ross_lipman

<p>IIIc without Flash Sync, or a M would be better for your needs. The M opens up the world of later M mount lenses; your LTM lenses will work with an adapter.</p> <p>Russian LTM lenses were initially produced before WWII, as direct copies of Leitz LTM lenses. Issues of backfocus are due to sloppy manufacturing quality, not use of a different standard. Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 8 lenses are quite good, as is the Industar 55. I have a FED 2 and Zorki 3M. The later is somewhat rare, but handles much better, with a large and bright viewfinder.</p> <p>Russian adaption of Contax as KIEV did not begin until after WWII, when the Contax factory, equipment and personal were shipped to Russia and then reassembled. Very early Kiev equipment is interchangeable with and virtually identical to the Contax I and II. </p>

<p>I have set a goal of scanning my way through boxes of negatives and snapshots when the weather turns cooler.</p> <p>I have an old Minolta Diamage Scan Dual II that I picked up at Goodwill for $10, and never used.<br> A local CL seller has advertised a Nikon LS30 at an attractive price.</p> <p>Both require a SCSI connection, and I have a Windows XP laptop that can accept a SCSI PCMCIA card.</p> <p>Assuming both scanners work, which is better for scanning 35mm negatives ?</p> <p>Thanks !</p> <p> </p>

<p>I don't want to download something I will not subscribe to.</p> <p>I did investigate LR ONLINE- Adobe allows you to use LR5 from their website, without downloading a large .exe file.</p> <p>Unedited file opens and does not have a magenta cast. </p> <p>I have loaded pics into View NXi. Unedited files look like files opened in CS2 (and all other software I have tried other than LR).</p> <p>.JPG. I did not shoot RAW as I did not have sufficient onboard storage space for my needs.</p> <p>From everything I have tried, it seems that the cast is isolated to LR3.5. Now the question is why ?</p> PC Windows 7 premium, AMD 2.2 Quad Core, 8gb RAM

<p>Nikon View NXi ? Will look into. Thanks.</p>

<p>Errr not quite.</p> <p>Courts are still divided as to whether a purchase can be canceled by the seller at a later date. An owner of intellectual property can end support for use of the property at any time. But the property can be used in the matter in which it was originally intended until either it fails from age, or the infrastructure needed for operation no longer functions. If I own a legally purchased copy of the software, I can install it on my computer. However, I understand that the producer of the software may or may not be of assistance if I encounter a problem. Hence the use of internet groups and forums (like photo.net) to solve problems that may arise from time to time. Hence my original question.</p> <p>Other than age, what would stop someone from using Windows XP ? MS doesn't support it anymore, and it may be susceptible to virus etc. MS may claim that a working "key" is a "license", and Adobe wants users to believe that holding software and a key in your hand may be a "license", but no court has ever upheld the claim when the software has been legally acquired. On the other hand, courts have ruled in favor of the purchaser when the initial sale did not make clear that the transaction is actually a lease.</p> <p>I am someone who uses a fountain pen to write notes in longhand. Soap and a razor to shave every morning. Vacuum tubes and vinyl to listen to music. I am not a luddite (nor would anyone accuse me of being one after seeing the number of computer based devices in my home). I am someone who does not upgrade just because "it is new" or the company says I should. </p>

<p>Yes, I opened the same unedited file in both LR and CS2. I will investigate the conflicts pointed to.</p> <p>I understand I can purchase a subscription at nominal cost. HOWEVER, I prefer to purchase and own. If a subscription lapses, you lose access to the program. In the future it is very possible that a lapsed subscription would also lock any derived content, such as edited media. There is a word for this....."hostage-ware". No Thank You.</p>

<p>Snippy Snippy.</p> <p>Lack of comment does not indicate "dismissed out of hand".</p> <p>For the record, I have re calibrated my monitor. Very slight adjustments to gamma and red were needed, but did not eliminate the issue. I reviewed the linked article, and changed the color space in LR. Result was a slight but noticeable change. However, overall cast still remains, hence the workaround described above.</p> <p>You and others may have an extra $500-$600 for new software laying around. I don't.</p>

