brent_mcsharry1

Thanks for your answers.

in particular, thankyou to Ellis Vener whos response was eloquent and well considered. I wasn't going to upgrade to cs3 from cs2, but i'll have a think about it now

I have just finished reading Bruce Frasers book on adobe camera raw. As with

all of his work, I found it very informative (and, as an aside, I will sorely

miss reading his books with their goldmine of information mixed with geeky

humour and metaphors).

I have great faith in his knowledge of digital imaging, editing and workflow,

which is orders of magnitude above my own. However, in 1 chapter he adjusts a

raw file to best show the highlights and opens this in PS, and then uses the

same raw file, but opens this in photoshop with ACR adjustments made for the

shadows. He then merges and adjusts the transparency of the layers to achieve

a 'high dynamic range' type image.

It seems to me all the information is locked in 1 file, and the same effect

could be achieved with the exposure/shadows sliders + use of curves in ACR.

Am I missing something here? Are there any particular advantages to Bruce

Frasers technique? why doesn't the curves tool do everything the above

technique does?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

MF actually does make a little difference as there is not the perforated edges to grab with tweasers! Some thin cotton gloves (as the kind worn by snooker officials) work well for me in preventing fingerprints.

In this digital age, it is worth considering sleeving rather than mounting your slides, as the heat of projection damages your transparencies, and they will have to come out of the mount to be acurately scanned anyway (otherwise there is still significant curvature of the transparency within a well mounted slide).

As mentioned, I think the only way to load white balance settings back into the D200 in camera JPEG conversion is via proprietry Nikon software.

I find it much easier to shoot a standard grey card in raw, and then shoot away normally. Then with adobe camera raw, you can play with your sliders until the grey card reads 128 for all three (RGB) channels and apply these setting to the subsequent shots.

Paul Droluk has summarised things beautifully. Personally I could not disagree with a single point he made.

There is a little confusion creaping into this thread, as there often is in non-LF forums regarding terminology. If you are interested in view cameras, there is a good description of basic terminology here:

http://www.toyoview.com/LargeFrmtTech/lgformat.html

even though we use the term tilt in the english language as a synonym for angle (eg to tilt the camera upwards) in LF jargon tilt refers specifically to tilting the front (the board holding the lens) and/or rear standards (the board holding the viewing glass and film) up or down relative to the base (or monorail) of the camera so that the sandards are no longer parallel.

No nikon lens provides tilt.

I no longer shoot 35mm (I still shoot large format, but film choices vary considerably), but from when I did shoot 135, Fujichrome Astia 100 and Fuji Sensia used to be the same film emulsion, but with more rigorous quality control for the profesional astia.

As a learner it used to cost about 1/3 the price for 95% as good film.

"I've never been taught much of how EV and the few other bits and pieces of exposure factor in"

try this out - a bit dry but well worth pushing throught

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

woops - accidently moved some text last post should have read:

I believe in digital "reciprocity failure" is not a concern in long exposures, but "battery failure" is a serious concern, and some of the astrophotography guys set up external power sources.

IMHO it may be worth looking carefully at old manual film cameras with manual cable releases (reciprocity failure is easy to deal with), as these go for a song - the cost of a new digital body + electronic cable release + external power source could really build up. The other option would go second hand for under $100, which leaves room for a lot of film!

"if holding down the button, one would probably be prone to camera shake as well if pressing directly on the camera for 5 minutes"

this is definately true in B mode, when there would be ongoing camera shake, but not T mode where the shake at the beginning and end of the exposure would have negligable effect as it would be such a small percentage of total exposure. The cynic in me believes the loss of T mode might be to allow Canon (and Nikon) to sell very expensive brand specific electronic cable releases.

I believe in digital "reciprocity failure" is not a concern in long exposures, but "battery failure" is a serious concern, and some of the astrophotography guys set up external power sources. the other option would go second hand for under $100, which leaves room for a lot of film!

IMHO it may be worth looking carefully at old manual film cameras with manual cable releases (reciprocity failure is easy to deal with), as these go for a song - the cost of a new digital body + electronic cable release + external power source could really build up.

Using an external light meter to work out your exposure is an expensive option. I am not aware of any meters (in or out of camera) that work well on really low light subjects (I would be interested to hear of any). Also for some long exposures such as firework and lightning photography the lighting is varying so quickly that using pre-selected apertures (based on values found on the web or photo books) is much easier. the general values for stars/fireworks/lightning etc work really well.

