vikramdmello

<p>Hi Jamie,<br>

Serendipitous timing since I too have just got this camera and unfortunately also have this problem. I have tried all the suggestions in this conversation, including black tape covering those contacts. The meter and LEDs still stay on - constantly - until the dial is turned to Off.<br>

I simply cannot imagine shooting this way! Having to worry about turning the dial to Off during a shooting session, then when ready, remembering what shutter speed to dial it back to ... unheard of!<br>

Any results from your inquiries or other fixes?<br>

Thanks in advance - Vikram.</p>

 

i'm considering a new 50mm lens for my minolta 5 af camera. after searching a

number of places (b&h, freestyle, keh, adorama, keh), i find no minolta-branded

50mm lenses available NEW - there are a few on keh but they are not in great

condition (EX only).

 

i then saw a sony-branded 5mmm f1.4 which is available new at a number of

places. any thoughts about this one? is the quality still good - meaning is

it just the sony name slapped on, but the same minolta quality?

 

is it worth roughly the 300 bucks?

 

thank you for any feedback - vikram.

kudos to the photo.net team for adding these very very useful features. carry on :-) vikram.

it looks beautiful now - thank you :-) the site is progressing really well - i'm glad i've stuck around to enjoy these useful changes. carry on with the improvements. vikram.

appreciate whatever you can do.

 

vikram.

thanks for writing, josh. yes, the order is correct on the page. this is also the way it shows up in 'manage my portfolio'. that's why i'm confused as to why it does not carry over that order on the gallery slideshow page...?

When viewing the slideshow of all galleries on one page (labeled 'The work of

xyz'), the order of folders does not seem to match the order I have set

in 'Manage your portfolio'. I have made sure to number each folder the way I

want them displayed - this works fine for the 'Manage your portfolio' page, but

does not seem to carry over to the gallery view.

 

Thank you for any suggestions on how to correct this.<div></div>

thank you, ronald. my situation thus far is, most of the slides seem properly exposed, at least on visual inspection. for these well-exposed images then, i wonder if allowing auto-exposure to tinker with them might actually be detrimental?

is it a good idea to use auto-exposure when scanning film? i have just begun

using a nikon coolscan V, for mostly slide film. are there pros or cons keep

the auto-exposure setting on in the nikonscan software?

 

thank you - vd.

dave - i'm completely impressed by the sample work on your site: wow! so this is what the big leagues are like, eh ;-) as an adult amateur, it's good for me to see the calibre i have to aspire to in the future.

 

thanks much for the model release form. while it is useful, i think what we need for this purpose is one just for a name release; i.e., we want to use only the celebrity's name, not their image.

 

do you happen to know a resource where i might find that?

 

carry on the stupendous shooting - vikram.

 

ps - is it mostly slide film?

is there a standard form available that a model/talent/celebrity can sign to

allow their image and/or name to be used in an advertisement?

 

this is a pro-bono/volunteer-type situation for a non-profit organization, so

money is not in the equation.

 

thank you - vikram d'mello.

i've had no luck installing my new microtek scanmaker s400 driver since

yesterday. i tried both the driver that came with the product, and a more

recent one i downloaded online.

 

with both, windows recognizes the device, but then says it is unable to install

it because THE REQUIRED SECTION WAS NOT FOUND IN THE INF.

 

any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

thank you - v.

surprisingly, did not find the maxxum 5 in many places online. i have no clue

where to look in actual stores. is $100 decent on keh for an EX+ rating?

bill - as luck would have it, i did just what you suggested last evening, before reading your note, i.e., compared them on a lighttable under a loupe.

 

i must say i do not know enough about judging color negatives to notice or appreciate any differences that might have been there. i work mostly with b&w, in which such comparisons are easier i think.

 

** what should i be looking for to ascertain differences in the quality of the negative? **

 

the lab i use is "the color house new york" (www.thecolorhouseny.com). i recall paying $12 for process and 3000x2000 scans. they're new, located at 216 lafayette st, a few blocks south of prince st, in manhattan. those premises used to belong to a well-respected establishment called "soho b&w". excellent service, very friendly, and the quality is, i'd like to believe, professional. i am only an advanced amateur, so their higher cost prevents me from using them all the time. this is why i posed this question in the first place - to see if i am losing quality by going with snapfish, at least for c-41 processing.

 

thanks for any advice on judging negatives under a loupe. - vikram.

before anyone jumps, i have already read all prior discussions on snapfish.

that being said:

 

the situation:

 

two rolls of in-date kodak max 400. first roll developed at a pro lab, with

medium-res scans (3000x2000). second roll developed at snapfish, with web-

quality scans (around 600x400), as well as 5x7 prints.

 

the problem:

 

the LAB's results were excellent. although i did not get prints, judging by

the scans, the images were sharp, clean, had a wide tonal range that matched

the scenes shot, and had a vibrancy of colors beyond what i expected.

