ken_b2

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand, did these photographers give permission for Getty to license their images in this way or did they not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the best balanced summary of the situation I've read:<br>

<a href="http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/">http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/</a></p>

<p>I thought I had "notify" enabled for this thread; sorry!</p>

<p>Peter, I'd been pretty convinced of the wisdom of going with the 3541LS (or, at least, the 3541). I'm surprised to read you haven't noticed a difference in stability even with a 200mm lens. Maybe a tripod collar and the 2541 would meet my needs. I know I'd love to save the 1.5 pounds if I can (we do a lot of hiking with it).</p>

<p>As for the 2540 being more compact when folded, I assume you're talking about girth, since it's actually the same length (more or less) as the 3541(LS). I was worried about fitting the 3541(LS) into a backpack, especially as Edward had mentioned he didn't think it would fit into one.</p>

<p>Hey, I don't even want it all! I know the old "pick 2 of 3" story, and I'm willing to pay the bucks! I just want it light, strong, and small (oh, I see the problem -- that's 3 things, I can have pick only 2).</p>

<p>Edward, thank you, you've made some excellent points. The 3541 can be used without a column (at least, I assume it can, as the 2530 can), but it still likely doesn't offer as stable a platform in that configuration as the Systematics. But more to the point, I assume the further I get away from the platform base (the column nut is still used, plus that Aractech leveling base) the more it compromises stability. I hadn't thought of that.</p>

<p>There is the problem of using a column <em>and </em> a leveling platform on a Systematic, but that is a rare enough occurrence that I could manually level it myself as I have been doing.</p>

<p>Thanks, you've given me much to think about.</p>

<p>Chris, unfortunately that's just one of my two concerns. If it was the only one, I would definitely prefer a 3-sectioned tripod. But none of them are short enough when folded. The GT3531S comes close, but I really need something a few inches shorter. Same with the Versa unfortunately. An interesting new product from RRS. But what I'd love to see is a Gitzo competitor that is lower in price and higher in quality (yeah, sure, I want it all!). :-)<br>

But it sounds like I should definitely add the weight of a 3 series if I'm going to 4 leg sections. Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for your reply, Edward.<br>

I wasn't really considering the L versions, but what column issues of the GT-3541L or GT-2541 were you referring to?<br>

GT-3541, GT-3541L, GT-3541LS -- this can get complicated! The difference between the first two is just the height, correct? I've been happy with the height of my GT-2541, so I see no need for the GT-3541L over the GT-3541.<br>

The Systematic is an interesting system, but I think I can get as much or more flexibility that I need at a lower price and weigth from the GT-3541 and an Aractech leveling base. Unless there's a clear stability benefit to the Systematic that I don't know about.<br>

I was indeed worried about those skinny lets at the bottom of the GT-2541. I was trying to get away cheaper (in terms of weight especially), but ultimately I probably wouldn't find it performing as I need it.<br>

Thanks again, and Happy New Year!</p>

<p>I've had my Gitzo GT-2530 for about 2 years now. At first, it was the perfect tripod for me. But I've changed a lot of my equipment since then, and it doesn't fit my needs as well as it initially did.<br>

I have 2 issues I'd like to improve:<br>

1. The folded length is too long. I'm going to add a leveling base, and that extra 1.5" of height will tip the scale to "too long". As it is, it's an uncomfortably tight fit in my wife's backpack (she's the designated tripod mule). I considered buying another backpack, but this one is just barely short enough to fit as carry-on (without the tripod, of course).<br>

I need something that has a folded length of 24.5" or less.<br>

2. In a stiff wind, I've noticed vibration problems with my 70-200 lens plus 1.4x TC. To be honest, I don't know if the problem is due to the legs, or my head. I have a Markins M20, but when I go on trips I use a Bogen / Manfrotto 701HDV video pan head (I shoot video, too, and don't want to bother traveling with 2 different heads). I suppose what I should do is wait for a very windy day at home and try both heads to see if there's a difference or not.<br>

Assuming it's the tripod that is the problem, would I be better off going to a Series 3 or getting a tripod collar for my 70-200?<br>

I'm trying to decide between the GT-2541 and the GT-3541. The 3541 is $200 more and weighs nearly 1.5 pounds more (the weight concerns me more than the price, since that's permanent).<br>

