wayne_f1

<p>Good luck then. Since you say you've somehow never heard of color negative RGB scan times, and mentioned Vuescan, then check out the Vuescan manual (Color Negatives, page 33, says 2015 manual). Color tab Film Base color RGB will modify it.</p> On most scanners, setting Input | Media (p. 50) to "Color negative" will increase the green exposure time by 2.5x and the blue exposure time by 3.5x. This results in adjusting for the green and blue absorption by the orange mask of the film. If the film doesn't have an orange mask, then using "Color negative" will result in a raw scan file that looks very cyan.

<p>OK, good luck then. But you really should experiment a bit first before you make elaborate plans, to see what's involved. But yes, of course film scanners (not camera type, but those with actual scanner carriage motion) scan color negatives differently, to remove the orange mask. For color negatives, Red channel is about 1x time, green about 2x, and blue about 4x time. The red can be division of linear, no clipping then. This acts as an analog filter to remove the orange. Better scanners do have film brand options to adjust this. Have you ever used a film scanner? Film scanners provide three options for film, positive, monochrome negative (inverted), and combinations of color negative (inverted and filtered with time). As to post processing, if you have Photoshop, see its Curve Tool (CTRL M), and its Preset, Color Negatives, and then try to imagine "no clipping". :)</p>

<p>Rene,</p> <p>>>The scanner does not scan negatives differently than positives - it has to reverse them via software as well.</p> <p>This is in fact a huge difference. The scanner inverts negatives (which is easy later), and for color negatives, the scanner also removes the orange mask (which is deep blue after inversion). This is difficult (to do well) in software later, because shifting color of digital images clips at 255. The scanner does this in analog (varying scan time by RGB color), so no issue then.</p> <p>>>Focusing this thing seems quite a pain.</p> <p>Focusing a DLSR camera requires some detail or edges to focus on. Focusing on blank sky doesn't work for example. But the solution is trivial, just move your focus point to be on some feature of detail. You do this without touching the film.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The SB-910 speedlight mode at full power would compute to be 75 watt seconds. The SB-600 at least 60 watt seconds. The reflector choice makes all the difference (zoom for example), and watt seconds loses some meaning when you apply umbrellas or softboxes.</p> <p>HSS mode would be about 20% of that level. Why would you need HSS for a group of people? Are they running? But indoors, the speedlight flash itself is faster than the HSS shutter speed.</p>

<p>The Commander system is infrared optical, and the SB-5000 adds to that also radio control.</p> <p>The SB-5000 flash has both commander and radio compatibility, so yes, the D7000 can control it that way (as if it were a SB-700, so to speak). The D7000 internal flash has a Commander mode. Or, you can also put a Commander on its hot shoe.<br /> <br />The D500 commander does not have an internal flash, but it can control a commander on its hot shoe. On either camera model, that can be a SU-800 commander, or a SB-910 or SB-700 flash in Master mode.</p> <p>The infrared commander is not best outdoors in bright sun, but that is not unique to the SU-800.</p> <p>The big difference in the D500 and SB-5000 is they can also do radio control. The D7000 or SB-700 or SB-910 do not have the radio feature. You could use other radio control (hot shoe radio triggers) for all of them, even using the D500 or SB-5000 with it, but it would be a different system than the native Nikon radio system. Most of these radio trigger systems are Manual flash mode only, but a few offer their own form of TTL.</p>

<p>I'm thinking I do understand. It's worse than you might imagine. Film might have a little range, but this computer operation is digital, NOT film any more. Realize that our digital images are of course gamma data, so the actual linear midpoint is near 73% in the histogram, and after using this tool, there won't be anything left above about 25% of linear data. Maybe if we intentionally underexposed them about 4 stops? Don't expose to the right. :)</p> <p>If this digital correction method worked well, then why would film scanners bother taking much longer to scan color negatives (to greatly increase blue and green exposure to offset the orange) ? When they could simply just stretch the digital histogram data? Except of course, they would quickly hit the 255 digital clipping point. Analog has advantages in some contexts.</p>