"And if you like those colors, why would you want to shoot in a way that represents what you saw in reality"

Thank you Peter! At last some honesty in this issue. The idea that I first recall reading in an article by Galen Rowell that velvia "most closely represents what I see with my eyes" seems to me to be marketing hype (as an aside, other than this comment I highly respect Mr Rowell, and believe he made a huge contribution to the philosophy of photography, as well as capturing many stunning images).

Unfortunately this idea has almost become imbedded in photography lore. I think super saturated images most closely represent what we would have LIKED to have seen with our eyes.

However, IMHO photography is sometimes about playing little tricks on the viewer. many of us have (with some satisfaction) framed a shot to exclude unpleasing detail or evidence of human involvement in a scene, transporting the viewers to an isolated wilderness in their minds eye.

We cannot achieve perfect colour rendition in reflective media - what we want is pleasing colour rendition. If you like super saturated - go for it.

to answer your question about what the camera is doing in vivid mode:

your d200 images are captured in black and white, with a bayer filter in front that blocks out various amounts of Red Green and Blue (the amounts are not equal because our retinas have serious colour bias issues). the sensor then records a linear amount of light - that is if a sensor pixel recieves 8 times the light, it makes 8 times the signal. Images are printed/projected in stops of light - 8 times as much light should be 3 times as bright on the reproduction (2^3 = 8). Thus massive amounts of processing are required to convert what the sensor chip sees to what makes a colour image, and this is before noise reduction and sharpening. "saturated" colours are more "pure" (the opposite of pastels). when the sensor makes a guess as to what colour a pixel is based on the pixels around it, the processing algorithm can choose to ignore some 'polluting' colour values. For example the signal can be calculated to be predominantly red with som green and blue based on the pixels surrounding it, or with a different algorithm the same pixel can be calculated to be pure (ie saturated) red.

most importantly, your camera does not see the image in normal mode and then decide to 'push' the colours, it just applies seperate processing algorithms calculated to be pleasing to the eye.

There are lots of issues here. It can be touchy amongst photographers - adams is close to a deity to some people. I certainly would not recomend posting this message on a forum such as Q tan's large format page, but full credit for speaking honestly in a forum such as this, and making us all think about why Adam's awesome reputation exists.

A few things I would say in Adams favour.

Black and white scenics are not for everyone. This was the only available medium in his day, and he took this medium to new limits.

As you say, the detail he was able to extract with far inferior optics (uncoated lenses), far heavier equipment and less advanced chemistry/grain film emulsions and papers is truly unbelievable.

Any composition adams produced has been copied, perhaps with subtle variations/improvemnts millions of times. This does not mean such compositions were boring/old hat when adams shot them. I would certainly challenge you to find wilderness images that pre-date adams in which you find more inspiring composition.

Finally, particularly if you are drawn to wide angle shots with detailed and prominent foregrounds and far stretching vistas and incredible depth of field, you must remember that the extreme wide angles from ansels day neither had the detail, contrast, lack of barrel distortion or high quality center filters (to overcome cos^4 vignetting) that allow modern images to be captured with such beauty.

If you are inspired by good scenics, I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a photographer whose compositions you do enjoy who was not inspired or guided in some small way by the work of Adams.

I similarly find some back and white movie clasics a little boring, simple and underwhelming, until I realise what an incredible contribution such films have had on the far more sophisticated modern movies by both pioneering new techniques in movie making and also inspiring the movie makers whose modern works I love. the movie then seems to come alive once again. Hopefully Adams work can be appreciated in this same light.

I guess if you are trying to take candids, you have the af assist lamp (on camera or hot shoe flash) turned off. This makes low light focussing difficult. From the point of view of taking low light candids without accesory lighting, a manual rangefinder probably has it all over a dslr. However to use the d200 as mentioned, make sure the focus is on "s", and manually choose the focus area.

As for the camera refocusing, try custom setting option A6 for AF activation, and set it to AF button only. that way it won't refocus as the shutter release reaches half way. If you want to try a different technique altogether, set custom mode A2 AF-S priority to focus with AF button activation only, and then set focus to "M" and focus manually you can actually capture focus by focusing in front of a moving subject and depressing the shutter release - the shot will only be taken when the subject has moved into focus.

there is an excellent explanation at

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

yes, it will decrease the noise in the shadows.

this article talks about using the in camera histogram to choose the most "right shifted" curve that still retains pleasing highlight detail. I find it easier to bracket and work out which exposure to keep in adobe camera raw.

nothing wrong at all with your flash. focal plane shutters have a minimal 'sync' speed based on the time film or ccd is completely exposed to incoming light. if the exposure is any shorter, one of the shutter planes will be overlapping a part of the film during the firing of the flash(which takes only a few thousanths of a second) resulting in only part of the image being exposed to flash - there is a question in the lighting forum posted the other day demonstrating this effect.

you can slow the shutter down at the same aperture by

-put the iso down to 100 (the lowest iso on the d200)! this is the easiest and most important move.

