raymond_ocampo

Happens to me both ways - Mac and PC - whenever I have a new OS version installed. Have you checked to ensure you

have the latest firmware apart from the latest software install driver? Otherwise you'll have to or check if it's supported at

all.

For the speed alone and you never experienced an SSD, I would do it if I had the extra funds. Like what everyone said above SSD is for

the OS and apps performance. For photo processing then you would not benefit and that's where your conventional hard drive comes in.

If the iMac isn't user serviceable then I would get the SSD as OEM. All my computers have SSD and I wouldn't go back. For actual

storage, I have two home servers with one backing up the other.

<p>1.10 is the latest version.<br>

<a href="http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13783/session/L3NpZC85LXhiaTNWag%3D%3D/sno/0#Anchor-DSLR-3800">Nikon DSLR</a></p>

<p>Are you asking if the hard drive specifically designated for use with Mac OS X's Time Machine can be:<br>

(a) further allocated it's free space to use as storage of other data files including TIFF and to transfer the same to another hard drive, OR<br>

(b) used to back up and therefore archive photo files which can then be restored "as is" on a new Mac system.</p>

<p>In any case, the answer is yes to both. I used to use a 1TB hard drive as a Time Machine back up drive as well as my own personal archive of data stored in folders I've created myself. Time Machine is also supposed to create a copy of all your data files regardless of file type. I don't know if it compresses the files or simply creates a 1:1 duplication. But I've used Time Machine a couple of times to transfer to a new Mac and to reformat a drive and in all those times whatever type of file I had in whatever location, it re-creates it.</p>

<p>As for data corruption via Time Machine back up, I've heard stories but I don't know if it's the fault of the drive itself and/or Time Machine. I'm hoping with the latest Mac OS X 10.6 reiteration, they would have addressed such issue.</p>

<p>It can be engineered for sure into a DSLR same way as motion capture could have been done long ago. The question I guess is the novelty of acceptance in incorporating it without eliciting snobbery versus actually using a high quality ND filter.</p>

<p>I'm not an engineer, but I would assume they are they really different in terms of capturing light quality with a sensor at it's optimum sensitivity than as you say making it less light sensitive and therefore introducing noise.</p>

<p>Hi, David. Yes you can have an EN-EL3e in the body at the same time you have AA in the grip. You set the camera function what you want to use first when it detects two of them. When the other one has ran out, it will switch to the "back-up" battery.</p>

<p>Wow. I hope Nikon Canada listening to these horror stories regarding their service. I wonder why they let it go this far.</p>

<p>I'm a believer of this software since I discovered version 3. It's something I tried and haven't looked back at other software since. Of course it's not an end-all solution, but it cleans up a supported RAW image body+lens combination pretty nice from subtle artifacts, distortion, etc.</p>

<p>It also has pretty weak features like speed processing, plug ins and DAM that you can definitely appreciate from Aperture and Lightroom. I'm just crossing my fingers that they (DxO) can catch up faster.</p>

<p>FilmPack is also a neat feature, but over-priced with it's current limited capability compared to, say, Tiffen DFx.</p>

<p>I believe they have a trial version and something you should try out to see if you like the processing output with it's current features limitations.</p>

<p>Then I would wait for their discount offering which they pretty much offer from time to time.</p>

<p><a href="../bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000FIP">Effective f-stop</a> is your friend.</p>

<p>Congratulations, Ryan. It's a really great lens and a good investment in the future when you decide to move up to a full frame sensor as well.</p>

<p>Not a problem for me either. With f/1.4, don't you guys think the lens is bright enough to afford a faster shutter. Also, if they did offer a VR version side-by-side with this I would still choose this lens. It's as compact as it can get and still have excellent optics. Having a VR version, in my opinion would greatly increase the overall size and be unattractively bulky for a single 50mm prime.</p>

<p>On a side note, was there a discussion already on why this lens didn't receive a "gold ring" for the performance and price? Is it because it's made in China and not Japan? Just wondering.</p>

<p>Christina, that's a subjective aspect which depends on the intent and artistry of the photographer. It just depends on the "quality" of light that you (as the photographer and which means how you see it) would want to achieve. How soft and indirect you want your light.</p>

<p>Also diffusion of light can also be achieved by bouncing it. The objective of both is to filter the specular highlight down to a softer look.</p>

<p>The best answer is to practice and try both on the same subject. Shoot with bare flash or any "direct" light source. Then try to cover with a diffusion material. Now try to turn the light source 90 degrees, then 180 degrees and let a white bounce board/particle board/etc be the source of reflection for that light source. You can then be more creative and try raising and lowering the angle and height of the light.</p>

<p>But ultimately is that there is no one correct way to creating a photo. What you have to know and be confident is what your eye sees and how you go about achieving it.</p>

<p>You might confuse bounce from diffuse of the flash. You can do both. You diffuse the flash by either attaching one as you said, or bounce it against a reflector like a white background to make it softer.</p>

