nick herbert

<p>Thanks to everyone for the comments so far.<br>

Can I just make it clear at this stage that I DO NOT have the option of purchasing any more lenses at the moment. I admit that the 16-85mm or the 18-200mm would be ideal for this kind of vacation. However, I have to make the best out of what I've got for now.</p>

<p>I will shortly be spending a week long vacation in London, touring the city, sightseeing etc. I will have my trusty D200 around my neck everywhere I go, and I expect to come home with a couple of hundred images containing a range of subjects - architecture, travel, street etc. So I reckon I'll need to have a general purpose 'walkabout' lens bolted to the camera 99% of the time. However, I recently had a 'clearout' with regards to my lens collection which resulted in me no longer owning a mid-range zoom. My kit now consists of a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 35mm f1.8G, and a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8. I found this to be a good combination as I normally shoot landscapes, sports, and snapshots of my daughter, and I have a specific lens to suit each subject. No need to change lenses.<br>

So, during my trip to London, I plan to have the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 bolted to the camera 99% of the time. I will have the 35mm f1.8 in my bag just in case (in case of what - I don't know). I'm concerned about the 'limitations' of the Tokina with regards to the ultra-wide angle and limited zoom range/reach. The last thing I want to have to do is to mess about changing lenses from one shot to another.<br>

Has anyone had any experience of using this type of lens as a 'walkaround' lens for travel/city break/street photography? What difficulties or limitations did you experience?</p>

<p>I have several full size jpeg images from a recent equestrian event. I want to e-mail the images to one of the participants so she can study her technique. The files are currently full size - approx 6mb each, 3898 x 2613 pixel dimensions, 300 ppi.<br>

I want to e-mail the images to this person but I dont want them to take forever to upload/download and more importantly I dont want there to be any compromise in quality when this person opens/views the images on her screen.<br>

I have PSCS2 and have been experimenting with the 'Save for web' thing. What's the best way to do this? Do I re-size (reduce) the pixel dimensions? If so, what to? Does this mean that the image will be quite small on her screen? Do I decrease the jpeg quality? If so, will the quality of the image be poor on her screen? What's the most optimum file size - is it 300kb, 500kb, 800kb?<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I've slowly built up a decent little portfolio of my images over the last few years. They are all really good quality prints, mostly 9"x6", various subject categories such as Landscape, Architecture, Street, Sports/Action, Portraits etc. My problem is - what do I do with all these prints? At the moment they are stored in a large box under the bed - what's the point in that!? So I'm looking for some ideas with regards to 'displaying' my prints so I can show them to freinds/family when they come round. I can't seem to find the right kind of photo album that suits 9"x6" prints. What do other people use?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm going to put my D70 on a certain internet auction site shortly, but I just know I will be asked the question of how many shutter actuations has it done. I use Photoshop CS2. Where/how do I find this info?</p>

 

<p >Alex,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The following discussions may be of some interest to you:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >http//www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TYGG</p>

<p >http//www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TMK6</p>

<p>Kris, <br>

Nice shot of the Robin but to me that looks a little soft. What focal length were you at? Do you have any more samples at f2.8 you could post?<br>

Does anyone else think the Robin is soft?</p>

<p>I have a D200 and am looking to soon buy a fast telezoom. I cannot afford the Nikon 70-200mm f'2.8 VR, so I am looking at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM after reading several reviews. Does anyone have any experience of using this newer version of the Sigma on a Nikon body - D200 in particular? Is it soft at f2.8 like all the reviews mention? Is it tack-sharp at f4?</p>

 

<ol>

<li>John,</li>

</ol>

<p>Since my last comment I have taken a few shots in RAW to compare to the Jpegs. To me it seems that the RAW images (opened in Rawshooter Essentials) are naturally sharper than the Jpegs (Large, Fine) that I open and view in Photoshop CS2. Up until now I mainly shoot Jpegs. Have I opened up a can of worms here?</p>

 

<p >Lex,</p>

<p >Yes – I resolved the earlier issue regarding camera shake/shutter speed. I must agree with you, the thread did seem to be getting further and further away from the original point. Since that thread (and my issues with the lens) I have been frantically testing the lens in various situations. </p>

<p >I have concluded that there is nothing wrong with the lens with regards to focusing. There are no front or back focus issues. There is nothing wrong with my technique.</p>

<p >I think my problem is that the images it produces straight from the camera are simply just not sharp enough, especially bearing in mind how much it cost me.I have obtained images just as sharp from an 18-70mm and an 18-200mm. </p>

<p >I’ve recently sold a 50mm f1.8 because I found the focal length was too limiting. I replaced that with a 35mm f1.8 which I have found to be an amazing lens. But I still need the convenience of a mid-range zoom.</p>

<p >So, I’m thinking it might be a good idea to now sell this 17-55mm and buy a cheaper alternative which is just as sharp, and hopefully have a couple of hundred quid left over. What I want to know is – what are the alternatives?</p>

I'm looking for a sharper alternative to my current 17-55mm f'2.8.