I'm open to other brands besides Gitzo. But I've been doing a lot of reading, and while there are plenty of people who are happy with their non-Gitzo tripods, there are also a lot who have complaints. Complaints with Gitzo tripods seem very few (other than cost). Still, if there's a brand I should be considering, I'd like to know about it.<br>

Thanks for any thoughts, ideas, and suggestions.<br>

Ken</p>

<p>I just successfully installed the driver for my LS-50 (aka Coolscan V ED) in the released version of Windows 7, 64-bit.<br>

It was even slightly easier than the steps outlined. I simply installed Nikon Scan 4.03, then copied "scanners.inf" into "C:\Program Files (x86)\Common Files\Nikon\Driver\ScanUSB". I removed NksUSB.INF just in case, but that might not have been necessary.<br>

At first it gave me the same error that someone else experienced (it couldn't find a driver), but then I read that someone else just copied the necessary LS-50 line from the [Models] section into the [Models.ntamd64] section. That did it!<br>

Many, many thanks!</p>

I'll be using a Markins M10 with an RRS clamp QR, so I think that part won't be any problem. It's the legs.

I fooled around with a Gitzo 3530 today. It was heavy, and I found the legs more difficult to extend and contract than on the Velbon or Induro (I didn't catch the Induro model #, but I think it may have been even bigger than the C313 -- it seemed huge). Somewhere I read that that was actually a good thing (meaning less space between the legs for dirt & stuff to get in). But usability wise, it sure was nicer to be able to just grab and pull gently rather than tug as hard as I can (ok, not really, but).

I know I *should* probably get a Series 3. But I bet I end up getting a Series 2, if not the Velbon (which I again played with today and still found easier/quicker to use than those rotating collars).

Compromises and decisions. Tough stuff!

Thanks, guys,

Ken

I am so lazy, I definitely want a tripod with 3 leg sections only.

I am leaning towards Gitzo, just trying to accept their premium price. But I would really prefer the 2 series if it would work with a 300mm lens. Induro seemed like a good compromise (but their C313 is too heavy for me to lug around on long hikes).

Someone elsewhere said that cropped field of view isn't relevant to what Gitzo was talking about. There's no doubt the 3530 (S or LSV) would be more sturdy, but it weighs about a pound more than the 2530, and is either shorter when extended (3530S) or longer when folded (3530LSV).

So I guess what I'm saying is, I'd really prefer the 2530 *if* it would be acceptable under most conditions with a 300mm zoom.

Yikes! I've been researching CF tripods for over a week, and while I've

narrowed down the field considerably, there are still plenty of choices and

questions remaining.

I've got a Canon 40D with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. But I will be buying a tele zoom

one of these days/months/years; either a 70-200 or 70-300 (with IS).

My main question is, if I MIGHT buy a 70-300 (which is a 480mm 35mm equiv. FOV

on a 1.6x crop body), does that mean I'd be wasting my money on anything less

than a series 3 Gitzo (3530S or 3530LSV)? Or with the IS, would I be able to

get away with a series 2 Gitzo (2530) or one of the other choices I listed in

the subject line? I certainly prefer to go as light as I can, since I intend to

take it along with me during long day hikes.

I know that there are plenty more choices out there. But I've decided I want to

go with something really easy to set up. I'm used to the clamp (flip-lock) type

of leg locks. I've tried the rotating ones, and while I can get the hang of

them, they still drive me crazy sometimes. Except I read that Gizto's new ALR

(anti-leg-rotation) system (copied by Induro in the C213, I believe) makes the

rotating locks as easy to use as the flip-locks (if not easier). So that's why

I've narrowed my choices to Gitzo and Induro (ALR), and Velbon's 630A

(flip-locks). (I know Benro is the same as Induro and cheaper, but that one's a

no go due to the measly 1-year warranty.)

Advice, comments, questions, and answers greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Ken

Dan,

One reason you might not want it on your 40D would be because it doesn't go wide enough. 24-70 with the 40D's 1.6x crop sensor means the 35mm equivalent field of view is 38-112. I used a superzoom (Pana FZ5) which had 36mm as its widest focal length, and I did often wish for something wider.

