robert_ades1

So far, it appears that the biggest gains in B&W printing are archieved with papers using the Photo Black ink (glossy, etc.). I'm curious how the two printers compared using matt papers.

Exact same, but cropped a bit tighter.

But here was the original shot, done the same way, that resulted in an error. The central focus sensor is circled in red, and the arrows point to the actual in-focus spot.<div></div>

Then I shot the following with my Sigma. Center intended focus point is noted. This one works.<div></div>

Well, I'm feeling a little stupid right now, because upon further testing, the focus seems to be be spot on.

 

First I shot with my 50mm at f/1.4. The circle represents the center focus square (the intended focus point) from the viewfinder. This proves that my camera works.<div></div>

Yes, I considered that exactly. As long as the resulting in-focus plane was within the highlighted viewfinder square, I considered it accurate. I did use a sloping ruling BTW.

I have a Canon 20D with near-perfect focus when using Canon lenses,

but not with a Sigma lens.

 

I recently bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye and had to return it due to

front focusing errors. The lens that replaced it had the same

problems, although less so.

 

My testing methodology involves shooting at point on a ruler while the

camera is mounted on a firm tripod. For comparison, I've also applied

the same test to my Canon 50mm f/1.4, which is spot-on.

 

Do I return the lens for a third one and hope for the best, or do I

send it into Sigma for calibration?

Why are you asking that question?

I'm getting married soon, and the wedding photographer is going to

provide lab-produced digital scans of her B&W and Color negs.

Nowadays, the labs seem to be offering either Sigma or Frontier scans.

 

I want the best possible quality for use in Photoshop and I'm willing

to pay extra to get it. I'm particularly concerned with how these

scanners handle faster B&W and color films in terms of grain aliasing.

 

Which of these machines will render the best results?

 

Thanks,

Robert Ades

For those who think that I'd be a PITA, you're mistaken. I appreciate really good photography and I wouldn't interfere at all. Rather, anyone who photographs my wedding will know that their work is very much appreciated.

 

The date, incidentally, is August 28th, and the price I have in mind is somewhere around $2,500.

I'm an avid, serious, amateur photographer. I really enjoy the hobby.

I've studied it extensively, and I shoot and print my own work. Quite

often, I'm asked to photograph events for family and friends, which I

always do for free. I've even done a few weddings, although not as

the primary photographer.

 

Now I'm getting married myself, and I'm faced with the task of hiring

a professional photographer for my own wedding. The style I prefer is

documentary, B&W, etc. -- quite common nowadays.

 

First question is, do wedding photographers occassionally cut special

deals for fellow photographers? I know it's a bit tacky to ask this,

but I'm finding some of the prices a bit higher than I expected.

 

Second, where can I get a better idea of the going rates for my city

(Los Angeles). It'd be an event with about 125 guests at the Disney Hall.

 

Finally, any pros here interested in doing the event?

 

Thanks!

Marcus, I'm looking for a solution too, but Grain Surgery's $199 price is a factor. Are there other options?

Hasn't worked well for me. The tonality suffers due to the excessive grain. Chromogenics work best with that scanner.

Edgar: Thank you for the suggestion. Do you shoot an 18% grey card to accomplish this? Also, with traditional film, doesn't the grain size change between highlights and shadows, and if so, how do you similate this change in PS?

I am curious what techniques are available to simulate the simulate

the grain structure of Tri-X or TMax 3200 film in Photoshop. I

realize that there are various plugins and utilities out there, and I

wondered which ones people found useful.

 

I also heard it is possible to accomplish this by scanning traditional

film (shot completely blank) and creating a layer in PS. Are there

any tutorials on this process.

 

Thanks much!

I'd like to know the answer to that question, too -- a comparison of the I and the II with silver based B&W. I might unload my Canon FS4000 for one of the new scanners.

 

....now if someone could get rid of the silly Nexium ad at the bottom of the screen, too....

What about color temperature? I'm also curious why ACR doesn't detect the B&W modes if so selected in RAW

I have a Canon 20D and I use Adobe Camera Raw as my primary converter.

I just upgraded to CS2 with ACR 3.0.

 

Can someone explain to me, or provide a link that shows, exactly which

EXIF data from the camera that ACR can, and cannot, read?

 

Thanks,

Robert Ades

Bob Atkins: <<In what way do these actions and plug-ins give better results than using the channel mixer? Any side by side comparisions?>>

 

Ease of use.

 

I've never quite gotten the hang of channel mixer, although I've tried it many times. So far, the best B/W conversion I've found is Convert to B/W Pro, but it costs $100. Someone else on the Internet has developed a free plugin that gives comparable results, but it's only 8 bit.

 

My interest in Photokit's Analog Effects stems from my plans to also purchase their sharpening program, and there is an extra discount if bought together.

Andy, I can't do that. I downloaded it once a year ago, and before I really explored the actions, the 7 day trial lapsed.

I'm tempted to buy this software for doing color to B&W conversions

from my 20D plus toning and other things. Unfortunately I cannot try

the software out for myself because I downloaded it long ago and my

trial expired.

 

I've read great things about Sharpener Pro, but almost nothing about

Analog Effects. Has anyone used this plugin. Comments?

 

Thanks,

Robert Ades

Does anyone have a clue how the image quality on B&W films will compare with the older Canon FS4000US? Speed issues and specifications aside, is the Minolta unit capable of superior results?

I consider myself a serious amateur photographer, and I'm looking for

an L.A. based photographer to shoot my own wedding later this year.

Because of my experience taking pictures for many years, I have a

pretty good idea of the style I prefer: a more journalistic, less

traditional look to the photographs, using primarily B&W film.

 

I have a question that hopefully won't get you pros out there all

upset. How does one go about negotiating for possession of the

negatives? More specifically, after the photogapher has been paid for

the basic package and a certain number of extra prints, are some

photographers nowadays willing to release their negs for a reasonable fee?

 

My interest, of course, is not to screw the photographer. Rather,

when I'm much older, and the photographer has long since retired or

gone out of business, I appreciate the value of having an original

record of an important event to pass along to my future children.

 

Your input and suggestions is appreciated.

I just bought a 20D after using a D70 for six months (long time Nikon loyalist), and you're correct in your observations. The 20D feels much more substantial and solid than the D70 -- no doubt, although it's also 50% more expensive. In my book, that extra build quality is worth the extra cost.

Have you tried Velvet Fine Art? It is a little punchier than Enhanced Matt. FWIW, this is a compromise with the current crop of pigment inks. Perhaps Epson's next generation printers, which are due, should address this problem.