWN it.....). Straight from the card, all photos required minimal processing. Colors are natural, excellent sharpness, contrast, very little glare. Straighten if tilted, crop and in most cases just save to folder. However there was a shadow at the bottom of most frames captured using flash. Easy to crop out but still there out of the camera. FX vs DX means that "24mm" is really 36mm and a bit too long for close use indoors- I found myself having to stand father away to adequately frame my subject. I changed to a Nikon 18-140 f3.5-5.6 for the remainder of the event. 18mm is great for close in work, and 140mm has enough reach to create a usable image even 50 feet away and then cropped. BUT- these photos required more processing ! I am used to this lens and can quickly process pictures because I know what to expect. In comparison to the 24-70, colors are flatter, sharpness needs tweaking, contrast boosted etc. I was amazed at the difference. I can see how some view the 24-70 as a true general purpose lens for most purposes. The 24-70 is a heavy lens (I noticed when carrying it around for several hours), but IMHO worth the additional cost. I will look for ways to use it in the future.

Is there a way to extract a serial # from *YOUR* legitimate, paid for, and owned copy of PS if you no longer have the disc or serial number card ?

Having the same problem on CS2.... Rock and a hard place. I understand what "free" means, and I accept a lack of tech support, but company stated it is compatible with CS2. Claim is made but now possibly inaccurate ? What next ? Does this product work in Lightroom ?

The D80 is indeed a great body, but it is at least 3 generations old. I suggest you also look into a newer body. Benefit would be much greater low light/high ISO performance. My progression was from the D70-80-90-7000-7100. With each change a noticed an increase in low light resolution quality. The 7100 is outstanding in this regard (and the 7200-7300 are better still), and considerably more capable than the D80.

My point concerned bodies, not lenses. Kiev lenses have maintained the same mount and flange distance throughout their history, and are known to be of excellent quality (assuming you acquire a good one). A Kiev lens from 1980 will fit a Contax body from 1940. Body parts on the other hand are known to have greatly deviated as production runs moved further away from origin such that Kiev parts from 1955-60 are not interchangeable with Contax parts. Still good bodies, and in general tend to be better than their LTM counterparts.

Over the weekend I picked up a rare black Canon P and Canon 50mm 1.8 combo (and lens cap). Body is in excellent condition easily 7.5/10. Shutter is moderately wrinkled, but seems to fire correctly at all speeds. Lens is in great condition 8/10. No haze, fungus, scratches, or blade oil, and appears very very clear. I found it locally and thought I paid a more than fair price. After purchase research indicated I am very luck to have found a black body at the price I paid. It feels great in the hand, and I love the bright 100% viewfinder with frame lines. Rangefinder lines are bright and distinct. This will go nicely with the rest of my LTM collection; IIIc Collapsible Sumar / Fed IIc Ind 55mm / Zorki 3m J8. Now to acquire more LTM glass ! Looks like I need to take some photos this spring. Lucky me !

Contax vs Kiev and the debate goes on. Kiev design was essentially the pre-war Contax II / III using machinery and technology moved to Russia after the war. The first generation Kiev bodies were rebadged Contax bodies...in fact collectors have turned up Kiev labeled bodies where the original Contax engraving was replaced. Parts from these and other early Kiev bodies are interchangeable with Contax bodies. As Kiev production moved farther away from the end of the war, tolerances changed, new parts were introduced, and gradually the Kiev become a design in its own right (for better or worse). I believe Kiev production began in late 1946 or early 1947. Bodies made for the first year or 2 are interchangeable with Contax. By 1950 or so, enough variation existed that interchangeability could no longer be assumed.

Zorki 3m / J8 and Fed IIc / I 61 (?). Both work but could use CLA. Pictures have a slightly soft creamy look that is fine in some instances, annoying in others. I also have a Leica IIIc. The I61 lens mounts easily on all 3 bodies. The J8 mounts perfectly on the Zorki, generally ok on the Fed, but is difficult to mount on the Leica. Interesting.