I recently went through a similar exercise. In the end, I finally decided to go with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I gained a lot on the wide end (27mm is signficantly wider than 38mm), lost some on the short end, got better optics (look up photozone.de or slrgear's reports, you'll see), along with IS, and much less weight, but lost build quality. Furthermore, if I ever upgrade to a full frame body, I won't be able to use it.

It's often difficult to decide on which zoom to get. There's always a compromise to be made (or several). In this case, I felt the pros strongly outweighed the cons. (Actually, I was more leaning towards the 24-105 f/4 L IS when I decided on the 17-55 instead.)

Good luck!

Ken

Wow, Howard, what a mess. I did some reading on the newsgroups to look at the problems people were having. But it does look like 4.0.2 fixed at least some of the more obvious ones. Besides the posterization I'm not seeing, I also notice that NikonScan comes with many non-underscored profiles. Though I'm not sure that necessarily means they're all non-propietary. But the aRGB profile (NKAdobe.icm), which is named "Nikon Adobe RGB 4.0.0.3000", seems to be the same as the standard "Adobe RGB (1998)". I used the rather neat online VRML tool called "ICCView" at this site: http://iccview.computertobi.de/ From what I read, it seemed these non-underscored profiles didn't used to be included with NS.

Anyway, I can certainly understand why SilverFast & VueScan became so popular with Nikon users. :-)

Thanks again,

Ken

Ah, just when I thought I had it all figured out, and it was safe to begin scanning!

Thanks, Howard, for raising this concern. Clearly it IS a big concern. I checked one of the test slides I did, which has a great deal of shadow s. Some were so dark I had to apply a 50% lightening to see them. But I was not able to detect any posterization. I compared scans made with Nikon Scan against both SilverFast & VueScan. Ignoring the large differences in colors, contrast, etc., I could not see any differences in missing details.

My concern is that perhaps I don't know what I'm looking for, since I'm not seeing it. Though I have seen posterization before in other (extreme) situations, so I know what it looks like when it's obvious.

Using "Scanner RGB" results in a very washed out looking scan. I can fairly easily correct this in PSE, but it would mean that EVERY scan would need to be corrected. (Though alternatively I could probably find a way to "fix it" in Nikon Scan, too, since "Scanner RGB" does allow you to fiddle around with color correction, unlike what happens with disabling color management altogether. Perhaps I could fiddle with that. If I can find a setting that works, then it might be a way to go. But I'm not going to PSE every scan.)

Thanks for the info about sRGB showing up in "Scanner RGB" files. I'm not sure I trust the answer, either, but I suppose it's possible. :)

Unfortunately, PSE 3 doesn't allow me to discard the profile upon opening it, nor does it let me save it with a profile other than sRGB.

Looks like I've got more research ahead before I can begin the huge job.

Thanks,

Ken

Tim, the good news for PSE users is, Adobe saw fit to allow for easy conversions between aRGB & sRGB in PSE 4. Or so Iﾒve read; I am still using PSE 3.

The color shift that I encountered occurred using "Limited Color Management", which uses sRGB as a working space. What PSE 3 does in this case is it gets rid of any color space profile data in an image if it isnﾒt sRGB, and marks it as "untagged". (That's "limited" all right!) So it was showing me an image created with an aRGB color space profile using sRGB ﾖ no wonder it didn't look very good.

Even in PSE 3, there is a way to convert aRGB images to sRGB. It's a bit of a trick, but it does work. In "Full Color Management" mode (which uses an aRGB working space profile), if you copy a file into an existing file, it converts the data to that fileﾒs color working space. So, I simply copy the aRGB image I want to convert and paste it into an sRGB image I already have loaded. Voila! Flatten and Iﾒm done. The aRGB image is actually converted to the sRGB space. (Of course, I've got to be careful when saving the file to be sure the 'save with profile ...' box is unchecked, otherwise it will tag the profile as aRGB after all!)

There are several other nuances to all this. Adobe indeed created quite a mess, in their attempt to make things "simple"! Ha!

I really can't justify the price of a full-blown Photoshop, so I'm hoping that when PSE 5 finally comes out, they may have made color management even more full-blown. But Iﾒm not holding my breath.

Hi, Frank,

I just read the thread describing the problems you had. I'm on a Windows system, and I'm hoping perhaps Nikon Scan works better on it. At least, it seems to.

