ross_lipman

<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.

<p>Looking for a dedicated photo printer. I have an AIO (several). Thanks.</p>

<p>Looks it is time to replace my HP7960. I love the print quality from this printer, and I specifically purchased the printer for it's B&W capability with a dedicated photo grey ink cartridge.<br>

<br />I have had it for 10yrs now and drivers for Win7/8 are not available. Ink can also be problematic. HP seems to have moved away from semi-pro photo printers in favor of home office all in one devices.</p>

<p>Does HP make a printer that is as good or better than the 7960 or what other brands/models should I look for ?</p>

<p>Would prefer to spend as little as possible (like all of us...).</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

I am from the "I buy it, I own it" school. So cloud application rental is not a business model I want to participate in. More to the point is that I tend to use products that reliably meet my needs- and then I stay with those products for a long time. I frequently skip several generations of upgrades because what I have continues to work well. I use CS2 and LR3.5. I am happy with both. The capbabilities of both exceed my needs at this time. I probably use less than 40% of the capablities of CS2 for example.... Now why should I subscribe to a hamster wheel of upgrades when what I have works perfectly well ? I suspect there are more people like me than Adobe is aware of.

Classic manual cameras remain popular for some of the same reasons why manual wind watches, fountain pens and vacuumn tube electronics remain popular.

 

Mechanical simplicity

Quality of build

Aesthetics

Ergonomics

Nostalgia

 

I see digital techology going in two directions.

 

For the mass consumer, digital photography is an add on feature to other gadgets, or utilized as a throwaway planned obsolescence commodity.

 

For the enthusianst mid level and higher digital technology is approaching the point (and some would say has already reached the point) where the capability and resolution levels are beyond the abilities of the user. Higher end digital cameras- many DSLR and some all-in-one cameras- are viewed as investments rather than gadgets, meaning that the owners will keep them for a long period of time and then pass them on to the next generation. Something like a Nikon D7000 has cababilities beyond the abilities of most users. It will be used for many years before upgrading or unitl it breaks...much like the "F" series before it. Will it have the longevity of the "F" ? Who knows, but judging by the support for older prosumer and pro level Nikon bodies I suspect it will.

<p>I can purchase either lens very cheaply. Use would be on a D90 and possibly a D7000. Which is the better lens ? I like the longer reach of the 105, but am put off by reported distortion. I have some experience with the 70 and I have noticed distortion at the wide end. Is the 105 worse in this regard ? I like the metal mount of the 70 compared to the plastic of the 105.<br>

<br />Anyone have experience comparing both lenses ?</p>

<p>Thanks !</p>

<p>From the details you provided, you appear to be an advanced photographer. The D7000 is the current Nikon body that hits the point of diminishing returns with regard to features and performance. You are looking at a $1000+ investment however. A step down from the D7000 in both features and price is the D90. For some the much lower current cost more than offsets the reduction in feature set. Another way to go would be to purchase something very inexpensive to get your feet wet and then decide if you want to fully convert to digital. Nikon D70s bodies are readily available for less than $200. All of the above bodies will work with your existing lenses with the caveat that they will be subject to full frame to DX crop factor. In use, film lenses will have the same angle of view as a lens of 50% greater focal length. If it were me and I could afford it, I would purchase the D7000 with a kit lens. Then use your existing lenses as needed.</p>

<p>I purchased an HP Photosmart 7960 back in 2003 and have been very satisfied. It is getting old and starting to show some quirks, so I will purchase a new printer to replace it.</p>

<p>What is the current HP printer that would be considered a successor to the 7960? This is a printer only, with exceptional B&W capability and separate inks supplies. Back in 2003 it was considered among the best photo printers you could buy.</p>

<p>I have been very happy with HP printers over the years so would prefer to stay with the brand.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Ross</p>

<p>I have LR3.5. I have found it to be so useful for basic image adjustment that I rarely use PS anymore (but I still use it).</p>

<p>LR is wonderful for adjusting exposure, color, contrast, sharpening, noise reduction and cropping.<br>

LR does not have a useful Levels tool and it lacks the cut, paste and radical image editing capabilities of PS.<br>

You can set up a general macro for basic adjustments and then fine tune all parameters as needed.<br>

LR has cut my worktime per picture in half (or more). <br>

LR noise reduction is spectacular and vastly better than what is possible in PS. Earlier this year, I shot a lot of high iso night images. LR has made most of these images useful instead of marginal.</p>

<p>Can you tell I like LR ? As much as I like the program it is no substitute for PS. <br>

A great example would be photo restoration. PS is the better tool for this. <br>

Layers, stitching, high dynamic range merges etc are all the domain of PS.<br>

Adjusting the exposure, colors, sharpness etc of image is the forte of LR.</p>

<p>Download the 30 day trial of LR.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Ross</p>

<p>Thanks ! Exactly the info I was looking for and I have committed to the purchase of LR3.</p>

<p>Ross</p>

<p>I have CS2 and have no desire to upgrade to CS5. I have been offered LR3 at a good price. My interest is in better photo processing from my D80. I do light editing- sizing, levels, colors, noise reduction, sharpening etc. Does LR3 have editing/processing features that are better or more advanced than what I already have in CS2? Organizational features of LR are not needed.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Ross</p>

<p>Yes I believe the D70 is a classic, with the caveat that we are discussing what is essentially disposable electronic technology. It was the first DSLR that had the features buyers wanted, with Nikon reliability and at an affordable price.</p>

<p>Looked at now, it has become a good dslr to learn with. While capable of great images, care should be taken to capture the image you want, without having to resort to post processing. The limiting factor is 6.1 mp. There just isn't enough to allow for serious cropping of the image while still retaining image detail. As a photographer you are forced to think about composition, exposure etc before your press the shutter. With later bodies, it becomes too easy to let the camera take over exposure decisions and then use post processing to get the composition just right. Skills learned on the D70 will be rewarded with a later body, but those who dive right in with say a D90 may not have the benefit of having learned how to shoot within the limitations of a DX sensor DSLR.</p>

<p>At current prices, it is possible to purchase a D70 and lens for less than the cost of a mid level p&s. The D70 will prove to be more durable and in the right hands, capable of better results.</p>

<p>In a few years, we may even think of the D70 as the digital equivalent of the Spotmatic.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Ross</p>

<p>....and yes I started with a D70, but have upgraded.</p>