-use a light absorbing filter such as a neutral density or polarising filter

-or you can use fast sync flash, whereby the flash 'staggers' its output to light the whole frame. this reduces flash output compared to not using this mode.

from memory (my camera is not in front of me) from menu select custom settings menu -> bracketing/flash -> auto FP.

good luck

I sympathise with your difficulty understanding the manual.

As the above posts mention, using the CLS has great advantage over an SU4 system. to set your sb600 up as a slave check out ken rockwell's site

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ittlslave.htm, and scroll down til you see the heading "On your SB600"

to set the 800 up as a master:

switch it on

hold "sel" for a couple of seconds - the screen changes

ISO is selected on my flash - push the "flash zoom" button to the right of "sel" to select the square with the 2 back to front "s" symbols. press sel and the sub-menu to the right is selected.

push the "-" key bellow "sel" to select "Master".

press "sel" again and you are in the menu to set up master and slave flash outputs.

to get out of this mode, push and hold the "sel" button for a few secs.

to turn off the beep on your sb600:

switch it on

hold down the "Zoom" and "-" keys for a couple of seconds until you are in the menu system.

scroll down with the "_" key until you see the musical note symbol in the lower left quadrant. and "On" in the middle of the display.

press the mode button to turn this off.

press and hold "zoom" and "-" to leave the menu system.

please let me know if this helps or if further clarification is required.

Does anyone know if this includes any other firmware improvements (although my d200 currently works perfectly, I'd hate to have an equipment lockup, and I am always after autofocus improvement, although it is excellent already), or the interface changed in any other way?

I suspect that there are many other d200 users out there who will not wish to use either of the above 2 options, so keen to know if it is worth updating for any other reasons?

as above - you almost certainly have the older file. Check main drive:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-Ins\CS2\File Formats and the properties of camera raw.8bi. you need 3.3 or later to read D200 raw files. The new file needs to be manually placed in this location to replace the old one.

However, I do not know how to view the thumbnails in bridge, before clicking on the file to open it in camera raw or photoshop. If anyone knows that, their advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your response:

In response to the question about film, traditionally I have used velvia 50 or 100. I have used provia 400f with some success, and I have read in forums that astia (a film I love for portraits) may be a good film for nature photography, but using the saturation controlls in photoshop to create the vivid colors for which velvia is famous - the advantage being that astia has lower contrast for shadow detail, and a bye product would be better skin tones if people were in the shot.

I am not sure about the grain of the pro wedding films. Past experience has shown me that i have to use levels in photoshop to narrow the contrast to get pleasing nature images with NPH. If the grain was near equivalent, this wouldn't be a problem, but if I am hiking with 6x17 gear, I want to be able to be able to blow up to 60 inches without disernable grain, hence the desire to move to larger formats in the first place (and pay the weight compromise). Do you know how these films will work at this kind of enlargement?

Thankyou for your responses - very useful and very much appreciated.

As for flash power, I am usually using it to illuminate about 1.5 to 2 stops under the exposure set on the camera, only for the closest subjects in frame. I was hoping it might have enough power for this (even if I had to use strobing flash on a longer exposure) - use of flash may well be a thing I give up on in panoramic or large format, but nice to know I can experiment.

as for use of linear ND grads, I use them on my 35mm camera by selecting the smallest aperture on the lens, pressing the DOF preview button and rotating the filter until i can see the line of graduation. I then line this line up with the horizon. I was basically wondering if I had the ability to stop the lens down while viewing the ground glass in view cameras in order to be able to continue working this way.

Thanks in advance for any opinions posted.

like many of these posts I begin with the cliche "I am a 35mm photographer who

is interested in the quality offered by larger formats"... ie absolute novice

in LF - sorry if the following Question is silly.

