blumesan

<p>Just a wild guess:<br> I purchased a very nice used Nikkor MF 50/1.8 which had the same problem. It would not focus to infinity; it hit a "stop" at around 4 meters on the distance scale. I found it was easily possible to fix this problem by moving the position of the "infinity stop".<br> I have no idea if the innards of this lens are at all comparable to your Vivitar, but I would be happy to send you an illustrated instruction of how I repaired the Nikkor. Let me know.</p>

<p>For the purpose you describe I would recommend the Nikkor MF AiS 180/2.8. That is the only lens I have longer than 105mm. For such use I find that MF is perfectly adequate. It meets the weight requrements and the optics are excellent. Price is certainly right.</p>

<p>Michael-<br> My apologies. Your edits certainly have made some major improvements. Perhaps I gave up too soon. Also, I do not have access to some of the tools you used. I am particularly impressed with the increased sharpening.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Hope this image works well for the purpose of this exercise.</p> </blockquote> <p>I did give it a try, but could come up with nothing worth submitting.<br> Sincerely, I am rather puzzled by your choice of image. The two flaws that immediately strike my eye are: the composition of the image as well as the subject's poses, and the focus (or lack thereof). Neither of which are amenable to any significant correction in post processing. Perhaps I am missing the point.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I just transferred the pictures into my computer and open the pictures in the card only and the tinge was visible. Then I transferred the images to picasa photo editor and it was again very clear.</p> </blockquote> <p>Rajesh-<br> First of all it is unlikely that you are seeing the RAW image in either case. What computer are you using? When you "open the picture in the card" some software application in your computer is used to display the image, (and probably not the RAW image). Picasa editor does the same, probably displaying the embedded jpeg image from the file, and this gives you no problem. Your problem probably lies in the default software in your computer that is used when you simply view the images. Color management problem, I would guess.</p>

<p>No offence intended, but you need to take better care of your negatives to keep them clean and scratch free.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The compatibility search utility detected no compatibility issues beforehand.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, unfortunately this utility is badly flawed and your pain has been shared by many. I am surprised that the expressed outrage has been as muted as it is. Microsoft, shame on you!</p> <p>If it has been less than 30 days since your OS "updated" to win-10 you can revert back to the earlier OS (7 or 8). Google it.</p>

<p>It is not at all clear what you are trying to accomplish with a multiple exposure technique. Assuming you can overcome the problems of camera movement and image alignment, how does all this extra effort improve the image you get from a single properly metered exposure?</p>

<p>Wouter<br> Thanks for confirming my conclusions. I would guess that saving a B&W image in this format would result in a smaller file. Have no idea about the effect on compression artifacts.</p>

<p>Wouter,<br> Thanks for your reply. I have examined the image<br> <a href="/photo/18113694&size=lg" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/photo/18113694&size=lg</a><br> using ExifGUI. It is certainly in jpeg format. I can find no indication that the color space is RGB. Color space data is listed as "GRAY". When the image is opened in Photoshop one finds only a single channel (grayscale). So I am still dubious when you say: </p> <blockquote> <p>JPEG is always by definition RGB (so always three channels); it cannot contain a single (greyscale) channel.</p> </blockquote>

<p>Jorge<br /> As long as the print looks fine I doubt that the choice of color space contributes to what you see (on the monitor) as graininess. <br /> I love the shot; contrasting the subject all bundled up in his coat and hat with the sunbathers in the background.</p> <p>Wouter<br /> It is clear that the image is a jpeg, but the color space is monochrome dot gain 20%. Only a single grayscale channel. I doubt it was converted to sRGB before posting to the web. So I am not sure what you are saying.</p>

<p>Jorge-<br> The image does not seem excessively grainy to me. What film did you use? How does this shot compare to other images from the same roll? The underexposure certainly diminishes contrast in the shadows, and this may lead to a "grainy" appearance.<br> Keep in mind that I am looking at an approx 800x1200 pixel image at nearly full screen on my monitor. One begins to see some pixillation. Most important criterion is: how does the image look when printed to 6x9" at ~300 ppi?<br> <br />KK</p> <p> </p>

