ted_chambers

<p>I don't know anything about Digital Pickle, but I see their NYC affiliate is DiJiFi. I've used them, and they do a very nice job at a good price.</p>

 

Generally the compendium will give you the best protection with flare, with the flexibility to use with different lenses.

 

Lee makes a folding lens hood for Cokin filter holders that is reasonably priced. (Cokin makes one as well but it's not reasonably priced.)

Very hard to find. They never seem to show up on eBay.

 

I did get one several years ago. Seems to me Manfred Schmidt turned one up for me. (His name plus .com is the web address.) You might give him a call and see what he has.

Isn't it more likely that the 4x5 film thing is keeping circulation *up* rather than pushing it down?

 

Absent the pictures, there's little reason to get the magazine. If they loosen the standards, odds are the LF enthusiasts who buy the magazine, and otherwise care little about Arizona, will drop out.

For large prints, you could try ezprints.com or bigphotohelp.com. Both print larger sizes than is common with online print services.

 

Why do you want to send TIFF files? They are much larger, and there will be no difference in the output. The number of pixels obviously makes a difference, but the small quality loss you will get with a high-quality JPEG won't show up in a print.

I think the answer is no. The color wheel is within the camera.

 

Instead of buying a standard Holga, though, look at Holgamods:

 

www.holgamods.com

 

Very little extra money, and the mods are worth it. In particular, get the velcro. The back will probably fall off the first time you open it (Holga's aren't well known for their quality construction), and without the velcro you'll be using duct tape to hold the thing together.

120 is considered a professional film so a pro lab, if there's one near you, will handle it - in fact, 120 probably will make up most of their business.

 

Minilabs are a mixed lot. The one-hour lab in my building will not touch 120. But the one-hour lab two blocks up runs a dip-n-dunk line and will process it (though not in one hour).

 

Generally the only way to find out is to ask. Few minilabs have web sites, and few bother to mention 120 in their price lists. It's just a really small part of their business.

Sometimes you can work out a rule of thumb from the data sheets. For example, Ilford films all follow the rule

 

New time = Old time ^ 1.48

 

But Kodak films are not so simple.

 

You don't say what your usage is. If you're only looking at a second or two, you may be able to guessimtate. On the other hand, if you're doing pinhole photography, six minutes becomes fourteen minutes - a huge difference.

 

If that's your frame of reference, then films like Acros or TMAX 100 are most useful due to their manageable repricrocity characteristics.

I think Mandy posted yesterday's question (a different question) as well.

 

The ones in the closet will fade, but probably not noticably within the time your project lasts.

 

You might consider breaking the artificial light test in two: one with the prints unprotected, and another with them behind glass. My guess is you will see a difference.

 

In explaining fading, you should also consider the effects of atmospheric gases on the prints, not just light. (Hint: this is the reason for the suggestion in the previous paragraph.)

PTLens is not only a standalone, but its database has been incorporated into other software such as Breeze Browser.

 

If your camera isn't covered, you can send images to the author and he'll add the data points for the camera to the database.

My understanding is that the opposite is true - scanning software generally inverts correctly, while PS does the job wrong:

 

http://www.c-f-systems.com/Phototips.html

A profile is created by EasyColor but is *not* loaded when you start the computer. Rather, what is being loaded (into the video card's memory) is a calibration table.

 

When you open a file in PS, PS will use the color space profile already embedded in the file (typically sRGB or Adobe RGB, if the file came from a digital camera). It will then convert the file to whatever color space you've selected as the PS working space profile, if that space is different from the embedded one. (If it's the same, no conversion is made. If no color profile exists in the file, you can *assign* a profile to the file - generally sRGB would be the best choice in this case.)

 

The profile created by EasyColor is used only for display purposes. You tell PS to use this profile for your monitor, and it maps the colors in the file to the display colors using the EasyColor profile. The EasyColor profile never affects the actual file, which continues to use the working profile.

 

Think of profiles as being either "embedded" or "output". Embedded profiles are a map of the colors in the actual file. Output profiles (for displays or printers) map the colors in the file to the colors that the output device - display or printer - can handle, without changing the file itself.

