mark_scheuern

Thom Hogan has a <A HREF="http://www.bythom.com/bandw.htm">nice writeup</A> on using channel mixer to convert images to b&w.

It's not a web site but John Shaw's book <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817440526/qid=1080832271/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7392315-9630411?v=glance&s=books"> Closeups in Nature</A> is an excellent guide to macro techniques including extension tubes.

That's true in a vacuum, Dave, but air resistance is a factor here.

<P>The last ten pictures in <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=249393">this folder</A> were shot with a D100.</P>

Is the green "writing" light on while you try to change from RAW mode? I haven't tried it but, as you say, it might not let you while it's processing the RAW shot and that takes a while in compressed RAW mode.

Ah, I didn't think of that.

I think that, if nothing else, the script should be run much more often than every two weeks. If not, at any given time, there is going to be a number of funded Abe's "reviews" on the board even if somewhat fewer than millions of stooges are posting.

I think any of these is overkill with a monopod. Take a look at <A HREF="http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/tutorials/monopods/index.html">Really Right Stuff's suggestion</A>. It's a much better solution than any ballhead for this application, IMO.

They can design lenses that throw a smaller image circle, like Nikon has done with the 12-24 mm, but focal length is a physical property of the lens and isn't a function of on what the lens is mounted. It's determined by where parallel rays focus. The field of view is smaller than the same lens used on a 35 mm camera because the sensor covers a smaller portion of the image circle. You'll see people say that, for instance a 20 mm lens "becomes" a 30 mm lens on a digital with a 1.5x cropping factor but that's sloppy language. The lens is what it is and doesn't "become" anything, but the field of view is reduced due to the sensor size.

<P>Because of the size of the sensor, you will <EM>always</EM> get a field of view equal to that of a lens of 1.5x the focal length mounted on a 35 mm camera. For example, a 20 mm lens on the D100 will give you the field of view of a 30 mm lens on a 35 mm.</P>

Photoshop should handle sRGB fine. Just set your working space to sRGB. That said, I prefer to shoot in Adobe RGB space since it has a wider gamut and you can always convet to sRGB later if you need to (for web usage, for example).

 

I almost always shoot with no sharpening and sharpen later in Photoshop where I have more control.

 

Hope that helps!

<P><A HREF="http://www.alienbees.com/">Alien Bees</A> makes, IMO, very good, inexpensive monolights. I have, so far, a two light setup and I'm very pleased with it. They also have great customer service. The same parent company also makes <A HREF="http://www.white-lightning.com">White Lightning</A> products, which you'll also find a lot of positive comments about if you do a search. Probably something about 300 "true" watt-seconds each (like the Alien Bees B800) would work well. You'll of course want some light modifiers (e.g. umbrellas, soft boxes, grids, etc.) too.</P>

<P>You'll have great fun. I've always thought of myself as an available light, or at most available light plus fill flash sorta guy, but I'm having great fun playing with studio lighting setups and experimenting. I also recommend the book <EM>Light: Science and Magic</EM>, by Fil Hunter and Paul Fuqua.

I almost always shoot with no sharpening and do it later in Photoshop when I can decide how much is needed and exactly how to do it.

<P>You might want to peruse <A HREF="http://www.stockphoto.net">stockphoto.net</A> and I also recommend the book <A HREF="http://www.allworth.com/Catalog/PH209.htm">ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography</A>.</P>

<P><A HREF="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html">Here's another debunking</A> of the "Moon Hoax" idiocy.</P>

I haven't noticed any significant chromatic abberation or barrel distortion. Since you say you see the latter when pointing down I wonder if you're just seeing converging vertical lines, which is simply a perspective effect.

<P><EM><BLOCKQUOTE>HCB? He would be using a digital camera if he was born today.</BLOCKQUOTE></EM></P>

<P>Then he'd be quite the precocious little tyke!</P>

<P>But, more seriously, there certainly are people using Leica rangefinders for PJ work and I know of at least one person using R Leicas for sports. Also, plenty of pros use "non-pro" cameras for work that they sell. Galen Rowell, for example, liked to use Nikons cheapie SLRs when weight was critical. I interpret the camera store clerk's comment to mean "we don't carry Leicas"</P>

<P><BLOCKQUOTE><EM>Ken Rockwell wrote in his web site - "I never could understand why one would be lazy enough to want a 35-70 zoom. I mean, why not use a superior, faster, smaller, cheaper 50mm lens and just move closer or farther away by 40% if you need to? Because of that I never considered this lens."</EM></BLOCKQUOTE></P>

<P>Because sometimes you can't move farther away or closer. Also because moving changes perspective and changing focal lengths doesn't. I've read that comment on Ken's site, too, and I find it strange. For that matter, if he thinks that, why would anyone buy a fixed focal length 35 mm or 70 mm lens if using a 50 and moving around would do the trick?</P>

It has gobs of exposure lattitude, especially on the overexposure side, so, yeah, exposing it at EI 200 and developing it normally works and probably does result in a bit less grain (though the grain is pretty fine to begin with, IMO).

<P>I have that combo and it works fine, except you lose metering (so have to shoot in manual mode) and of course autofocus. Likely the camera wasn't in manaul exposure mode when you tried it. <A HREF="http://www.scheuern.com/champcar/2003/ra/pages/ra03sb04.html">This</A> was shot with my D100, 300 f/4 ED, and TC-14b.</P>

It looks like converging lines caused by perspective rather than rectilinear distortion. It's what happens when you map three dimensions into two. Shoot a grid of lines with the camera perfectly perpendicular to the plane the lines lie in and I bet you'll see very little barrel or pincusion distortion.

<P>Oops, <A HREF="http://www.white-lightning.com">here's the correct link</A> for White Lightning</A>.</P>

<P>I recommend <A HREF="http://www.alienbees.com/"> Alien Bees</A> monolights or the other Paul Bluff product line, <A HREF="http://www.white-lightening.com/">White Lightning</A>. Excellent value for the money and they're nice people to deal with. As for flash meters, I'm very happy with my Sekonic L-358.</P>

<P>I have a D100, the non-AFS 300 mm f/4, and the tc-14b. You lose autofocus and metering with the tc-14 on the D100 (with some Nikon bodies, like the F100, you lose AF and matrix metering but can still use spot and center-weighted metering.) Image quality is quite decent, IMO--not big-glass good, but nowhere near that price level, either. I regularly use that combo and it works well for me. <A HREF="http://www.scheuern.com/champcar/2003/ra/pages/ra03sb04.html">This</A>, for instance was shot with it. How much you like using it probably depends mostly on how much you need autofocus and metering. And don't forget that the converter eats a stop when you guestimate or use a handheld meter.</P>

It's a perfectly good camera to start with and in fact a very nice camera when you're more experienced, too. My first Nikon was an FG, which I still have, and I also had the Vivitar Series 1 28-90, the MD-14, and the SB-15 so it was the identical setup.