sbeelman

I recently moved to the KC area and would love to find some great locations for shooting the city, for

example skyline panoramas at night, striking architecture, etc. Anyone have any good locations they'd like

to share?

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum -- I wasn't quite sure where to post.

Thanks!

Photoshop does let you add some metadata, but not the camera-generated fields. As for

Aperture, I'm not sure I'll have $500 to spend on it, but I wonder if it lets you edit all file

types, not just RAW? I would assume so...

Hi all,

I'm trying to find a program that will write EXIF data to jpegs and tiffs where it doesn't already

exist; i.e. add 'capture date', 'camera model,' etc, to a file that I created with a film scanner.

I've come across a couple command line utilities that claim to do this but it's way over my

head and much too complicated. Is there anyone who knows of such a program with a GUI?

Thanks in advance.

Yes, I'm running millions of colors. Also no problem with a color cast here, but I also

calibrated it right away so that would've fixed it anyway.<br>

I think the guess that what I'm seeing is the anti-reflective coating is probably the case. It

is effective, I just wish I couldn't see it. :)<br>

I also agree that this is the sharpest display I've seen. Running side-by-side with my old

CRT, I can't believe I put up with that blurred image for 3 years!<br>

I think the key with this Cinema Display is keeping your distance from it so you don't see

the texture. Unfortunate, but I think I can live with it.<br>

Thanks for your responses and input.

Hi all,

I just bought a 23" Cinema HD display (non-aluminum) yesterday and love it except for

one thing: The grainy texture of the screen. It almost looks like looking through lightly-

textured bathroom glass, mostly visible in light- or mid-toned solid color (including pure

white).

The new aluminum display has the same problem. I had them running side-by-side in the

store and the only differences I could see between the two were brightness and color cast.

The reason I'm asking this here is photography-related. For normal use this grainy texture

isn't an issue, but obviously if you're trying to evaluate something like film grain or digital

noise in Photoshop you don't want added "grain" on top of your image. So I'm wondering if

any of you are doing detail work like me, noticed this as well but got used to it after a

while. Am I just too close to the screen? I can still see the effect from about 18".

Thanks

Thanks to everyone for the cleaning tips. I had a second go at it and it's now

100% better. From now on I'll be wrapping a plastic bag around the scanner

when not in use!

Thanks guys, I'll go back and try the method Charles suggests... I was under

the impression that Kodak Lens Cleaning Paper was safe for all optical

surfaces, but I'll try cotton swabs this time. BTW, is it safe to switch off the

scanner while the carriage is moving? That sounds dangerous to me! I just

hope I didn't do any irreparable damage...

Yes, I was aware that the mirror was very delicate... I used a loosely wadded

lens cleaning paper (Kodak) to lightly brush the mirror, then gave it a shot of

compressed air. It took about 3 of these cycles to get it visibly clean (using a

new piece of paper each time).<br>

I couldn't see anything on the front lens element in the way of dust. That

leaves the rear element and the CCD as possible causes, right? But since the

flare actually got worse after cleaning the mirror, I am worried that it was

damaged, though it looks 100% than before...

Hello,

I have a Nikon LS-2000 that is exhibiting the flare/halo problem described in a

previous posting. I downloaded the cleaning instructions from camera911,

and though unable to completely disassemble the scanner I was able to at

least clean the dust from the bottom mirror. Unfortunately the flare actually got

worse! I've got sample images below...

Any ideas?