I like lanscapes and nature photography. I like to hike for days into the

wilderness. I do some 'architectural photography' in the form of old weather

beaten huts in the wilderness. I am drawn to the 6x17 format, either in the

form of the new horseman (the professional with shift + a ground glass back

and darkslide), or a 5x7 with the canham back. I am still trying to figure out

how useful tilt will be - it might help give the scene enough DOF at wider

apertures to avoid the 'milky' flowing water I am not a fan of (each to their

own). Bulk & weight are of course the draw-backs to the view camera and 6x17

back. I prefer wide angle lenses.

I am wondering (as a complete novice in the area of LF), how these cameras

will go with a flash - ie do they have a hotshoe, or is there a way to set a

cable release to fire a flash and shutter simultaneously ( i realise i will

have to manually set flash power, but prefer this anyway).

I was also wondering about peoples experience with ND grads in LF & panoramic -

can one stop the lens down while viewing the scene, in order to be able to

line up the grad and the horizon as one does in 35mm, or are there limitations

to either the shutter or ground glass focusing that prevent this being done

acurately in LF?

also - does anyone have experience with reflectors that are not bulky and

relatively light weight, so that they can be stuffed into a backpack with

other camera (and camping) gear.

if anyone believes other cameras would be better suited to flash and ND grads

while giving HIGH quality images, please let me know to.

Thanks again

thankyou - the above link was very informative.

what I was trying to describe above was this:

-if I want to shoot a nature/scenic shot, i could choose as high an f number as the lens has, in order to give the shot maximum depth of field. However as the aperture gets smaller image quality degrades. With aperture wide open, image quality is limited by the fact that we cannot make a perfect lens (this even includes leicas). on a 35mm camera the best balance of these factors to maxmise image clarity & detail is around f11. on a medium format it is around f22. remember that the f number is a ratio to focal length, and thus a 24mm lens for a 35mm camera gives roughly the same angle of view as a 50mm lens for a 6 x 9 cm medium format camera. Therefore the diaphragm diameter, or aperture opening is about the same absolute size for these 2 very different f numbers.

If you look at great wide angle scenic shots without moving subjects, they are usually shot around the above f numbers.

If I compromised on the size of the light sensor, am wondering what apertures I would have to choose for maximum image clarity and detail.

I have assumed that as relative aperture is a measure of diameter, and a fixed diameter will determine maximum optical clarity such that:

dimensions (mm), diagonal (mm),% of diagonal, f Stops difference,f number

8 x 6 mm, 10.0 mm, 23.1%, -2.11, 5.3

22 x 15 mm, 26.6 mm, 61.5%, -0.70, 8.6

36 x 24 mm, 43.3 mm, 100.0%, 0.00, 11.0

The very clear answer from Nicholas Barry makes sense - I was simply misreading the dimension 1:1.65".

Thanks for your repies - now understand a little more about digital. As for the suggested cannon - sounds great, but as commonly happens, all my lenses (worth more than a new body) are Nikon, so I'll have to wait.

this leads to one more quick question - it seems people are saying there are roughly 2 sized sensors - the 8 x 6mm and 22 x 15 mm vs 35mm film @ 24 x 36 mm. As I understand,in 35 mm, maximum optical clarity is usually gained about f11 and in medium format about f22 (the balance between lens aberation and the wave interference of a pinhole camera). What kind of effective aperture will produce maximum clarity on the above cameras? (I realise the positioning of the diaphragm and lens design may affect this somewhat, but I am just after ballpark figures) - please bear in mind I am not a physicist.

Thanks again guys.

Like many 35mm photographers, I am waiting for affordable (ie not

$US5000 +) light sensitive chips (CCD/CMOS/new technology) to be the

same size as 135 (35mm) format film incorporated in dSLRs, for the

advantages of being able to fully use my wide angle lenses, as well as

the better image quality and familiarity (focal lengths, f stop vs

wave/difraction interference vs lens aberations etc)

Maybe I am just no good at maths or conversions, but it seems many of

the advanced digital category (top end finepix and leica d-lux and I

am sure others) have CCD dimensions slightly larger than 1 x 1.6

inches. this seems to be close to 135 format. These retail for a lot

less than the new d200 body or EOS 20D/30D, and include the lens as

well.

I am wondering why are the 'prosumer' '35mm' digital SLRs such as

nikon's new d200 still coming out with sensors 2/3 the size of 35mm

film. I know the resolutions may be around 10 megapixel compared to 8

megapixels, but I for 1 would be very happy with 8 megapixels.

Am I missing something? Is such a camera just around the corner.

Thanks for your replies.