<p>IMO, those who settle for a photo editor "correcting" color negatives are just settling for "almost good enough". The degree of shifting way exceeds what 8 bit binary data can do. It's like gamma, simply not done in 8 bits. The digital camera is fantastically great for slides, but not so much for color negatives.</p> <p>Photoshop has a specfiic tool for this color negative task, the Curve Tool at menu Images - Adjustments - Curves. That tool has a one click selectable profile Color Negative (RGB).</p> <p>But if you examine that profile, it shows that 1/4 to more than 1/2 of the tonal range of all three channels is simply discarded (output as zero), the range is too great for digital.</p> <p>Film scanners do this same job (to remove orange mask in color negatives) in analog light, so that the 255 clipping is not a factor in analog. It has not been digitized yet. The exposure times of the scanners green and blue channels are around 2x and 4x longer than the red channel exposure, to simulate analog filters to remove the orange, without digital limits. This is why color negatives scan slower than slides. It is a better way. Those that love their Photoshop may not be impressed, but these doing careful comparisons do know the way.</p>

<p>>> Digital ICE doesn't work on silver b&w film</p> <p>The infrared can be a problem with Kodachrome too. Kodachrome is silver based, and the processing is supposed to remove the silver, but it often leaves traces in the dark areas. Which does not bother optical, but infrared sees it.</p> <p>AFAIK, all other color film is dye based, no silver, which is the basis of using infrared.</p> <p>Michael mentioned both Kodachrome and Epson ICE problems, which I suspect may only be Kodachrome problems, not unexpected. Other slide or negative film ought to do well with infrared.</p>

<p>>Not only the cheap ones, but the fancier devices made by Nikon and others, I'm bound to say.</p> <p>I'm curious what Nikon device you refer to?<br> <br />The Nikon ES-1 slide copier is just an empty tube with a slide holder. There is no glass in it. We use a genuine micro lens with it, price level $300 to $600 maybe. We assume the slide scanner lens is adequate, and we assume it has less. As to the digital camera quality, the scanner of course uses a similar semiconductor sensor concept, but using a motor to position the red, green, blue components of a pixel in the same spot (except it's only CCD, still adequate, but not CMOS).</p> <p>>with something like the Nikon Coolscan or even the 4000dpi Canon film scanner.</p> <p>Unfortunately, these are extinct now.</p> <p>For scanning the award winning prize photo, I'd consider the film scanner if one could be found, for the infrared options. That is time to go slow and careful. But the Nikon SF-210 auto slide feeder is 50 slides per night, on those nights that it does not jam. So 10,000 slides is 200 working nights, not counting trouble.</p> <p>I'd say there are pros and cons. :)</p>

<p>Do you mean the inexpensive "tube copiers" that are just an embedded 10x single element closeup filter? Which is used with a kit zoom lens (needs zoom to frame it). Not an acceptable solution.</p> <p>A good slide scanner can offer the infrared options, very hard to beat when you need them. But it is extremely slow, and while one roll per night is imaginable, but if faced with the job of scanning "thousands of slides", odds are very strong you will never finish it, or even very much of it.</p> <p>Whereas the 24 or 36 megapixel digital camera and an honest macro lens does an incredible job, fast, it greatly simplifies the job. 1000 per day is still a very big day, but finishing 10,000 is at least imaginable. :)</p>

<p>>> Two points:</p> <p>There is quite a lot more to it. The ES-1 is designed for 1:1 slide copy with 55mm on a full frame body. Yes, slides are copied at 1:1 on a full frame camera, and the ES-1 paper says 60mm could also just about work (on full frame, at one end of the ES-1 range).</p> <p>The ES-1 was designed before the 40mm macro lens, and also before full frame digital sensors. It does not mention either of those. :)</p> <p>But the DX sensor is smaller than the slide, and at 1:1, could only copy a smaller area of it. So the slide must be mounted farther out, less than 1:1, and so to do that, the ES-1 on a DX body needs some extension, in FRONT of the lens (Not behind it). My 55mm macro on ES-1 is much better with about 10mm extension on DX, and my 60mm macro needs about 20 mm on DX... extension between the ES-1 and the lens. This allows some adjustment with the telescoping range of the ES-1. The ES-1 threads are 52mm filter threads, so an extension with 52mm threads is needed.... in front of the lens.</p> <p>Or by all reports, the 40mm macro is said to be about right as is for a DX body.</p> <p>TOM: BTW... there are two Nikon reversing rings. The BR-2 was for the original Nikon F in the 1960s. It is said to NOT BE SAFE for modern cameras with electrical contacts, there is possibility of doing damage.</p> <p>There is a newer BR2-a that is safe now.</p> <p> </p>

