jeff_rubin2

Unless I have the only decent copy on the planet, the old AF28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 is terribly underestimated, cheap (usually less than $100 used on *bay), FX and has a passable macro function to boot. All the following were taken with this lens.

http://jeffjmr.smugmug.com/photos/330434220_vvDtf-L.jpg

http://jeffjmr.smugmug.com/photos/312006052_KhoEc-L.jpg

http://jeffjmr.smugmug.com/photos/310280293_FBw5k-L-3.jpg

http://jeffjmr.smugmug.com/photos/439223589_6M3sm-L.jpg

My original impressions are here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=33158457

I did not mention in that post that I did a side-by-side between the Tokina and the original Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6 also. I could not discern a difference between the Sigma's then, but was not happy with any of the three. Later, admittedly in a completely different environment and little time to do in-depth testing, I was pleased enough to actually purchase the f/3.5 version.

I think it handles great and appears by my example in the above link to have great flare characteristics. I have no regrets, but few other examples worthy of posting, yet.

<p>Shouldn't need a Safe Sync with the D model. I use one with my V600.<br>

The pc connection on your SB800 will fire the V600D with the appropriate cable. Again, your camera AND SB800 will be fine since you have the D model. If you did not, you would need a Safe Sync to protect your SB800.</p>

Is it possible/practical/worth it to hardware calibrate an HP w/22 LCD monitor?

I ask, because the color, brightness and gamma are so critically dependent on vertical angle of view (not so sensitive

side-to-side). At about 13-14 inches tall, a screen of a single color is a virtual rainbow from top to bottom when

viewed at a normal distance.

Interestingly, I have an HP LP2465 at work that does not exhibit this problem. It is amazingly consistent from all

viewing angles.

So would calibration help with the w/22, or do I need to save up for a better monitor? Thanks.

Thanks, Paul. I looked at your gallery and I like your work.

I'll email you tomorrow with the file and maybe we can work something out.

First the facts:

Wife will allow only one "photo" printer in the house.

We shoot digital 7MP and up, and 4x5 B&W and color transparencies.

I plan on getting an Epson 750M scanner or equivalent.

4x6 or 5x7 is OK for the digitals, but I am going to want up to 8x10 maybe

even 11x14 at home for the LF. I can go to a lab for anything bigger.

3/4 color inkjet results are totally unsatisfactory. (HP Office/DeskJets, etc.)

Instant digital prints from the kiosks ala Ritz Camera are acceptable for 4x6

or 5x7 from the digital cameras provided they are suitably edited at home via

Photoshop.

Questions:

Can I duplicate or exceed the quality of the kiosks with any of the following:

Dye sub like the Kodak 1400 or Olympus 11?

Inkjet like an Epson R2400?

Would anybody who has these printers or who recommends something other than

these two be willing to take a file from me and print it so I can compare it

to the kiosk output provided I pay for the expenses/trouble/postage?

Oh how I pine for my dear old darkroom days! Thanks all.

Anyone have a recommendation for a shop in D.C./Northern Virginia area for a

few CLA's? (An Ektar in a Graphex, two Schneiders in Copals).

Thanks.

Have been reading with great interest the scanner debates on this and other sites as I prepare to go digital with my LF habit.

At this point, clear as mud.

But could one of you humor a newbie by explaining the purpose of "downsampling"? Why throw resolution away?

I am getting a Manfrotto 3039 head, but haven't decided on legs yet.

I know everyone loves the 3021, and I like the pro, but I do LF with a Crown

Graphic, and will likely upgrade someday to something larger.

The 475 is the recommended unit for the 3039, but I like the horizontal center

post of the 458.

I am sceptical of the autolock legs, however. I have read of complaints over

the grease, and I have to wonder how robust and steady they will be. I like

the 475 load rating, but would go with the lighter 458 if I knew it worked

well in the long run.

Anybody out there who has used the 458 for LF for a while?

Thanks.

Apologies in advance if this has been covered before, but thought I should

come clean on my mistake to possibly save others a more costly error.

I'm new to 4x5 and have been shooting some Polaroid 55 to familiarize myself

with my Crown Graphic and the film.

I am a pilot by trade and travel much, and before I could get my hands on some

sodium sulfite I found myself on the road.

I successfully removed all traces of the developer with a good wash, and then

proceeded to ignore the data sheet mention of storing in clean water for "up

to a few hours".

10 days later I found two nice clear sheets with what used to be the images a

cloud of black at the bottom of the tub.

Fortunately, these were nothing more than snapshots, and a cheap lesson

learned.

I am still confused about the sodium sulfite versus other tips I've read about

fixing also/instead. The data sheet says not to fix. If washing carefully with

water, especially RO water clears all traces of the developer, what is

necessary to ensure a long (er than 10 days) shelf life of the neg?

Paul Butzi addresses that very issue here.

http://www.butzi.net/articles/scannersoft.htm