ac_gordon

I find the tripod collar for the 100/2.8, which uses a plastic adapter for this specific lens, unecessary except when using a flash bracket to shoot macro, especially with two flashes. I prefer a macro flash bracket from Kirk or Really Right Stuff that attaches to the quick release plate for the collar's foot. Then, when shooting verticals, you rotate just the lens/camera, and the flashes stay put. The collar is very handy for that single purpose.

An F4 without the large battery pack (i forget the designation) would be another option if you did not mind the extra weight and somewhat larger size. I have owned both the FE2 and FM3a, and I agree with Shun that they are very similar. If you go with the FE2, or any other older Fxx series camera, make sure that its shutter is working properly. Many have shutters with honeycomb patterns, and the faster shutter speeds sometimes get out of whack as the shutter wears. I may be wrong, but I think that later FE2's use plain shutter blades like the current FM3's that have proven to be more reliable. I personally preferred the FM3 because it was new and had a mechanical shutter that would work even if the battery for the meter died.

I also have a 2200. As others have mentioned on photo.net, the newer profiles on Epson's website for matte paper are worse than the original profiles, producing blocked up shadows. My experience has been the same, and I use the original profiles. In short, if you are using matte paper and the new profiles, you may see an improvement with the old profiles.<p>However, preserving shadow detail is always a challenge, and the best option is probably making sure your monitor is reasonably calibrated and then, if you still have problems, getting a custom profile, like from drycreekphoto.com among others.<p>

I also agree with the suggestion to try to blend two different scans, one scan to preserve highlights and one to preserve shadow detail. Combining or blending exposures is a powerful photoshop method, especially with a scanner with a relatively low dmax like the IV (I have one). You may want to scope out the various tutorials at adobe's site as well as at computer-darkroom.com (particularly on soft-proofing as well as general Epson printing tips) and luminous-landscape.com.

As for the question posed in your heading, I found the crop tools in my Nikon scanner software (I have a old Coolscan IV) much less precise than PS. (It may be different with the 5000.) Thus, I always scan the entire slide/neg and crop the image in PS.<p> Also, as Beau suggested you do, I always scan at the highest resolution possible and the greatest bit depth. I don't want to have to touch my original slides/negs more than necessary.<p>Further, when you scan at 4000 dpi, the image created can be easily resized without any "algorithms" being applied by any software. Your 4000 dpi scan printed at 4000 dpi will be the same size as your neg/slide. If you choose to "resize" it to 300 dpi, the same pixels are simply spread out. The image prints larger at 300 dpi than 4000 dpi without any program having to create any new pixels. If, however, you need to uprez your image to print it at size and dpi not permitted by your original scan, then you should use PS's uprezzing algorithms (like bicubic, bicubic sharper, bicubic smoother, etc.) to create the new image pixels.

I owned several of the H series screens for my F3's for use in macro shooting. They were great, with absolutely no dimming of the viewfinder even at very small viewing apertures. (e.g., 200 f4 AIS micro with 2x converter, effective f8 viewing before accounting for loss of light due to magnification) You need different ones for different focal lengths, but I ended up using just two for the majority of my shooting. I used them for non-macro work as well. The out of focus areas do shimmer, which made it easy to focus. However, if I remember correctly, it is not possible to preview the depth of field with the H series screens.

ansel adams was just a regular guy with a good computer (just kidding for those clueless sorts out there). but seriously, what do you mean by "better photographs." a properly calibrated cheap computer/monitor should display an image exactly like a more expensive and properly calibrated computer/monitor. a more expensive computer might give you more options to realize your particular vision. it might not.

a quality ball head, like Kirk or Arca Swiss, etc., allows the head to remain free to move when you apply pressure but does not flop over after you let go. the degree of precision necessary to achieve that control means those ballheads are expensive. any head will flop if not properly adjusted by the user.

see <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS70-200VR_rev00.html">Bjorn Rorslett's site</a>

i often use an st-e2 as master and 550ex and 420ex as slaves on a dual flash bracket for macro work. this combo is very reliable. i did not like using the 550ex as a master for macro work with a flash bracket because communication between master and slave seemed harder to maintain with that setup for me than with the st-e2, 550, 420 set up. sorry, i never tried varying flash output ratios with the 550ex-master 420ex-slave combo.

