john_n._wall

OK, I had a mix-up on a trip -- lost track of a bag of 6 rolls of exposed film

-- and the worst thing happened. It came home in my suitcase. It went through

two airport baggage x-ray units, one in Bologna. Italy, and one at London

Gatwick. Fortunately, this was not all the film I shot, but enough to have some

significant images on it.

 

All this film is 400 speed, both B&W and color. Should I throw it away now, or

is there a chance it came through unfogged?

Given the range of different levels of lighting in these images, moving from foreground to background, I suspect this is an example of someone taking several shots of the same image at different exposures, then combining them in Photoshop into a single image.

The further wrinkle in trying to beat a price is to figure out how to get B&H to ship the camera to a real address outside of NY where you can pick it up and not pay NY state tax on the purchase. Will save you another bit of change, but it helps to have a friend in New Jersey or Connecticut who will hold it for you. Apparently hotel and motel addresses will not work.

I am not sure of all the reasons for the higher price for the D3 in England, but I do know two things. 1. The English price includes their VAT or value-added tax which adds somewhere between 15%-20% to the cost and 2. the English price of Nikon gear has historically been higher than in the USA, so the D3 is no exception, perhaps because its a smaller market or because that's what the market will bear.

 

I have heard of people in the UK claiming they could fly to NYC and buy Nikon gear at B&H to take home, paying for their round-trip airfare with the difference. I think the international warranty would still be good even if the USA warranty would not be. There is the matter of getting the gear through customs on the way back, however.

I have had a 2400 for 3 years and use it almost exclusively for B&W -- I love mine and would buy it again in a heartbeat. On the other hand, it is an older printer, now, and Epson has cut the price of refurb models AND announced a new high-end printer. So I suspect that a new model at this price point is in the pipeline. If you could wait a bit, the new model might be an improvement, OR it might drive the price of 2400s down to new lows. Ah, the reality of the world of electronics.

OK, I'm not talking about a number I get in the Print routine, but number I get under "Image>file size" in Photoshop. I'm accustomed to opening scanned files in Photoshop at this point and they open at 4000 dpi.

I gather from your comments that I can increase the dpi size to 300 from 72 simply by changing to that number at Image>file size. I will try that.

I just got my first digital camera after lots of experience scanning 35 mm film.

Having made some test shots, I opened my first images in Photoshop and was

surprised to see that my files opened at 72 dpi.

 

I am accustomed to printing (from scans of film) at 300 dpi, regardless of the

size print I want to make. I'm accustomed to thinking of files at 72 dpi as

being low resolution and appropriate only for use on the Web.

 

Is it customary to have files come from a digital camera at 72 dpi? How does one

get from a file at 72 dpi to one at 200 or 300 for printing?

The Sundance Catalogue, the upscale store started by Robert Redford, is now

marketing the Holga Camera as an icon of style. Check it out at

 

http://www.sundancecatalog.com/jump.jsp?itemType=PRODUCT&itemID=10931

 

Here's what they say:

 

Holga camera starter kit

 

A cult favorite turned classic, the Holga? camera derives its iconic and

iconoclastic reputation from a quirky lens and quintessential affordability.

Each unique lens imbues photos with an abstract, color-saturated, dreamlike

quality?all the serendipity you need to take your art?or play?to another level.

 

Cool, huh? And the price they want for a Holga is $75. The last time I checked

with B&H for a Holga, I could get 3 Holgas for $75 and have money left over for

at least three rolls of film.

 

As PT Barnum said, there's one born every minute.

I'm looking for a digital p/s camera and I'm accustomed to shooting with

high-end 35 mm film cameras. I do not now have a digital camera; this will be my

first step into digital shooting (though I do scan film, use Photoshop, and

print digitally).

 

I find the digital p/s feature sets to be confusing and overly complex. Please

help me sort out what's important.

 

I want something small and solid, with perhaps a zoom lens with a wide-angle to

short telephoto range (perhaps 28-105 equivalent), with high image sharpness,

low distortion, low noise in the 100-400 ISO range, with little shutter lag and

aperture priority as well as the usual program modes. Manual settings would be a

bonus but not required. Might as well throw in image stabilization.

 

What else am I not thinking of? What choices do I have? What cameras should I

look at?

I have just received my copy of the new book <Mastering Digital Black and White:

A Photographer's Guide to High Quality Black-and-White Imaging and Printing> by

Amadou Diallo. It seems very promising, comprehensive, clear, thoughtful.

Just as I decide that Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl is the paper for me, I see ads

for Photo Rag Pearl. What is the difference between the two? Can anyone who has

tried them make a comparison? Many thanks.

Two recommendations -- for a prime macro on a budget you cannot go wrong with the Tamron 90mm macro.

 

A real alternative -- if you want to retain the range of your zoom lens -- is the Nikkor 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 with the 5T and 6T diopters. YOu can get one of these lenses in excellent condition from KEH for under $200 and the diopters should be available for about $50.

 

The zoom lens is an older lens (no longer in the Nikon line) but it is great for macro work -- it has a built-in tripod mount -- when used with the diopters. I know of at least one professional flower photographer for whom this is his standard set-up and he gets excellent results.

 

The next step is to read John Shaw on close-up photography.

Any Nikon macro lens will be really fine. The 105 mm is truly a classic. But they are pricey. Many people believe the Tamron 90mm is just as sharp as the Nikkors, but much less expensive. I think you will be delighted by the Tamron.

OK, I need to back up my image and data files. OK, its WAY pat time to back up

my image and data files. I have been told to get an external hared drive or DVD

drive to store my image and data files. But which one? Any suggestions?

