ian_tindale

Photoshop Elephants is not to be thought of as simply a cut-down Photoshop. Indeed, it has specific emphasis on ease of use for many photographers, whereas the CS Photoshop versions are more slanted towards pre-press professionals and graphic artists with an all-day every-day heavy duty workflow, which, truth be told, is way over the top in terms of matching most consumers requirements.

"...and is arguably now a viable desktop" (Michael Houghton)

 

Actually, with Ubuntu these days, I'd say definitely a viable desktop, which is a trifle annoying as it's one of the things I used to derive satisfaction from arguing about (usually from irssi running on the terminal on OS X).

 

I still reckon Linux is worth every penny, though.

In the year 2525 (if man is still alive), it's likely that even cartoons will still proliferate, despite the development of painting, still photography, cinematography and possibly even full 3d scene recording and replay of the sort that we see R2D2 exhibit in the little-known film 'Star Wars'. Additional realism, pushing individual media along the continuum of hot to cool or vice versa doesn't displace other media. Cartoons remain as popular an art form as ever despite the fact that you never see people as thick black outlines with a few abstracted facial features inside, because there's room on the continuum for all.

 

A camera that shoots scenes as full-motion cartoons, though - there'd be a thing.

Why do people think that the presence of two lenses equates to a propensity for one of them to react badly to flare?

I thought it was a contraction of 'record'.

<p>I'm starting to use mine enough these days to put some burnish on the points on the back - it's spent the past 9 years looking too pristine, which won't do.</p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/463094990_0c2140fd15_m.jpg" width="240" height="204" alt="Nikon F4 & Micro-Nikkor 55mm AF" /></a>

PS: (All the more annoying on the Nikon F-801 as I actually have a grid focusing screen in that one!)

<p>One thing I’ve noticed of late is that if I rotate the Nikon F-801 or F4 to portrait, I occasionally align my ‘upright’ elements that are closer to the (what is now the new) left edge with respect to that edge, and have a tendency to ignore upright elements residing nearer the right. As I say, it’s only occasionally, certainly not always, but almost never the other way round. <a href=" a case in point</a>.</p>

Don't get a wide angle lens. They're useless. Everything in the picture becomes tiny and microscopic and distant because it has to cram so much scenery into the frame.

This looks like what happens when you allow film to obstruct the calibration holes. What's your procedure when you scan film?

I suppose philosophically, having satisfied the dimension of "can you do it", most of us dwell somewhere along the axis of "should you do it".

I feel terribly uncomfortable taking pictures of other people in public. I'm far more at ease if I'd asked and received a positive gesture, and in those circumstances I tend to do a better job of it. If it were me on the other end of the lens, of course I wouldn't mind at all - but I'm not on the run, working without papers, embroiled in an affair or otherwise trying to hide what I'm up to. However, I'm always considerate that other people might be, and that's their business.

 

I remember I took some casual passing photos of a building site in London a few years ago and I noticed when I got home to sort them out on the Mac, that in almost every shot all the workers in high-visibility jackets had tipped or held their hard-hats down with their hands to obscure their faces - every single one of them. They must've noticed me shooting, and might have had some people not exactly working legally there - who knows, but prior to this I hadn't considered that so many people might have something to hide and that it isn't my purpose to pry or dig. Then again, a] I prefer a polite approach, and b] I'm really not a fan of street photography even though I do it a lot - I feel dirty doing it.

Which country is "this country"? The one I'm sitting here reading this in?

<p>Alternatively, there's a case for saving in DNG, which on one hand has advantages over TIFF itself, and on the other hand, is actually TIFF - DNG is an extension of the TIFF 6.0 spec: </p><p>

 

<a href="www.adobe.com/products/dng/pdfs/dng_spec.pdf">www.adobe.com/products/dng/pdfs/dng_spec.pdf</a> (a PDF)

</p><p>

As an experiment, you can try this: obtain a DNG file. Change the filetype to .tif and see what commonly-found graphic applications it'll open in. For many cases, it should at least open and show a picture as if it were a TIFF (which indeed it is - only with a few more specialised tags and fields). Most good TIFF readers should ignore tags and fields it doesn't understand and attempt to proceed with what it does know how to deal with. Of course, it's better to stick to proper DNG reading software if you can, as this will accurately cater for all the extra bells and indeed whistles of the DNG spec.