What experiences and recommendations do people have with regards to the sharpness of the various alternatives

available?

Is there a sharper alternative at all?

<p>Thanks for the advice so far. However, I'm not too concerned about the difference in stops between the two lenses, or the focal lengths, or the depth of field etc. I am really only interested in the image quality - the sharpness in particular, when comparing these two lenses.</p>

<p>I'm looking to buy a general purpose, decent quality prime lens to fix permanently onto my D70. My ideal focal length is either 28mm or 35mm. My main criteria is image quality - sharpness in particular. I have narrowed my choice down to the 28mm f2.8D or the 35mm 1.8G. As far as focal length, price and speed are concerned, the two are very similar. Does anyone have any experience with regards to the image quality of either or both of these two lenses.</p>

 

<p >Jason,</p>

<p >There is hope: </p>

<p >After my last post I went away to experiment. I was determined to get to the bottom of this and I refuse to accept the fact that this ‘pro-quality’ lens that I had wanted for so long (and had paid so much for) was letting me down for some reason. Just like yourself, if I took a hundred shots and only 50 came out sharp – that’s not good enough. Especially when I know that if I took the same shots with my 18-70mm then I would get a much better success rate.</p>

<p >Anyway, I took a large number of shots of several different subjects, under various lighting conditions (both indoor & outdoor), using various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds, and at different focal lengths.</p>

<p >The results were as follows:</p>

<p >The sharpest aperture I found was between f5.6 – f8 (no real surprise there)</p>

<p >I could not seem to get a handheld, sharp image at speeds of less than 1/100.</p>

<p >At speeds of between 1/100 and 1/250, 50% of the shots were blurred, 50% sharp.</p>

<p >At speeds of 1/500 and above, the results were consistently sharp. In fact, I took several shots of my girlfriend outside at f5.6 at 1/500, and every single one came out extremely sharp. I couldn’t get a blurred/out of focus image if I tried!</p>

<p >At no point did I encounter any ‘out of focus’ problems.</p>

<p >My conclusion (for what it’s worth) is this:</p>

<p >I believe that the problems I have been experiencing are purely down to camera shake during the exposure. The reason why I seem to have this problem with the 17-55mm on my D200 rather than any other lens, can only be down to the size/weight of the camera/lens combination, and my ability to ‘steady’ it when I pressing the shutter. </p>

<p >I am now happy after seeing that this lens is capable of producing consistent, sharp images if used correctly. I guess practice makes perfect. As a result, I will not be selling it on e-bay after all.</p>

<p>Edward,<br>

Thankyou for your comments. I am fully aware that with the current 'uncalibrated' monitor I have, I will struggle to match any print to any image onscreen.<br>

What I was trying to establish is whether or not I now have an understanding of the 'theory' of how your workflow/equipment should be correctly set-up.</p>

 

<p>Bela,<br>

Highly recommended, to read the forum posts correctly to learn exactly who has said what.<br>

Jason, I shall try some shots with a tripod to see if it makes a difference. I will also try some similar shots using the lens on my D70 to see if that makes a difference. I'll let you know the outcome of both experiments.<br>

Because I have also obtained seriously sharp images with this lens, I still believe the blur has to be caused by shutter speed/camera shake.</p>

 

<p>Matt,<br>

The camera is always set to 'Focus Priority'. I never change this.</p>

 

<p >Right - I'm just about getting this now.</p>

<p >Unfortunately due to my current financial situation, I do not have the option of buying any new equipment, be it a monitor or calibration software. I have to make the best out of what I've got for the moment.</p>

<p >So, I send the image to the lab (with their profile assigned) and a few days later I get the print back. Now, if I open the exact file in Photoshop CS2 then soft-proof it to the lab’s profile, I should now (in theory) see an image onscreen that is similar to the print I have in my hand. The bigger the difference – the more ‘un-calibrated’ my monitor/screen is. Anyone disagree with this part?</p>

<p >So then I have a whole bunch of images of my daughter’s birthday party printed. My family come round one afternoon and I decide to show them all the prints, which look fine because there is nothing to compare them with. Then I decide to show them the exact same images on a slideshow on the laptop. Surely it will seem like we are looking at two totally different sets of pictures. The prints will look nothing like the ones on screen. Anyone disagree with this part?</p>