<p>>>Another fail! This combination still does not allow the 40mm lens to photograph a whole slide. The top is still cropped off.</p> <p>Regarding the 40mm, I think you are confusing magnification and alignment. If both slide side edges can show, the magnification is fine. The site about the K4 is probably my site, and it also suggests some cheap Chinese extensions that should work. I don't have the 40mm macro lens, but others with it say it works fine with the ES-1 without extension. On a DX body, my 60mm macro requires about 20mm extension (i.e., like a K4), but 60mm will just nearly work alone on FX. </p> <p>My ES-1 is the opposite situation, I need to raise the slide slightly to align the top edge. I put a couple of folds of thick paper in the bottom slot for that. I have not seen the opposite problem. Possibly slide mounts may vary in where they hold the slide?</p> <p>>>The metal clips prevent it. <br> Sounds like you are putting the slide on the wrong side of the clips. Slide should go behind the clip, next to the black ES-1 body. Slide bottom sits on that black frame body. Slide does NOT go in front, next to the frosted glass panel. That is also the easy way.<br> <br />But magnification is about size, and alignment is about position, a very different thing.</p>

<p>I doubt mirror slap is the biggest problem of hand-holding, but since it is vibration, why not? That is exactly what VR does... Vibration Reduction. :)</p>

<p>>> Only occasional improvement...</p> <p>Ordinarily, there would not be much camera shake blur at shutter speeds of 1/150 second or faster (with a 105mm lens on a DX body), so there would be no improvement to show.<br> <br />But test the 105mm lens hand-held at say 1/10 second shutter, and there will probably be many occasions of very significant improvement. Not every time, but the odds improve drastically. VR CANNOT affect subject motion, but it can improve camera shake.</p>

<p>Do you have the full manual? http://www.sekonic.com/downloads/l-358_english.pdf<br /> The S or M just means that you have adjusted the T shutter speed so slow to shift into Seconds or Minutes (page 3). When not showing S or M, it means the regular 1/seconds value.<br /> In that same T mode, adjust the shutter speed very fast, past 1/8000 second, and it will shift into fps mode.<br /> Manual page 14, #2 there.<br> Switches page 8, but they are not for fps.</p>

<p>I don't know when, but many Nikon DSLR have a "Reverse Indicator" menu to optionally reverse it, try menu F8 or F5 if you have it.</p>

<p>The flash must recycle after every flash, before the next flash. This takes a couple of seconds at high power level, but it can be very fast at lower power. There are no settings, except you must use low power to shoot continuously. Start at maybe 1/8 power, that probably does a few continuous shots. Adjust power lower as seen necessary to keep up, or for longer bursts. If it won't keep up, you need lower power level until it can. Use NiMH batteries, they're faster. Do not overheat your flash, you can damage it. Let it cool.</p>

<p>+1 for Eric's advice. 18-140 mm is a good choice. 35 or 50mm are too short for head and shoulders portraits, you always want to stand back at least about 6 feet, or a little more is better perspective for portraits. Start at 60mm (and a zoom will do that). 30mm is the "normal" lens for most average subjects (on the cropped sensor), but the zoom will do that with more versatility. The cropped sensor will need 18mm for wide angle like indoors (where we cannot stand back very far). Wildlife and sports will like the longest lenses.<br> <br /> f/1.8 sounds good for dim museums, but 35mm might be short sometimes. Digital cameras have come a long way, and higher ISO at f/4 can work fine too (meaning, the zoom). I'd wait on the 35 f/1.8 until you sense the actual need.</p>