It turns out that the vast majority of problems I encountered were due to my not understanding Photoshop Elements' color management, not with Nikon Scan. The purple shift and the loss of saturation were both due my mis-understanding and mis-use of PSE 3.

I've since found that if I work in "Full Color Management" (which uses the adobe RGB workspace), I can convert an aRGB to sRGB with no color shift or loss of saturation. Also, comparing an aRGB converted image to an image with an sRGB profile embedded by Nikon Scan shows only a very small difference in contrast between the two (the aRGB image seems to have deeper color in the shadow areas).

That thread you linked to has an excellent article link in it that explains just how confusing PSE 3's color management is. I knew most of what's in the article -- after a lot of digging -- but it's nice to see it spelled out so clearly.

Thanks for your response, Frank. Hopefully you've had good success with VueScan. And hopefully I will find I can use Nikon Scan plus PSE 3 without further surprises.

Ken

Edward, thank you for your response. I believe I will take your advice, as I�m sure you know and understand much more about this than I.

After I posted my question, I ran some tests, and did some more reading. I think part of my problem stems from the fact that PSE uses only 2 color spaces � sRGB and Adobe RGB. So it is color managed, but on a somewhat restricted basis. I�m sure the large part of my problem, however, is ignorance. I will check out the references you recommended � thank you.

Comparing sRGB & aRGB, I find that sRGB is more pleasing to my eye. That�s too bad, as I�ll have to work some to get the aRGB images to look �better�. There�s the increased saturation, which is easy, and not necessarily a good thing. But there�s also a color difference, especially in blue. There seems to be more red in the aRGB version, and it doesn�t look as �real� to me (nor does it match the original slide as well). Still, for future use, I suspect I am better off heeding your advice.

Anyway, again, thanks for your help.

Ken

I recently purchased a Nikon Coolscan V ED to scan 35mm slides for archival

purposes. I only want to do this once (thousands of slides), so Iﾒd like to get

it as ﾓrightﾔ as possible. I use Photoshop Elements (PSE), not Photoshop, as my

editor. But ideally, I'd prefer to archive now, and touchup as needed later.

Iﾒm scanning at 4000 dpi, 14-bits per color, but Iﾒm not sure which color space

to use. I started out using the widest, Wide Gamut RGB, but Iﾒm now confused.

Wide Gamut RGB looks good when viewed within Nikon Scan, but when the saved file

is displayed outside of Nikon Scan (e.g., PSE), it looks quite a bit desaturated.

Iﾒve since played with most of the other available (2.2 gamma) color space

profiles, which has led to additional confusion. Adobe RGB, CIE RGB, and Wide

Gamut RGB all show up as "untagged" in PSE. Oddly, the only one other than sRGB

that seems to include a tagged profile is "Scanner RGB", even though the manual

explicitly states "[when Scanner RGB profile is used] an ICC profile [is not]

included with the image when it is opened in the host application". Instead,

sRGB IEC61966-2.1 is embedded in the file. I also tried the sRGB profile, which

looks fine, but it doesnﾒt seem the best choice for archiving slides that I

intend to actually discard once completed.

I tried Vuescan, but the demo version saves only in sRGB. Iﾒd definitely prefer

not to spend even more money, especially when it seems like Nikon Scan can get

it done, except for this issue.

If anyone can answer one or more of the following questions, please jump in!

1. Which profile is "best" for archival purposes using Nikon Scan, given what

Iﾒve seen?

2. Why does "Wide Gamut RGB" (as well as a few others) look great in Nikon

Scan, but desaturated when saved and viewed elsewhere?

3. When using "Scanner RGB" profile, is it really embedding sRGB? What good is

that, then, over just using sRGB to begin with?

4a. Is my best choice something like CIE or Adobe, and do not worry about the

fact that PSE shows it as "untagged"?

4b. Secondary to archiving, Iﾒd like to get some of these printed. Does CIE

convert well enough to sRGB (which is what I would have to do in order to get it

printed at most places)? First Iﾒd have to convert to 8-bit, and then save it

with sRGB embedded. I believe when I do that, PSE converts the color space to sRGB.

Sorry for all the questions, but after a couple of days of reading, fooling

around, and not really getting anywhere, I thought it was time to ask for help!

Ken