<p >So, what I can’t seem to get my head around is the fact that you can’t edit the image(s) using the print lab’s profile to be able to see exactly what you are going to get as you are making the adjustments. And, you would have to save two versions of each image – one for viewing on the monitor, and one for sending to the print lab. The ones sent to the print lab will obviously be unsuitable for showing (say as a slideshow) on the monitor because the colours and tones will be way too strong. Anyone disagree with this part?</p>

<p>Jason, thank goodness I am not alone. I fully understand your frustration.<br>

I took over a hundred shots of my daughter on her 4th birthday the other day. She was dressed up like a princess when I took some full length portrait shots (indoor, ISO200, f4 with flash). Not one of them turned out in perfect focus. I was gutted - I may get away with them printed at 6x4. No chance of any larger. (The shutter speed was 1/60th - but she was stationary/posing for the camera).<br>

We then went outside where I took plenty of shots of her on her new bike (f5.6, ISO200). Again, every one of them blurred. (Shutter speeds ranged from 1/80th to 1/100th).<br>

Since reading the responses in this thread, I've since taken some test shots to see if it was in fact possible for me to be 'nudging' the focus ring as I press the shutter. Impossible. My hand is no-where near - its actually gripping/supporting the lens hood which I find is the most comfortable and 'sturdy' place to steady my aim.<br>

The only thing I can put it down to is camera shake. Maybe my grip with this particular lens is not that sturdy after all. I have never seemed to have this problem with any other lenses.<br>

I'm going to try some more shots but bump the ISO up to see if the faster shutter speeds make any difference. I hope to god they do - this thing cost me a fortune!</p>

<p>I actually sent the prints to the lab in sRGB.<br>

So, let me get this right. If I convert the image on screen to a different profile, then nothing will happen to the image displayed. Is that correct?<br>

When I soft-proof the image to the lab's profile, I should see what the image will look like when printed at the lab (provided that my monitor is calibrated correctly). Is that correct?<br>

So, in order to work on/edit the image and see what it will look like when printed, why can't I use the lab's profile as my working space. Then I wouldn't have to mess about soft-proofing. Right?</p>

 

<p>Every now and then I will take several shots using my D200 and 17-55mm f/2.8 which all turn out to be 'out of focus'. There just doesn't seem to be anywhere in the image that is in focus. I originally thought there was a problem with the lens/camera. However, I have had plenty of ultra-sharp images from this lens. The only explanation I can come up with would be blur from camera/lens shake due to the lens being very heavy. I don't seem to have this problem with any of my other lenses.<br>

Does anyone else have experience of this problem with this lens?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Until recently I have always had my digital images process printed at Jessops. The resulting

prints have generally been 'acceptable', although still very different from the image shown on my monitor

at home. There have been quite a few prints that have been totally unusable and I've

had to 're-print' them on my Canon inkjet just to get a half-decent print to be able to use. So I thought I'd try

elsewhere and see if I could actually get a print that resembled the image that I could see on my monitor.</p>

<

p>After reading several reviews, I decided to send some images (the exact same files I had done at Jessops)&

nbsp;to DS Colour Labs. The prints cames back a few days later for me to compare with the ones from Jessops. T

o my disappointment, these prints were even more inaccurate. They seemed to be so dark and flat. So, I e-mailed D

S Colourlabs to see if they could help. They advised me to start off by downloading their own colour profile (specific t

o their printers). Then, to convert the image(s) to their profile before sending them off. (I'm using Photoshop CS2 by t

he way) So I then asked the question "at exactly what stage do I convert the image to their profile?". I was advised t

o convert & edit the image in their profile so I would be able to see what the print would look like. H

owever, when I opened the original image (in Adobe RGB 1998) and then converted it to the DS Colour Labs p

rofile - nothing happened. I was expecting the new image on screen to change dramatically and look something like o

ne of the prints. Now I feel like I've come to a dead-end and don't know what to do.</p>

<

p>I am using a Sony Viao laptop (which doesn't help I suppose because the screen is so bright and contrasty). I've t

ried to adjust the display to match one of the prints but can't get anywhere near. I don't have the option of buying a

ny colour calibration software.</p>

<

p>Can anyone give me any advice please?</p>

<

p>Has anyone any experience of using Photoshop and processing images on a Sony Vaio?</p>

<

p> </p>

<

p> </p>?

Hi.

I have a D200 and am looking to buy a wireless/infra-red remote control (the

actual Nikon one and not a cheapo alternative).

What exactly do I need? What's the model number?