 

Also, does one need a separate program to manage back-up? Which one?

You do not need to create a new image to give yourself a white (or any other color) border.

 

Once you establish your final image size (Image>image size), you then go to Image>canvas size and increase your canvas size (say, by changing the setting of both width and height from 0 to 0.5 to give a half inch border, or setting the number to add whatever width border you want) then choose the color of the border (here called "canvas extension").

 

Then you click OK and you will see your new border appear around your original image. IF you want to add text to that border, I'm sure you can do it.

 

If you want the image + border to be a certain specific size (like 4x6), for printing, you can go back to (Image>Image size) and reset your new image (image+border) to the size you want.

I bought Avery-style labels from a genealogy research supply house that are guaranteed to be of archival quality in paper and adhesive. I print up a label that includes the title, date, medium, dimensions, number of this image in a series (if applicable), my name and address, and a space for my signature. I could of course include all kinds of other information like asking price and date of printing as well as date of exposure.

 

I then sign each label with a Sharpie pen and adhere it to the back of the print. I think this works. The only value in having your image on the front of the image (should be on the lower right side, below the image) is advertising, but it makes the thing all that much harder to matt and frame.

 

I once thought one should sign the matt, but someone I respect said this was amateurish so I quit.

Thanks, so far. I tried that but the new profile does not show up when I try to print. Where should it show up? On the "Print with Preview" screen in Photoshop, as I saw in one book I consulted? On my screen, the window where this info is supposed to show up, according to the book, is not "live." Or, where I'm accustomed to finding paper profiles, in the printer screen one gets to in the Printer, where all the Epson paper profiles are listed? Again, I know I sound stupid in this process, but with computers I find that unless everything is set right at every step, things do not work out when one departs from the preset path. JNW

I have downloaded a paper profile from the Hahnemuhle website. I can't get

Photoshop to recognize it.

 

This is really stupid. I found a message from an earlier writer who ascertained

that the profile should be copied into a folder named

 

Library/Application Support/Adobe/Color/Profiles/Recommended Folder

 

or

 

Unsers/username/Library/Colorsync/Profiles

 

But I can't find these places on my computer. I have searched with the file

finder and it tells me there is nothing with those names on my computer.

 

What am I doing wrong? JNW

Many thanks. This is just the kind of information I needed. I look forward to trying this paper. I currently use Epson Premium Luster and I'm hoping my experience with the new paper justifies the difference in cost.

Simple question -- if you print on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl with an Epson R2400

printer, where does the paper go? Does this paper go into the regular rack on

top of the printer, or does one need to feed it in through the slot on the back?

 

Sorry if this has been covered before, but I have looked and can't find it. And

my first box of FAP is on the way from B&H.

Only problem is, once you know how to do it you then need to figure out why you want to do it, or why you would want to do it. Of the two examples offered, the first one is a really cheesy photograph, no matter how much time, effort, and technical skill went into it.

I looked at the image both ways; the touch-up is impressive, but the only problem is, once you get it done, she looks dead.

Yes, definitely, take the flash. With a remote cord so you can get the flash off the camera body. And a table-top tripod. You might well want to view Bob Krist's instructional video on travel photography. He takes you through a series of shoots in European locales -- very informative to watch him work.

I traveled in Europe (England, France, Italy) for over a month with one body and three lenses. For my F4 (with the MB20 grip), I took a 24, an 85, and a 180 (all Nikkors). I did take a big tripod. I never took the 180 out of the bag except to use as a close-up lens (with a diopter). I soon quit carrying the big tripod since I never used it except for close-ups. I took dozens of rolls of film with the 24 and the 85. I used a table-top tripod when the light was low. I am delighted with the shots I got, of people, buildings, landscapes, interiors, and a few close-ups of flowers. You may see some of them at jnwallphoto.com.

 

I think the issues have to do with your mobility. If you will be staying put in one area for extended periods and can scout the area to identify shots -- and if the cost and burden of transportation is inconsequential for you -- then take the gear you need for a wide range of shots. Its like being at home. You might as well have it all with you.

 

If you are on the go, moving around, needing to respond quickly to what the world provides -- and ESPECIALLY if you are traveling with other people -- you may want to keep the kit light and flexible.

 

I think people misunderstand the nature of gear. Gear does not mean that you get the big shot so that wihtout lots of gear you don't get the big shot. All gear does is change the kinds of images you can take. There are infinitely many wonderful images you can make in any situation -- and ESPECIALLY in Europe -- with any gear you take.

 

Go there with one body and a 24 mm lens and you will have the opportunity to take wonderful images. Add an 85 mm lens and you can take different wonderful images. But the cost of taking along the 85 is that you will not get (some of) the shots you would have taken with the 24 because you will be using the 85 instead.

 

This issue multiplies the more gear you take, until finally you won't make any photographs at all because you will be spending all your time arguing with yourself about which lens to use and changing from one lens to another. In the meantime, the people have moved on, the light on the building or landscape has changed, and the moment has passed.

 

If you are moving a lot, gear gets heavy and you get tired and again you won't make the photographs that are there to be taken because you are stuck in your room resting up or nursing your sore back.

 

Now, mostly, when I travel I take a Contax G1 I bought cheap at KEH, with a 28 mm lens on the body. In a waist pack I carry a 90 mm lens, a table-top tripod, and film. I love the shots I get and don't worry about the shots I might have gotten with what I'm not hauling around. I see more, have more opportunities to make great shots, and am a lot more fun to be with for my traveling companion.

My era is now, but I value classic quality, so my Nikon is an F4.