No. Something is wrong somewhere. I've found that the red and blue are used more slowly than the CMY inks, but they are used.

I agree Jurgen Krekel is a good person to go to. Rather than go to his Ebay auctions it may make sense to go to him directly. Some folders, such as the Bessa II, have become cult cameras and are way overpriced - up near what you'd pay for a Fuji 690. And they aren't equivalent, so that doesn't make sense. However, there are lesser names that can represent great values.

 

You may find the 6x9 format better for hiking if you're taking landscape pictures. The square format lends itself more to portraits.

>> ...be open almost normal business hours on the 4th of July

 

That's the height of the tourist season. I don't blame them for wanting to be open.

If I recall, when Kodak introduced Xtol one of the touted benefits was that its environmental footprint was lower than that of older developers. You might want to look at it.

 

Plus, it's a terrific developer and inexpensive, too.

 

I'm told that alkaline fixers such as TF-4 are lower impact as well, though I'm no authority on that.

I use leather dressing from talasonline.com. It's made from lanolin and neatsfoot oil.

Wouldn't you think that Leica would follow the example of Carl Zeiss, and focus on glass? Zeiss seems to be taking the path of providing lenses to fit Nikon DSLR bodies. (Canon 5D owners seem interested in them as well.)

 

Leica has a sterling reputation in glass. And glass, unlike bodies, doesn't quickly become obsolete, so making a large investment isn't as problematic.

MPEG-2 is the final DVD format. It's designed to take up little space and is not a working format.

 

The basic steps in converting tape to DVD are:

 

1) Capture and convert if necessary (Digital-8 tapes will already be in Digital Video (DV) format while the analog ones will need conversion as well as capture)

 

2) Edit

 

3) Transcode from DV to MPEG-2 format

 

4) Author the DVD (basically involves setting up the DVD menu structure; the authoring program then packages the files for burning)

 

5) Burn the DVD

 

I'm not familiar with Image Mixer. Others may have an opinion on it, but if not I'd start with it and if you aren't happy with it you can always come back and ask for more suggestions. I don't know if IM handles all of the above functions, you'll need to check.

 

It sounds as if IM is capturing the tape okay. The editable format is Digital Video. It might have a .avi extension. The transcoding - a time-consuming step - turns the .avi file into a .mpg file which is much more compact, but not editable.

 

Hope this is comprehensible. If not just ask.

http://www.bigphotohelp.com/

http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1

 

(If the link doesn't work go to J&C's site and choose Adox tech data - reciprocity info is at the very bottom of the page.)

68degreees, which is on Broadway just south of Canal. Should be about a ten minute walk from the Seaport.

 

MV Labs, which I believe has a very good reputation, would be a pretty fair distance.

I can't speak to any other programs but would also add a vote for IMatch. It's an excellent program. It also supports XMP which is important since the cataloging can be attached to the file, rather than stuck in the database of the underlying program. Much as their makers might not like to admit it, programs can and do die over the years, for various reasons. Storing the cataloging information with the file (either through embeddding or sidecar files) gives you a measure of independence from the vendor.

What is it you're trying to do?

 

Digital images aren't like negatives or slides. They don't have a physical size. Basically you'll need about 300 dots per inch of final output. If you wanted to print a 8x10 photo, for example, you'd need 2400 x 3000 pixels. If you've got an image already that large, you don't need any special software.

 

If you need to bridge the difference between what you have and what you need, interpolation software can *sort of* make up the difference. Probably the best of the breed is Qimage.

 

But 4x? Not a chance. Interpolation can software can give you a multiple of maybe 1.25, or 1.5, which is often enough to bridge the gap needed. A 4x interpolation means that for every dot in the image file, the software needs to create three out of thin air. Not possible.

"Professional" is used in two ways in marketing film.

 

One is just as a marketing term and means nothing.

 

The other way the term is used, as noted previously, is in relation to certain color transparency films. These are (probably were, these days) used primarily in catalog shots where color consistency was critical. They were not necessarily designed for all professionals but were sold in lots that could be expected to return consistent results from one end of the lot to the other.

 

For all practical purposes today, the term means nothing at all. It never meant anything in relation to B&W film.