<p>That profile should be OK for B&W. The appearance of grain will depend more on other factors employed in processing and creating the image. (Pixel density, noise reduction, etc.)</p>

<p>Jason-<br> That looks like a tough one. What editing software do you have available?</p>

<p>Sohaib-<br> It would help us a lot if you would explain (approximations will do):<br> What is the size (inches, millimeters) of the smallest feature you wish to photograph.<br> How close to the object can you approach with your lens (without disturbing insects or other moving objects)?<br> How large will you print your image?<br> And, if you don't own a tripod, that is the first bit of equipment you will need.</p>

<p>Thanks to all who replied.<br> Your answers confirm my unsuccessful web search.<br> I have no intent to modify either the Zeiss or Nikkor lenses to fit the alternate bodies. BTW I am very pleased with the performance of the MF Nikkor lenses on my D800 body. Needless to say I am also very happy with the performance of the Zeiss lenses on the Contax bodies. So I guess I'll just carry on as I have been.</p> <p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>I own two "classic" film cameras: Contax 139Q and Contax RTS-II.<br> I also use a Nikon digital slr for which I have a few manual focus (AI, AIS) lenses. I am interested in trying to mount <strong>these lenses on the Contax cameras</strong>.<br> A search of the net returns hundreds of adapters which allow the use of Zeiss/Contax lenses on Nikon (and other) dslrs, but no adapter which permits the reverse attachment I am seeking.<br> Perhaps no such adapter exists, or perhaps I missed it. Also possible that a basic incompatibility prevents construction of such an adapter.<br> Would appreciate any information that may help my search.</p>

<p>The morning must have been mighty foggy. Can't see a damn thing. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>And BTW, the focus point will be inaccurate if you've used the "focus and re-compose" method. The focus rectangle shown will be the one(s) used when the shutter half-press or AE-lock was operated, but not necessarily where in the subject focus was actually taken from.</p> </blockquote> <p>Joe, you have me confused. If you focus (lock focus) and recompose, then focus is actually determined by the point selected prior to re-framing. It seems to me that is the point which should be of interest. Can you clarify?</p>

<p>It seems to me that Continuous Autofocus using Dynamic Autofocus mode would be preferred. Depending on lens focal length and how fast the bird may be moving, shutter priority (with a sufficiently high speed) may be called for.</p>

<p>Is the change in perspective really a result of the longer focal length, or due to the change in distance from the subject when compared with shorter lens (keeping framing the same)?</p>

<p>Making adjustments (levels or any other tool) directly on the image does not adversely affect the image quality. However doing so deprives you of the opportunity to go back, at some later stage in the editing process, and re-adjust (fine tune) the adjustment. <br> I agree with Jeff; adjusting individual channel levels is not a recommended procedure.</p>

<p>Is the Mercurex the camera at lower left (second image)?<br> It looks just like the first camera I ever purchased with my paper route money, about 60 years ago. It was a half frame 35mm with a focal plane shutter that moved in a circle. Thus the round hump on top. Didn't keep it for long but moved on to an Agfa Karat.<br> I know nothing about the camera or where it was made. Have you any information?</p>

<p>Mr. Burke:</p> <blockquote> <p>Mr. Cozine...<br> I was 40 years old that year.</p> </blockquote> <p>Really! 96 years young, and still going strong (I hope). Congratulations and stay healthy.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Maybe I'm odd, but I never use the in-camera meter when in Manual. I rely on the histogram.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mike: chacun à sa façon. When shooting in manual I prefer to spot meter (on the highlights I wish to keep) and use the in-camera meter with or without exposure compensation (based on the known headroom with that sensor). If you want the most DR your camera can achieve shooting raw, the histogram may lead you to under-expose.</p> <p>Lex: That's an amazing improvement.</p>