<p>"Antique" but paid for..... Until I can fully solve the problem, my workaround is to use LR for everything except color adjustments, and use CS2 for the later. I have opened photos in question in other applications such as irfranview, and the color cast issue remains solely a LR issue.</p> <p>On another note, I continue to be impressed by the basic image quality produced by the d7100. High ISO images are spectacular compared to the D80/D90.</p>

<p>I generally use LR3.5 to process digital photos. I have begun processing a large batch of files, and all have a magenta cast when opened in LR3.5. I have tried to adjust individual color hue, saturation, luminence etc with mixed results. </p> <p>I then opened the same file in LR 3.5 and in CS2. No magenta cast in CS2; image looks about perfect out of the camera.</p> <p>Images were taken with a D7100. ISO 800, flash, A preferred at f8.</p> <p>How can I set up LR3.5 so that an unedited image opened in LR3.5 looks exactly like an unedited image opened in CS2 ?</p> <p>Thanks,</p> <p>Ross</p>

I know the 24-70 2.8 FX lens is outstanding. Is there a DX alternative that covers the same range (24-70) with the same level of performance ? I use a d7100. Thanks.

<p>I recently purchased a used D7100 body + 18-140 VR lens for about what the body is worth. Everything is immaculate and looks like the shutter has been used less than 3k. Same seller has a Nikon 85mm prime that I may purchase as well.</p> <p>The D7100 replaces a D7000 that I was never quite happy with. The D7000 delivered fewer tack sharp photos than I was used to achieving from previous Nikon bodies (D70-80-90). Exposure was fine overall, and sometimes a bit under- which I prefer so I can adjust in Lightroom. I never attempted to adjust the AF and decided to leave it as is. I felt I could live with the % of focus issues because low light performance was much better than I expected. I consider my ability to be the equivalent of an advanced amateur and I photograph a few events per year just for fun or as a volunteer. Often I found myself fighting the camera to get acceptable images. I have not had that issue since before I upgraded from a P&S to the D70. I have followed the various threads regarding the shortcomings of this body and I tend to agree that something was not quite right in the basic design. Too many people have come forward with issues for the problems to be pure "user error". Many had reported out of focus or focusing issues when using a full automatic setting. All that said, I have captured some great images with this body, but either I was lucky, or I spent a good bit of time in post processing.</p> <p>From the first photo, the D7100 has been what I was looking for. Tack Sharp (even with the kit lens) and perfect exposure. I am still learning all of the settings for the body, but this may be the one that keeps me from upgrading for awhile ! I have used it to photograph items for sale. Photo conditions varied from natural light, to incandescent to flash. Other than cropping, images have required minimal post processing. Focus, exposure, balance, saturation have been spot on. I expect to use it for a family event in the near future. It will be interesting to see my results after taking a few hundred pictures at the event.<br> <br />I realize that the D7100 has been replaced by the D7200, but Nikon has a winner in the D7100.<br> <br />Just my thoughts and opinions- others may differ.</p>

<p>I had the same problem when upgrading from a 7760. HP has decided to abandon the high end home printing market in favor of combo home office equipment. I loved my 7760 and it could produce prints of equivalent quality to a local lab. I was able to buy as much ink as I wanted via Ebay. Large selection and excellent prices.<br> I purchased a Canon Pro100 to replace the 7760. The 100 is easily available for a moderate price. </p>

<p>I picked up a Canon Pro 100 over the holidays and I am still learning how to use it.<br> <br />Printed output that is darker than what I see on my monitor has been a consistent problem. I have calibrated my monitor (24in Samsung LCD) and note that the resulting gamma settings are 1.89 Red / 1.95 Blue / 1.95 Green.</p> <p>How do I adjust output on the Canon to match what I am seeing on my screen ?</p> <p>Thanks !</p> <p> </p>

Yup. Red Eye function was activated in the flash sub menu. Corrected and now the shutter fires when the button is pressed. Thank you to all who took the time to reply!

I recently purchased a used D7000. When using the on camera flash in A, S, or M mode there is a noticeable lag between pressing the shutter button and when the shutter fires. I have to hold the button down or press twice before it fires. No problem in auto mode- shutter and flash fire instantaneously. Is there a hidden setting that causes the problem or should I look for another cause ? Thanks.