1. Re "Patton" is a "whitewash" - the film tells much of Patton's story from the point of view of Omar Bradley (and is indeed based in part on Bradley's memoir). Bradley hated Patton and this comes through loud and clear in the picture. From Wikipedia: "In a review of the film, Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, who knew both Patton and Bradley, stated, 'The Bradley name gets heavy billing on a picture of [a] comrade that, while not caricature, is the likeness of a....glory-seeking buffoon.'" -----Yet the movie succeeds in making an anti-hero out of Patton, and depicts Bradley as partially motivated by politics. "The film makes quite clear that de-Nazification was not a Patton priority." -----Correct. He chose to leave Nazis in positions of public service so the electrical grids and railroads would function. 4. He was, sadly, anti-Semitic. ------Unfortunately true, but not presented in the film. However such views were consistent with his background and peer group. His antisematism did not prevent him from being visible and emotionally shaken when visiting concentration camps. He did order the residents of nearby German towns to come into the camps to see what they long ignored. "5. Re he was a "nut alright" - I myself don't feel qualified to say. I think a man of Patton's historical importance deserves some caution when it comes to remarks like that; I would be interested in learning the specific source for the remark and of course the definition of "nut" (beyond the anti-Semitism, which perhaps is enough). Patton was certainly unbalanced at times. Perhaps some of this was due to the several head injuries he suffered; perhaps some of it was an act (he was a consummate actor, feeling that he needed to inspire awe, fear, etc.). I would say (a) genius is often unbalanced, ruthless, overly aggressive, ego-driven, and flat-out nasty, and (b) [just as an opinion] every once in a while a country needs a genius in the battlefield." -----Megalomaniac and Pathological......but a nutcase ? IDK. " 7. The best recent analysis of the respective performances in World War II of Patton, Bradley, and Ike by a professional military historian can be found in "The Soul of Battle" by Victor Davis Hanson, who basically rips Bradley and Ike new ones for their shocking timidity and praises Patton to the skies. Among other things, Hanson notes that if Patton's genius had been given free rein, a great many Jews might have been saved from the gas chambers (the Nazis stepped-up the ferocity of their maniacal genocide in 1944-45) and Eastern Europe might have been saved from two generations of Stalinist murder and soul-killing oppression." ------Politics and logistics dictated that the Allies halt their advance in late summer early fall of 1944. From D-Day until about the end of Sept, the Germans were in full retreat and had broken ranks in their frenzied attempt to get back to Germany. The D-Day troops were advancing from the beach heads, and Patton was advancing through the French Heartland. In both cases, most supplies were moved by truck convoy from Normandy Beaches- along routes several hundred miles long by the end of August. On the political side, Ike was trying to hold together a coalition of disparate interests. The Brits wanted revenge for Dunkirk- thus Montgomery with the backing of the crown and Churchill wanted to be the first into Berlin. The French wanted revenge for the Vichy regime and reward for the gallantry of the resistance. The Russians wanted to be sure they received their pieces of the pie, and wanted to beat the west into Berlin. Patton just wanted to win. Patton understood that German disarray created an opportunity to drive through their broken ranks and reach Berlin by December. He also understood the opportunity was fleeting, and given time the German retreat would collapse upon itself, allowing the Germans time to regroup, resupply, and counterattack. By October 1944 the Germans were able to defeat the allies at Arnheim in Holland. By December 1944 they were able to launch a formidable counterattack. After the war, investigations into German military activities showed Patton was correct. The Germans could have been defeated 6 months early, but the Allied halt (due to politics and logistics) allowed the Germans enough time to regain initiative. Ike decided to with hold gasoline and supplies from Patton to satisfy the other members of the coalition. At that time, the US could not afford to be "unilateral". -----Warriors are not suited for civilian life, and vice versa.

Is GIMP still a viable alternative ?

Levels WB Black on the wooden pier end in the foreground, grey on the building side visible about ¼ from right edge, white on the edge of the sea foam at the shore line. Highlight emphasis Gamma tweak Crop

My submission. White level using the boarder. Decrease magenta. Increase overall saturation. USM. Crop. Still some work to do in cleaning up the background. Overall look retains a vintage feel, but brings colors back and increases detail retrieval.

<p>Good choice to purchase a D7100. Excellent body. Great low light quality. Large image size allows for cropping without losing clarity. </p> <p>My progression has been D70 (great camera within limits) D80 (easy to use, but mine had a slight red shift that I had to edit out in PS), D90 (just felt "right" to me and images were outstanding), D7000 (felt like I was fighting the camera to get a good image; much higher % of so so images with this body), D7100 (all of the good features of the D90, with much better image quality and low light ability). Unless something super good and super cheap comes along, I don't see myself upgrading until the body wears out.<br> I took some indoor pics over the weekend using the 7100. ISO1600 and ISO800, no flash, using a basic 18-140 lens. Very nice indeed. Quality would have been marginal using a D90, and no usable using the D80. D7000 would have been hit or miss.</p> <p>You will love the 7100.</p>