rainer_t

<p>-- "Just to note: try to keep your files on FAT32 below 2 or 4 GB (I forget which)"</p>

<p>The max-filesize for FAT32 is 4GB.</p>

<p>Another source of trouble might eventually be Windows ... in its newer versions it will not let you format an external harddrive as FAT ... only as NTFS ... in that case, use the dos/windows-port of the linux tool "mk2dosfs" ... http://www1.mager.org/mkdosfs/</p>

<p>If the portable harddrive uses a FAT32 filesystem you will not have any problems.<br /> If it uses a filesystem only supported by MAC-OS or one only supported<br /> by your PC, you will have to reformat to FAT.</p>

<p>As described in the wiki-link, moire is an interference between two patterns.</p>

<p>If moire becomes visible at some, but not all magnifications on your computer screen, this is an indication that the interference in your case is between the image and the screen resolution.</p>

<p>Since you don't see it in 100% view, it is not in the image itself.</p>

<p>Just a guess ... your viewer uses a simple rescale function to downscale the image to the required resolution. Would it use a more cpu-intensitive function and resample the image, you would not see any moire. Eventually, you will find an option in the setup/preferences of your viewer.</p>

<p>Prints ... again, the imagesize needs to be modified (by the printerdriver) in order to match it to the dpi-value and paper size used. Again, if this function does a simple resize rather than a resample, moireeffects can turn up. ... As a test, resample the image to a pixelsize, that matches dpi-value and papersize and try to print.</p>

<p>From your description, I guess its "moire" ...<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern</p>

 

<p>-- "Yes, you'll lose the data on the card when you format it. Keep that in mind."</p>

<p>This is true in the sense that after formatting the camera or the computer will show the card as empty ... however if you think about image recovery it is worth to mention (albeit offtopic here) that the image data is NOT lost at all. It is still stitting there on the card.</p>

<p>It certainly depends on the camera you use it on ... the 8mm f/4 is a circular fisheye on fullframe/film ... used on crop-1.6 it behaves like a diagonal fisheye ... some images with this lens are here ...<br>

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=12621</p>

<div></div>

<p>-- "My camera is set to record RAW files in Adobe RGB"</p>

<p>No, your camera saves Raw files ... (Raw files are neither Adobe-RGB nor sRGB) ... the raw files contain a tag that you have selected Adobe-RGB ... ACR is ignoring this tag and is doing what its own preferences is telling him (which seems to be to convert raw to sRGB). ... DPP (Canons raw converter) reads the tag and takes it as the default value for the conversion ... so given you used DPP, and given you don't tell DPP to coenvert raw to sRGB, DPP would default to convert to AdobeRGB.</p>

<p>-- "28 - 80 mm F<strong>1.4</strong> - 4.5 USM Lens"</p>

<p>Seriously ... this lens does not exist. Have a look in canons lens museum ... you certainly find the lens there ...<br>

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/standard_zoom.html</p>

<p>I guess you mean either the EF 28-80/2.8-4L USM or the EF 28-80/3.5-5.6 USM or eventually the EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM.</p>

<p>RG -- "Blu Ray seems like a better idea"<br>

WK -- "I don't think there's enough info out there yet on BluRay as a long-term storage medium."</p>

<p>I'm with William here ... as we know today, the numbers (about durability) they gave for CDs CD-Rs CD-RWs only apply when optimum condtitions for storage are used. In real life, these numbers can be severely shorter. So I wouldn't bet on blu-ray yet.</p>

<p>A thing to be kept in mind when using harddrives (and indeed a thing often done wrong) ... it is not good, if you write the data once and expect it to be readable in 10 years ... harddrives should cyclically be read and rewritten in order to refresh the stored information. Also, you shouldn't use a drive until the end of its life (until it really breaks). You should set yourself a timelimit (say 3-4 years). After this time, you copy the data from the drive to a newer (and very likely larger) one, and you erase and throw away the old drive.</p>

<p>Also, as already pointed out, data should be at least on two different physical medias. (so, not two copies on the same harddrive). Thereby the chances for loss are drastically reduced (but not zero).</p>

<p>I'm a Canon user, but I would believe Nikon cameras behave just the same here ...</p>

<p>Most exposure times you use are fractions of a second ... rather than expressing them with a decimal point/comma (like 0.066sec) the term 1/15 sec is used ... and since most exposure you make are using times shorter than one second this one fifteenth of a second is displayed as <strong>15</strong></p>

<p>But there are longer times as one second also ... these will be displayed with the <strong>"</strong> for instance<br /> <strong>15"</strong> is 15seconds while <strong>15</strong> is 1/15second.</p>

<p>So, going from the shortest exposure times to the longest by doing full-stop steps would give the following sequence in the display:</p>

<p>8000 .. 4000 .. 2000 .. 1000 .. 500 .. 250 .. 125 .. 60 .. 30 .. 15 .. 8 .. 4 .. 2 .. 1" .. 2" .. 4" .. 8" .. 15" .. 30"</p>

<p>24-105 + +4dpt + 2xTC</p><div></div>

<p>24-105 + 2xTC</p><div></div>

<p>the 24-105 + a +4dpt</p><div></div>

<p>Just for a quality comparison ...<br>

I append some shots taken with the 24-105 at f/8 and at minimum focus distance ...<br>

- 1st - just the 24-105<br>

- 2nd - the 24-105 + a +4dpt B+W<br>

- 3rd - the 24-105 + a 2xTC (Kenko CD7)<br>

- 4th - the 24-105 + the 2xTC + the +4dpt.<br>

all are 1:1 crops from the image center.</p><div></div>

<p>If you use closeup lenses, use them in the diameter of the lens ... don't step down to a smaller diameter ... image borders are already becoming weak with those lenses if you use a version too small for the lens, this becomes even more visible.</p>

<p>For the shorter lenses, the 250D (which is a +4 dioptren) is more helpful than the 500D (which is +2) ... the 500D is intended for longer lenses.</p>

<p>I occasionally use a +4dpt. closeup lens from B+W on a 24-105 with accetpable/good results (just don't compare it with the output of a true macrolens).</p>

<div></div>

<p>-- "and realize why it probably wouldn't be possible"</p>

<p>Well, it indeed is possible, at least theoretically. No physical law is standing against it ... but the resulting optical quality of the system would be mediocre at best.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecompressor</p>

<p>http://www.company7.com/optec/products/widefield.html</p>

<p>typical uses of such a construction is to reduce the focal length of "very long primes" so to say.</p>

<p>-- "Could the encrypted metadata be extracted by someone trying to "steal" the work?"</p>

<p>Yes ... it just takes a second.</p>

<p>Well, there is a way ... even with the in-camera flash ... turn off redeye reduction ... and use the FEL button (which usually is on the * button). FEL will fire the flash for measurement (and of course this will trigger your strobes) ... now wait a second or two in order to let your strobes recycle and press the button ... this time no preflash will be fired by the camera, since measurement is already made and locked.</p>

<div></div>

<p>-- "how do you change screen resolution"</p>

<p>This depends on the type of computer operatins system you use ... assuming Windows ... rightclick<br>

onto your desktop and goto properties and there to settings.</p>

<p>Irfanview can do this for you.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I clean it whenever its needed. (FOr me, that is whenever I notice dust in f/11 shots).</p>