dakotah_jackson

I have run into one that has me stumped mainly because I don't own a TV or

similar item. Shot a family gathering and put the images on a DVD so they can be

viewed with photoshop or the microsoft players on a computer. Most of the folks

that want them don't do any kind of digital imaging and computers are a foreign

land.

 

How do I put these jpegs onto a DVD so they can play them on their television

set using a DVD player?

 

I have Photoshop 7 and work on images with it and print with an Epson 2400 or

4000 printer. Does Photoshop 7 have anything in it to do this? Is it somewhere

on my computer? (Windows XP) I have tried the help features in both Photoshop

and Windows but don't find anything, possibly because I don't even know what

terminology to use when trying to make a little TV viewable DVD for images.

 

Any help here would be appreciated. (I only hope it doesn't mean we have to buy

a TV do do this)

Came across an interesting auction for a 100 sheet box of Kodak Azo paper. The

boxes I have bought in the past for $80 are not being sold by these jokers for

$210 each. These people are the moral equivalent of folks who sell water to

earthquake victims, water the get from the Red Cross for free. Or the gas

profiteering types after Hurricane Katrina or similar.

 

Making a profit is one thing but this is akin to racketeering.

Now try the comparison at 80 or at 200mm and see how the macro fares.

 

This test is meaningless guy. A waste of time and effort. Compare it to another macro lens and get some knowledge we can use.

 

Or, compare it at half life size where the macro is designed to perform well.

 

These two lenses were designed to do different jobs.

The difference in performance in use and as advertised may surprise you. I have a nice 30D and the battery life is way more than I expected. Way more than the 10D was giving me. Carry two extra and a solar powered charger and you will be set. Carry three extra and you will be set for 20Megabytes of use at a minimum over that time. They aren't heavy and work well. Carry two or three extra 4 gig cards and you will be shooting until the zebras come home.

 

If you get the grip for the camera the battery life is much greater before having to change them. In his case you would carry two extras so you could change when they are low.

 

The 30D is good on battery use.

Have both and Epson 4000 and the newer 2400. Calumet is marketing a set of inks

under the Brilliant name. Per their guys they have a color gamut the same or a

touch better than Epson K3 inks used in the 2400 series. Per them the life of

the prints using these inks will be the same, if not better than those of the K3

inks.

 

The 4000 uses the older inks and not the current K3 set. Is it feasible to

replace the 4000 older inkset with this newer set and be free from clogs and

problems?

 

Anyone know if there is validity to the claims of inkset permanence and gamut as

stated by Calumet? Anyone using these newer inks instead of the K3 inks who can

tell us how they do look in use?

 

It sounds good and the price is a lot lower than the Epson inkset prices. In

some cases 50% or so lower.

 

Do they work as advertised and will the 4000 use them?

David, don't feel to bad. Sounds as if you weren't too timely on payment and are lucky Andrew even sent you the item rather than just returning your money.

 

If you want to come up to North Dakota and visit you will have a nice place for lunch as one of the local farm supply houses is having a special price on 'creep feeders'. You can chow down and then visit the local public library and read all the posts by those of us who have bought from Andrew and will definately buy again when in need of gear.

What is the difference in Rodinal and Rodinal 'special'?

If grain is the consideration why not use Tri-X. It is a finer grained film than the TMax film you are looking at.

For your supplies, go with Ilford. Kodak continues to cut B&W products and cannot be relied on in the future.

A small portable enlarger will work in a small area. Many are available and a number of 35mm enlargers are easily taken down and stowed in a small area. The Honeywell Nikor 6x7 is very good for this as well as some of the smaller Durst and even the cheap Vivitar enlargers. You might be surprised how small the package can be, including a few trays and supplies.

 

RC paper will work for the contact sheets you are contemplating. Having the small enlarger with a nice lens (one of the Rodenstock, Schneider/Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 types) will make it so much more enjoyable as you can enlarge a few frames when you want to.

 

With the RC paper you can easily dry them by hanging up, setting against the wall or leaning against something. They are rinsed quickly and dry easily this way.

 

With your developer you might try the following. Not the only way but one that works well and assures consistent working conditions. Get a syringe from the pharmacy/chemist and use a liquid developer such as Rodinal or one of the Ilford/other mixes. Measure the liquid with the syringe (needle not needed) and mix one batch at a time. Use one time and dump it. Don't use the developer twice as you are never sure of its activity after the first use and if you want clean and consistent results you will get them with one shot development.