it is a great lens, one of the best handling of the longer macro lenses, due to its modest size, internal focusing, removable tripod collar, built-in hood, and tremendous working distance. i found it plenty sharp, contrasty, etc. its only drawback, for me, was that it only goes to .5x by itself, as opposed to 1x (lifesize) for most current macro lenses. it works well with a TC-14b converter and the 3T/4T close up lenses. it also doesn't have a chip to work with the advanced metering and flash options of current AF bodies, but <a href="http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm">Roland Elliot</a> can add a chip to help with that, but D-flash compatability is still lacking.

i wouldn't recommend the md-12 for your purposes. it is expensive, bulky campared to grips on newer cameras, only 3 fps, and noisy. i would use the combo you have without any grip/winder. maybe you could adjust your technique. if not, i dont know about any current 3rd-party winders, but i used one with my FE2 many moons ago. maybe you could use a wrist/hand strap.

i no longer keep a protective filter on my lenses. i often use a polarizer, and i dont like stacking filters. i always use a lens hood, which makes it harder for something that might actually damage the front element to reach it.<p>

whether to use a protective filter is, to me, a matter of personal preference. some folks feel better with them, some dislike them. you should just do what will make you forget about your equipment while taking photos. i've never heard anyone comment "hey, that's a fantastic image, too bad you had a protective filter on."<p>

in the old days using the nikon system, i really liked Nikon filters. i use them now on my canon lenses when i need some extra protection from a known hazard, like salt spray. nikon filters are slim and coated. the B+W filters are noticeably beefier to me than the nikon filters. i have a heliopan circular polarizer which is a quality filter, but sometimes it's a little tough to remove; i dont know whether you'd have the same experience with a UV filter. enjoy the new lens.

i bit the bullet and got the Adobe Camera Raw ("ACR") plugin for PS7.

i do like the ease of control in setting white balance with the two

sliders on images with no neutral areas. however, when i use yarc or

breeze for conversion, i generally tweak the white balance in curves

or levels with the gray point dropper. is there any benefit in image

quality to setting the white balance in ACR versus post-conversion

with the dropper in levels/curves? even more generally, is there any

benefit in image quality to performing the same edits in ACR that

would normally be done post-conversion in PS7?<p>

also, ACR's built-in camera profile for my d60 is pretty good.

however, i already have a profile for the d60 that i assign when

opening a converted raw file in PS7 after converting in yarc/breeze.

is there any way to use a different profile in ACR than the built-in

one, or is this something that will have to wait until ACR is

completely integrated into PS8?<p>

lastly, the ACR profile for the d60 will, on some of my images, cause

both the highlights and shadows to appear clipped on the ACR real-

time histogram but not on the PS7 histogram (Menu: Image > Histogram)

after conversion. which is more accurate? (i've notice the same

difference sometimes on the histogram shown in Image > Adjustments >

Levels vs. the Image > Histogram; some images appear clipped in the

levels histogram where they are not clipped on the Image > Histogram).

Based purely on bokeh, I would not pick one over the other. I have heard comments about the Canon not performing as well on those rare occasions where out of focus highlights take the shape of the aperture opening. I, however, have not been able to take a photo with the Canon where I found any unpleasant highlights. Even the Nikon will induce such artificial-looking highlights under similar conditions, they look rounder but are still "bladed" highlights. Maybe that's a difference, even if very slight and even if it won't show in most photos, that would be significant to you.<p>

I have settled on Canon, and not because I think it's 180 macro is better than Nikon's 200 AF or MF micro. You might want to browse my uploaded photos and see if you can tell a difference in bokeh.

I have used a Coolscan IV on slide and print film and am happy with the results. Try <a href="http://www.scantips.com">www.scantips.com</a> and <a href="http://www.normankoren.com">www.normankoren.com</a> for some general scanning tips. Also, your scan will likely need some adjustments in Photoshop or other imaging software. I performed a curves and gray point adjustment to get your picture to look like the image below.

yes, but the flash output is progressively decreased as you sync with faster and faster shutter speeds, so your effective max flash distance decreases.

Being unfamiliar with the ingredients for methamphetamines, this thread prompted me to look into the issue and, what do you know, law enforcement has turned to retailers for help in identifying meth makers since the ingredients are widely available, including lithium batteries. I even found a site with a recipe for meth that recommended meth makers buying lots of lithium batteries use the excuse that they were photographers shooting a big wedding. Yet another reason to detest druggies. The site contained the following cautions I found humorous:<p>

"Try not to electrocute your dambself"<p>

"Be careful; this is the step where lots of fools set their houses on fire."<p>

"[T]he mixture has a tendency to foam semi-explosively."<p>

"[Gas formed in the process is] deadly poison and will dissolve plastics and tarnish metal, including stainless steel."<p>

What idiots.