 

SNAPFISH's results were disappointing, not just in comparison, but even by any

objective standard. i understand i should not judge web-quality scans. but

the 5x7 prints, which i expected to be a representation of processing and print

quality, were flat, lacked sharpness, were a bit hazy, many seemed slightly

under- or over-exposed, and there was simply no punch to the colors overall.

 

my question:

 

is this an expected quality difference in negative processing between a pro lab

and snapfish? i thought c-41 lab processing is straightforward no matter

where, with little or no variation. how wrong am i?

 

MORE IMPORTANTLY, how can i truly and accurately compare these sets of

negatives? i want to isolate whether the problem really is with poorly-

processed negatives, or whether i am being fooled by low-quality snapfish

prints.

 

in short, how can i compare the negatives themselves? just get a few prints

from each set made from a single lab? get medium-res scans of the snapfish

negatives?

 

thank you very much - vikram.

what's the current verdict on average-priced flatbed scanners (say around USD

$200) as worthy film scanners? do they do a good enough job with 35mm negative

film at, say, 4000 dpi, to be able to use the resulting scanned image files for

up to 8x10 prints? or is a dedicated film scanner really worth the extra

cost? why are they so much more expensive anyway?

many many thanks to you all, especially steve dunn. this is all excellent advice and information, and backs up what i've simultaneously found in my research into the subject.

 

now i go and try it all! :-)

i am a beginner enthusiast. along with digital, i've recently been

experimenting with negative film (color and b&w).

 

for color film, i am overwhelmed and confused by the plethora of product lines

under just one film brand - kodak. i'm sure fuji has an equally dizzying array

of names.

 

my question is: is there an appreciable difference between these myriad kodak

color negative film brands? is the 'professional' moniker applied to portra

meaningful? so far, i have tried only gold (200) and max (400), and just one

roll of each. but i believe there are other names, such as supra, and perhaps

more...?

 

what i'm trying to understand is how to choose: is there a catch-all approach,

or do serious photographers simply try all and ascertain for themselves what

works best for their work?

 

thank you very much for any and all insights and guidance.

 

vikram.

i am about to enroll in an introductory b&w darkroom course at the

international center of photography (ICP) in new york.

 

has anyone had experiences at the ICP that they care to share?

 

thank you - vikram.

you may be on the right track, pete. there IS a low-level sound with anti-shake on; i made a long exposure with anti-shake off, and it was absent.

 

the sqeeking i am talking about, though, is more high-pitched. frankly, now as i'm testing it, it's not there at all, so i wonder if this is one of those blips that just goes away.

 

in any event, i wanted to know if anyone thought i should pay to have it looked at - i know it's going to cost me a bomb, so unless absolutely required, i will not.

an unusual and startling thing has started a few days ago with my maxxum 5d: on

long exposures (anything more than about 1/8), i hear a SQUEEKING sound while

the exposure is being made.

 

this occurs on some exposures, not all, but often enough that i'm concerned.

 

the sound begins after the mirror is raised, while the exposure is actually

being made. it was most noticeable on 1-second and longer exposures.

 

pictures are not affected - they turn out fine.

 

i have not dropped the camera or subjected it to any stress that i can recall.

 

what is this?! and what can i do about it?

 

thank you for any insights,

 

vikram.

thanks both of you for replying.

 

dave: my attempt at photoshop's lens distortion correction features didn't quite correct things - perhaps i'm not using it well enough. i think shooting at slightly less than wide might be my best bet.

 

my confusion is that, i've shot wide angle before, but not of a row of architecture such as this. i wonder if the corner distortion is more apparent in images such as this?

 

andrew: i think i will try your suggestion - i do have one of those tiny bubbles in my tool kit.

 

v.

i'm trying to understand why a wide angle picture i made has the edges

distorted, sort of leaning outwards.

 

see: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5715153

 

i used an 18-70mm zoom at 18mm on my maxxum 5d. the building landscape was

far, far away. my understanding is this is barrel distortion at the edges,

where the corner buildings seem to lean back and away. i thought this

distortion occurred only if you take a wide angle picture of an up-close

subject, not something at a distance.

 

please correct/advise.

 

thank you - vikram.<div></div>

based on suggestions from fellow-members, i got photoshop and learnt how to

convert my image (adobeRGB color space) to the correct color profile of my

minilab's printer (noritsu 2711 on kodak royal GLOSSY paper).

 

however, i am still less-than-impressed with the result, made on kodak royal

MATTE paper.

 

i compared this print with one made earlier before any conversion, and it *is*

better; but the difference is not huge, and the print is not as bright/vibrant

as on-screen.

 

i ensured to NOT EMBED the printer profile when i converted, and i ensured i

CONVERTED, rather than assigned. i also confirmed that the lab technician did

not make any adjustments, and sent the converted image file direct to the

printer.

 

what could i or the lab be doing wrong? could i be using the wrong profile?

does it matter that i'm using a profile for GLOSSY paper but printing on MATTE

paper? or is it a monitor calbration issue?

 

thank you once again for your experience-based advice.

 

vikram.

the hi-res scan i get is 3000x2000. would that still be okay up to 8x10?

 

i'm still unclear as to what the difference in the printing procedure is, though.