 

The stop bath you can dump after use. Mix with the used developer to neutralize it and then dump it. The fixer can be reused. Keep track of the rolls of film that have gone through it and get rid of it before it hits its full rated capacity. You might check around to see if there is a silver recycler that will take it off your hands to reclaim the silver. You 'can' dump it but many locales don't like this as it can cause them problems. You can put it in a bucket and leave it outside to evaporate and then after a year or a few take the bucket to a 'hazardous waste' recycling place. Or you can get an inexpensive silver magnet system and reclaim the silver yourself and then dump out the used fizer.

 

A contact printing frame with heavy glass work well for your contact sheets. A spring back type used for contact printing 8x10-11x14 negatives works better. They are easy to find and will last a long time. Mine is in weekly use and has been around since made in 1935.

 

Take notes as to what works and what does not. Be consistent in your mixing, timing and work habits and you can get results as good as anyone possibly can.

An enlarger won't crash and suddenly lose all information. You will still have the negative to work with. Well processed prints on fibre papers last while all we have so far on digital is projected life testing and those keep coming up with more unforseen problems.

 

All in all using a real darkroom is much less expensive than the digital printing route.

http://www.michaelandpaula.com and look in the Azo section under Large Format gear for sale.

Choosing a film because it is cheaper over one you like better IS asinine. You like one film for specific reasons. If you are charging enough you use the film that works best rather than saving a few pennies. It is not 'good business sense' to use film that is your second or third choice when the first choice is readily available.

 

You choose and use the best materials available and take one more variable out of the many problems that can crop up.

 

You are shooting yourself in the foot on this one.

In doing groups of 50 and more people do they tend to look better, or do you get

more cooperation, with the group layed out horizontal or stacked and more 8x10

format? The horizontal I mean is the old panoramic format style, 7x17, 8x20 or 5

inches by 3 feet type of long and narrow photos. Or do you find they are better

if you can keep the people closer together and layer them in rows, with or

without the use of risers or bleachers?

 

Does either way make it easier to manage the people as you set it up and finally

take the photos?

You can see the sun in all that smog?

As others have posted, it is not the norm. If you are getting it or know folks who are take a look at the lenses they use to see what the image circle is. Even a lens with adequate reserve in covering the format will have problems with photographers who insist on using a lot of rise/fall or shift and movement. Some seem to want to justify the LF camera by using movements when they aren't called for.

 

Check out Steve Simmons View Camera Magazine and you can find some good information on the lens coverage/film format questions.

Have bought from him and given the same items from Andrew and others I would give Andrew the dollars every time. His creative writing alone is worth the ebay time.

 

I will chime in here in support of the others. Give details as to why you call him this or stuff it back down your pie hole.

Attached is an image that shows a problem with exposure that shows up from time

to time. Camera is a 30D. Lenses vary. This exposure differential does not

happen often but every few hundred to a thousand or so exposures I get one like

this.

 

The frames before and after are fine.

 

Any idea what the cause may be?

 

While we are at it I get different exposures from frame to frame every now and

then. Same framing but in a burst of 3 or more I will get varied exposure with

basically the same framing... just action in the area as the reason for the

burst shooting. The placement of the light and dark doesn't change, just the

exposure in the image. I do not have the camera set for any kind of exposure

bracketing. Would be dumb to shoot action and try to bracket it. Just odd and

frustrating to have to work on some images because of over or underexposure when

they all should be done as I want without the camera changing it. Any ideas or

help here would be appreciated as well.<div></div>

Thanks for the responses on this. Am not too good on downloading demo programs with our slow internet hookup. Downloads generally go about 2kbps (that's right, TWO) so it takes all night to download stuff and often the computer disconnects and you have to re-start a few times before getting it done. After a few nights of getting up in the morning and finding the computer didn't get the downloading finished it gets frustrating.

 

Keep hearing so many things about Bibble as well as Breezebrowser that I wondered if they were 'better' or more capable than the normal Canon program I already have. Add in that the previews in the Canon program are not sharp much of the time and initial edits just get to be difficult as I have to enlarge each one and wait for it to sharpen up before deciding on whether to delete it or not. Takes a lot of time doing this.