</p><p>

By the way, just being a TIFF doesn't guarantee lossless content - it's possible to have a TIFF with JPEG compression schemes going on inside, in which case you'd have a lossy tiff (or it could be a lossless JPEG compression, in which case it'd be lossless lossy format inside a TIFF container). Contrariwise, one using a LZW compression scheme will always offer lossless tiffness. TIFF is a phenomenally flexible file format, with a very long and robust pedigree.</p>

H. P., - I note that using a tripod doesn't necessarily alleviate a flare problem!

Actually, forget what I said in the last paragraph - no you can't:

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Jq2c">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Jq2c</a>

Interesting to note that your ebay winning page specifically also mentions the phrase "DO NOT ASSUME - ASK US - WE'LL ALL BE HAPPIER LATER".

 

What you've bought is about half of what you'll need. The other half is the specific battery pack and power supply that goes over your shoulder and contains not only the battery but a significant part of the rest of the electronics for this unit. And then there's also the power supply that charges this unit you haven't got.

 

I use my 60 CT-4 with my D50, by switching it to manual or auto (not TTL) and it actually works fine - but I have two different curly SCA leads, and two different Nikon SCA modules, and it only works this way with one particular one of each (whereas my film Nikons work fine with all of them).

 

One silver lining might be that if you find another 60 CT unit (a complete and whole one this time), you should (I believe - check this in your research) be able to figure out a twin-head system with two independent flash heads (the future new one and the one you've just got) that works from the one power pack.

Are the calibration holes obscured?

Is it a C220 'F'?

My old AF thin focus ring example from ages ago is now one of my favourites on my D50, but in recent years the aperture return on my one has become a trifle sluggish, so tends to imitate a wider aperture than has been set, below about f8ish.

<p>I took this yesterday lunchtime on my Rolleicord II type 4 (probably? bayonets on both lenses) with Carl Zeiss Triotar 3.5 lens:

<a href="

</p>

<p>This is at f11 at 300th with an orange filter on - Lucky SHD400 film, Ilfosol S 1:14 at 25 degrees for 6 mins, a few hours ago this afternoon. </p>

<p>The first thing I did when the camera arrived last summer was to unscrew the elements and gently clean 60 years of slight haziness out then put it all back together. It's fine. Superb lens. Very frequently used as my day-to-day camera.</p>

Be aware, the SB-400 can only point forward or up (or various stages inbetween), when in its normal position on the camera hotshoe (as far as I've been able to figure out by reading about it and looking at pictures). This might sometimes prove to be a limitation to you (or it might not).

You might find that there's a small indentation in the pile yarn, which probably wouldn't have affected the backing yarn. If you brush the pile a fair amount, you won't notice it, and it won't gather any more dust or debris than the rest of the carpet will. If it has damaged the backing layer, then the carpet might need repairing or replacing.

<p>Try and purchase a pre-pay <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oystercard">Oyster</a> card for travel on the bus and tube and dlr*, and top it up with money. This allows you to travel vastly cheaplier than otherwise. Essentially, London's transport system has now become structured to extort tourists by charging (those that don't know better) very high single fares, whilst letting us Londoners off the hook if we use our Oystercards. A single fare by cash is incredibly high, whereas the same fare by pre-pay Oyster can be something like half of that. Plus, the pre-pay Oyster will 'cap' - ie, if you scoot about all over the town in a day, tapping in and tapping out again at the end of the journey, after it hits what it perceives as the equivalent of a one day travelcard (for the zones you've used), it'll cap the fares at that point, charging you no more for that day (but you still need to tap in and tap out to validate the journey, of course). If you use cash, it'll not only cost you a fortune, it'll keep doing so for every fare you spend, with no limit.

</p><p>

Not sure what the best strategy is for claiming back the £3 deposit on the pre-pay Oyster is, if you're overseas. You most likely will get it back eventually, but it takes time (in my experience of sending one back for the deposit, but living here in London). Or, just keep it until you (or someone else) turn up here again.

</p><p>

* Don't ignore the Docklands - take a trip from Bank or Tower Gateway on the Docklands Light Railway and go to Beckton, or London City Airport or Canary Wharf or beyond to Greenwich - unlike the tube, the DLR is mostly elevated above ground and you get a very good view of the newer parts of London. </p>

<p>I think all PCs* these days have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Access_Control">MAC</a> implemented - it's not an either/or situation, they'll all have ethernet interfaces, therefore they'll all have MAC implementations, and an associated MAC address.

</p><p>

* Although don't take my word for it - I don't use a PC, I use a Mac.</p>