Both will work very well for macro, as they both have 100% finders and true mirror lockup. The F4 has a spot and matrix meter, illuminated exposure information through the viewfinder, and pretty good TTL flash, but it's a bit heavy, and the accessories for it can be quite spendy. The F3 will run forever on a couple little button-size batteries, it will take a standard cable release, is fairly compact without the motor drive, and its H-series screens (extremely bright and handy for macro work) are relatively inexpensive, but the F3's illuminated LCD viewfinder info is practically worthless, and the TTL flash system is primitive by today's standards and uses a non-standard TTL connector.<p>If you intend to rely on TTL flash, I'd strongly recommend the F4. Otherwise, you should find either body very capable.

Keith, I have been involved in attempts to develop an optic nerve capture system. Color management issues plagued our efforts, although we eventually developed ICM profiles (precise doses of Ice-cold Coors and Marijuana) which produced pleasing, if over saturated, colors.<p> Also, many people have vision which isn't good enough for anyone to want to tap in to their optic nerves. We determined that, if online auction sites were to change their policies regarding the auction of human body parts (hey, Tom Cruise got some new eyes in Minority Report), an optic nerve capture system would have much more potential appeal. Unfortunately, that would not eliminate the equipment envy that permiates photography today, as discussions would rage over the pros and cons of upgrading to that newest L-ball (Canon's tentative designation for any eye with 20/20 or better vision).<p>

Marketing studies showed a suprising interest in an optic nerve capture system among college fraternities. Evidently, many of their members need a system to prove how good that member of the opposite sex looked through so-called "beer goggles." Our studies revealed, however, that such images did not accurately reflect what the user saw unless viewed under the same conditions as the image was captured, i.e., smashed. Although those studies were a blast, they produced no useful data for some reason.

which specific lenses? the tc-14b is the recommended converter for the Nikkor 200mm micro (manual focus, a really good lens). as expected, they worked very well together for me. i have no experience using the tc-14b on any other macro lens. i never tried the tc-14a.

in what way are the results unacceptable? multiple auto flashes generally cannot be used together in auto mode. you should try manual mode, which shouldn't be too difficult to adjust to get proper with a d30 and some simple experimentation.

you might try <a href=http://www.lightingmagic.com/topics.htm>Scott Smith's site</a> for lots of valuable info on studio-type lighting. other good sites abound.

i think you have most of the pros and cons of a ringlight covered. one benefit to them is that they can cast great fill flash in a dual flash setup. you might be happy with your current flash mounted on a bracket, maybe homemade at first per John Shaw's Closeups in Nature, with some sort of diffuser attached, like a lumiquest softbox or minisoft. with this setup, you can do tests with slide film to determine correct exposure for different subject distances. i used manual flash like this (with a 285 like yours on occasion) for quite some time with good results. once i found i liked macro photography, i began investing in TTL flash systems, and now try things like cross-polarized dual flash. you may find it worthwhile to explore the limits of your current gear before wading any deeper into the equipment abyss, even if you later decide to add to your gear.

i know this thread is long dead, but for those who might be scanning the archives for info, i thought i'd update my thoughts on a dual flash setup for EOS. i recently started shooting with a d60, and with instant feedback on exposure through the LCD histogram, i thought it'd be worthwhile to experiment with an st-e2, 550ex, and 420ex dual flash rig on a kirk dual flash bracket. the thing weighs a ton, especially with a 180mm macro, and it takes a while to get the flashes properly positioned. i also added a lumiquest softbox and minisoft to help diffuse the light. in spite of the complexity and weight (or maybe because of it), it takes great shots with the ratio set to 2:1; the e-ttl is very accurate in this setup. when the e-ttl misjudges a subject, the instant exposure feedback on the d60 makes it simple to judge the proper compensation. i rarely use a macro flash rig on a tripod because my typical subjects move a lot or are moved by a steady sea breeze. if i were using flash on a tripod, i think i'd probably always use dual flash except when i was using flash just for fill. hand held, this setup is just barely "light" enough for extended use, and it can be very difficult to hold for awkward shooting angles. i'll probably continue to use the dual flash rig for a significant part, but not all, of my macro shootin.

When using E-TTL flash, I generally get proper exposure without any compensation.