 

Anyone know of a way to get the initial thumbnail views nice and sharp on screen? Would help in my editing and save a ton of time which is what I was contemplating by getting one of the other programs.

I normally use the included Canon Digital Photo Professional program for my

editing and basic RAW conversion. I also use the zoom browser for faster editing

as it shows the thumbnails sharply while DPP is often soft or blurry.

Would I possibly be better off by going to Breezebrowser Pro or Bibble Pro for

the RAW conversions, quick editing and most pre-photoshop work?

 

Is one faster than the other and is one actually 'better' overall?

The big Metz 60 series becomes economical as it will outlast the shoe mounted flash units by quite a bit. A ton of power and a good handle to hold onto when working.

A tip from the alt process photo set. Try coating the glass with albumen. It should hold the ink. When making wet plate negatives using albumen around the edges before coating the plates keeps the edges of the albumen emulsion from frilling and lifting during and after processing. Might be a good substrate adhering to the glass plates to accept the inks.

Buy a manual camera and wind the film by hand yourself. You would be better off though in using the normal 36 frames and quitting there. Once you wind past it and get that 37th or 38th frame and then discover you have only half or so of the image on that one because you tried to push it just a bit too far... and it was the ONE frame of something that is the best photo you have ever seen or taken in your life... you will learn your lesson on pushing things too far.

 

Many of us have tried pushing it in the past and gladly accepted the extra one or two frames we could squeeze out of our Kodachrome rolls. Then we had the above experience of losing a winner because of our penny pinching ways. Don't plan on more frames unless you roll your own film loads and not even then unless you do it in total darkness or you will find the opening of the bulk loader has fogged the first or last few frames due to the light hitting film when you were taping it to the take up spool/

There are no pros and cons to either. It is all a plot by Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney to distract you in the lifelong hunt for the perfect Bagel.

Bainbridge Alpharag Artcare board, or the Artcare (not rag) boards is all you need to know.

They are the finest made and the microchammber trapping system will help protect your images from atmospheric pollutants as well as outgassing from the artwork itself as well as wood frames.(if you use them)

 

One other very nice option is RISING Museum board. Nice and clean and has the benefit of "Ansel Adams used it", if that helps you in the choice of materials.

 

I would choose one to three and get a couple of 32x40 sheets of each make and cut mats of each to see how easily they work for you. Some are harder to cut, tend to be rough in use or whatnot. By getting a sheet or two of each and actually cutting each you will find which work best with your skills. Then cut a window mat and dry mount a print to each to see which fits your working methods. No need to try more than three and definately don't go for cut rate priced boards. That is sure loser. Find one of these three that feels good to you, looks good to you and use it. Then you can concentrate all your energies on creative photography and not have to worry about supplies at all as you will know what you are using.

 

If you go to http://www.michaelandpaula.com you can read Michael A. Smiths article on Bainbridge Alphamat board. It is a good read and is informative. It may help you in the decision making process.

I shoot a lot of photos at some events or areas and then download to the

computer. I then put them up using Canon Zoom Browser EX for a first quick edit.

I use the Zoom Browser program instead of the Digital Photo Professional (the

one I would prefer so I can make some changes/tweaks immediately at times to the

RAW files) because the preview images with Digital Photo Professional are not

sharp when viewing. The screen shows them and some are sharp but most are a bit

blurred. Makes it tough to choose those that are actually unsharp when doing the

preview edits. When displayed in the Zoom Browser EX they are all displayed

sharply, no blurred previews.(unless the image is actually blurred/unsharp.. and

this helps me in the first edits)

 

Is there a way to get the Digital Photo Professional program to display the

groups of images sharply so I can only rely on the one program rather than

having to do the viewing more than once?

 

In addition, is there a way to view the enlarged photos in Digital Photo

Professional and scroll back and forth for edits/sharpness checking/DELETE as

there is in the Zoom Browser EX? I have not found a way yet. With the lower end

program I can check the photos a bit bigger and then move to the next one or,

when I delete one, the program automatically goes to the next one. With Digital

Photo Professional the program goes back to the thumbnail display page when I

delete an image or I go out of the enlarged display. Sure would be nice to be

able to edit the larger ones, especially in checking for fine focus and

sharpness, without having to constantly go back and forth from thumbnails to

enlarged views. It may be there and I have missed it, can't find it in the help

sections or directions. Any help here is appreciated.