<p>You bounce your light source against a white board which you can grab at any art supply store or purchase a relatively inexpensive reflector (i.e. Photoflex) at a camera store. You will need extra help or a C-Stand/Light Stand that can clamp the board.</p>

<p>I would adjust saturation during post so as not to distort the colour and then have a harder time bringing it back to normal.</p>

<p>If indoor shoot: how about more lights. It's easy to rent from a local camera store.</p>

<p>If outdoor: If you can't afford to rent a portable strobe, then a bounce board and good reflector will help as well.</p>

<p>Have no money to upgrade to the Pro version especially since Pantone is charging a heck of a lot on their site versus if you buy the complete Pro product package on retail outlets like Amazon which is discounted. If they give us existing Huey owners a price break in the future, perhaps it's time.</p>

<p>Anyway, yes please post if you do find something and if an expert in this area can chime in.</p>

<p>I have the original Huey and I honestly don't know myself how the brightness button on the keyboard affects or comes into play with Huey's calibration. I also have set this to the lowest setting as I find that this helps me see a more realistic print output.</p>

<p>On the other hand (and sadly for us original Huey owners), the Huey Pro addresses this brightness issue by adding another step in adjusting the display prior to the actual automatic calibration process by giving you a chance to set this right.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/pantone_huey_pro.html">Pantone Huey Pro</a></p>

<p>If you have the original Huey as I have and you found an article that explains how the brightness buttons affect the original calibration, kindly post here as well.</p>

<p>Finally, you do know that you can update to the "Pro" version directly via Pantone's website. It's a simple software upgrade that differentiates the Huey with the Huey Pro.</p>

<p>And surprisingly since this thread started back in 2007, Pantone still has not brought out a fix in 2009 despite acknowledging the issue as well as me pointing this thread to them.</p>

<p>Looks like they abandoned their own product.</p>

<p>It's always cheaper with external devices. We're talking about the features being built-in.</p>

<p>That's actually very neat. But I wish it were in a MacBook Pro designed laptop as well. IF the Huey and Wacom technology was incorporated in a Mac, how much would you think it would cost more above $4,699.00. Ouch.</p>

<p>EXIF data will not disclose that kind of info. Only way I know at this point is the receipt from which it was purchased from. The selling dealer should have a record as well. If it was purchased from another user as second-hand, then he/she may be able to help from getting info on where it was purchased from.</p>

<p>Lost a Leica camera, watch, laptop, etc when my home was burglarized two years ago. Wrote to the respective manufacturers with included police report. Nothing came of it. It's basically lost. Just have to move on at this point and hope Karma gets to them some day.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>There is nothing to regret with storing your data - photo, video, documents - on an external drive or any other drive that is separate from your operating system and software applications hard drive. Also I have to commend on considering mirroring a drive in order to further protect your files should one drive fail (not both at the same time).</p>

<p>Although hard drives via USB connection is obviously not faster than internal drives, and while RAID 1 does not increase performance write/read speed (as long as you get a hardware-based RAID), I would still choose mirroring over striping. Better if you can do both.</p>

<p>If you're concerned with PS slowing down when reading files from an external drive, you may notice it a little bit or not depending on how large a file you are working with:</p>

<p>USB 2.0 has a theoretical maximum transfer rate of 480 Megabits/second (also 60 Megabytes/s or rather 60 MB/s). So you can compute your file from there. If you have a 60 MB file, then it will give or take a second to completely read that file from your external hard drive to your computer and then a few split seconds to have it processed and interpretted by PS/CPU and eventually displayed onto your monitor for viewing. Anytime there are changes or file save, then that's how long it takes to write that same file back to your hard drive. If you're working with a smaller file, then it won't matter. If you decide to work on larger files then it will affect you more.</p>

<p>The same speed can be expected with a FireWire 400 (400 Megabits/second) connection. While a FireWire 800 (800 Megabits/second) connection will practically half the read/write speed. Finally an SATA/eSATA drive will supposedly perform at 3,000 Megabits/second.</p>

<p>BUT all of this won't matter because they are theoretical and based on buffer to host connection which means actual transfer speed will be determined by your hard drive's access speed to spin fast enough and eventually go thru all the platters. That's why those enterprise drives are also so expensive.</p>

<p>But no matter what drive you choose, you still have to back-up your RAW data to yet another medium like a CD/DVD (or off-site/on-line) for those just in case scenarios.</p>

<p>I'm interested. Hopefully this time I'll get lucky. Thanks for the offer.</p>

<p>I'm guessing that on any operating system (I'm using a Mac) as long as you have "admin" privileges you can right click on that file and change the read/write permissions as well as "unlock" the file from one of those options.</p>

<p>This title confused me as well. Nikon has been using CMOS for quite some time as well as CCD.</p>

<p>I handhold the camera+70-200 at events when I need to cover at various points, but it does get heavy pretty quick. Have you considered a monopod? This would be your best option.</p>