<p>Well, I have to say you're right. I was surprised, but on close inspection, the Aperlite YH700N HSS Flash Compensation does not work well after all. TTL does work (is able to adjust power in different situations), but FC is not able to adjust power. So IMO, the Chinese idea of HSS seems more a constant level. I suppose they are still a step behind.</p> <p>The Neewer NW985N I mentioned was also constant level for HSS, however for it, TTL did not even work (still a nonadjustable single level). Plus it had a banding problem, HSS frequency too low for 1/2000 and 1/4000 second. It seemed a decent flash if Not in HSS mode.</p> <p>I don't have a Yongnuo with HSS capability.</p> <p>A Nikon SB-800 works great in all HSS respects, exactly as hoped and expected.</p> <p>I did not go outside, I was shooting at a bookcase, but it was flash, and I used a camera exposure for sun, EV 16, ISO 200, f/11, 1/500 second (at about 3 feet).</p> <p>Note that even a SB-910 (which I do not own) has a HSS Guide Number of 48.6 (feet) for 35mm zoom and 1/500 second. So (at 35mm zoom) this HSS range outdoors is only 4.3 feet. Or double that distance for fill at -2 EV, possibly usable, but still not much range possible. So to me, HSS really seems a moot point.</p> <p>IMO, the only one single advantage of HSS is that this same HSS Guide Number is good for any equivalent exposure. The GN chart is for 1/500 second, but because HSS is continuous light (like sunshine), but then (for HSS) any equivalent exposure works the same, like f/2.8 at 1/8000 second is the same exposure, both for sun and for HSS flash. Also meaning, f/2.8 and 1/8000 second works, if you can deal with the power limitations.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Joe's point that maximum power cannot increase is pretty important, since HSS is so underpowered anyway.</p> <p>I had a Neewer NW-985N with HSS, and HSS was pitiful, poorly and incompletely implemented, a joke. It was a decent flash except for HSS. Neewer is just a marketing name, they have flashes from a few manufacturers.</p> <p>And I have an Aperlight YH700N with HSS, and it works very decently, including HSS and flash compensation. </p> <p>But HSS can only run at about 20% maximum power, so I'd suggest testing with -EV FC, since +EV is likely asking for more power than it can do.</p> <p>The flashes don't implement flash compensation. The camera metering system controls TTL exposure, and then simply instructs the TTL flash to use a specific power. Not an absolute level, but a specific increase above TTL preflash level. All the TTL flash does is to comply (correctly). If it has enough power reserve to do it.</p> <p> </p>

<p>To actually know anything, you can simply measure it yourself. Then you will know.<br> <br /> If you or a friend have an inexpensive multimeter (volt meter), simply measure it. Turn it on, but not connected to camera or anything. Simply measure the DC voltage on the foot center pin, to the metal foot, or if a plastic foot, to the wire contacts there that will touch the camera hot shoe frame.<br> <br /> Touching the center pin could slip and accidentally trigger the flash. No harm done, this is how flashes are triggered (shorting that center pin). But don't lay it face down on anything than can be scorched by its heat - simply aim it away from your eyes. Prepare for the possibility that it could flash.</p>

<p>Right, in sunlight, the ambient exposure is important too. The continuous light can still blur what the flash already stopped.</p> <p>Yes, the 1/500 second will just reduce the flash a little. My guess is that the flash duration might be closer to 1/300 t.1, but same concept. You should lose less than the numbers suggest, because all it is cutting off is the low level trailing tail of the flash as it decreases to zero. Cutting that off won't really matter much. A 1/500 shutter is half the duration of a 1/250 flash, but the majority of the flash power is in the first half. You can judge the actual difference of any loss with indoor tests at 1/160, 1/200, 1/250, 1/320, 1/400, etc.</p>

<p>The shutter just has to be open when the flash fires. If the flash were longer duration than the shutter duration, then some light just gets chopped off, less than full exposure passes.</p> <p>Indoors (meaning, in low and insignificant ambient, so we use flash), the 1/500 second shutter buys you nothing. You could use 1/100 second shutter, and the flash t.1 is still 1/200 or whatever, and in normal situations, the picture indoors won't be different. Neither the 1/500 or the 1/100 second will pass the low ambient (say if assuming ISO 100 and f/8).<br> <br />Craig, flash durations are normally given as t.5 times, which is duration of the half power points (engineering practice). I think Metz may use t.1. t.1 is the 10% points, and standard t.1 calculation is 3x longer than t.5. Half of the light remains after t.5, so photos are affected by t.1 times.</p> <p>But the nature of speedlights (cutting flash duration short to reduce power level) means the flash gets chopped off in midstream (faster flash), and other than full power level (not chopped off), the lower levels are faster, and durations are more accurate, maybe more accurate than t.1 times.</p>

<p>The D810 needs ACR plugin 8.6, or Lightroom 5.6.<br> <br />I don't know about Elements, but current is Elements 14 now. You may need it.</p> <p>You could download the free raw to DNG converter,<br> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows<br> and your current ACR version should open the DNG, and operate the same way.</p>

<p>But for practical use, a LED is a continuous light source, so exposure depends on duration. 125 watts is 125 watt second energy if at one second, but only 0.125 watt second at 1/1000 second. <br> I would ask guide number if at 1/1000 second? For a proper photo exposure, say of a couple of people, what is distance x fstop with a 1/1000 second flash? 1/1000 second is essentially 1/2 power for a speedlight flash, guide number about 27 (meters, ISO 100) at 35mm zoom.</p>