keith_b1

<p>Look for folder after following this path: iMac HD, users, you, pictures; look there.<br> The thing is, hardly anyone lets Lightroom put files there. Most users have a specific location ---often on an external drive---and instruct LR to put them there during the import process.</p>

<p>To echo Ellis, your conversions look fine. Don't forget to play with the color sliders as well as the various exposure sliders.</p>

<p>1. Park car in shade if possible<br> 2. Insulate the important items with blankets, clothing, etc.<br> 3. Be aware of shady types watching you while you are placing or removing items in/from storage location.</p>

<p>It has a PASM dial where the shutter speed dial should be. Pass.</p>

<p>Canon printers use heat at the nozzle to expel ink; Epson uses piezo electric 'buzzers'.<br> The Epson 3800 service manual is available online as a PDF; it is similar, if not identical to the 3880.</p>

<p>It's probably a really good lens.<br> I already have good 35/2, 28/2, 21/2.8 lenses, and 24mm never did anything for me.<br> Also, it is likely---though not known with certainty--- that the primes I have produce less distortion and more detail across the frame than the new zoom does. And I hate distortion.<br> I suspect that this will be one of Sigma's slower selling items.</p>

<p>I have one. I got it for $100, and I was able to re-lube the focusing helicoid myself(fairly simple construction). I recommend it if you can get for a low price like me.<br /> I've never done systematic, thorough aperture series sharpness testing. Mostly I take it out every once in a while for the odd handheld shots in bright daylight.<br /> My copy, at f/4, is a bit low contrast. Improves at f/5.6, more at f/8. Mostly I've shot at f/8.<br /> Recently, I shot an urban alleyway scene at f/11...wow! It had the full detail of a modern design lens on the D800. <br /> Focusing at f/4 is, as you can imagine, is a bit vague or indistinct compared to an f/2 or f/1.4 lens.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Rather than attempt to disassemble the lens, look through the finder at f/16, and edge your finger or other object into the edge of the field of view in order to confirm that it is the bezel that you're seeing. The answers that you got on the other forum that this same question was posted on suffice to explain what is needed to turn the ring.</p>

<p>With live view + imag, checking focus accuracy easy. Re-label or make your own marks on the scale.<br> FYI: If you haven't already noticed, the scale markings on many SLR lenses are often only roughly accurate.</p>

<p>This link will show you what is IMO the most recent, and conclusive, evidence that the "light pipe" sliced fiber optic based modern screens in Nikons create an optical limit of about f/2.8 in terms of how it processes the aerial image from the lens into the appearance of the illusion of depth of field. No supernatural here.<br> http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=539.0</p>

<p>Do not discount the enthusiasm that Fujifilm camera users have for the traditional controls featured on many of the X cameras. The shutter speed dial, f stop ring, etc did not need to be replaced, and the various wheels and other controls that replaced them were not superior in any way.</p>

<p>Do not discount the enthusiasm that Fujifilm camera users have for the traditional controls featured on many of the X cameras. The shutter speed dial, f stop ring, etc did not need to be replaced, and the various wheels and other controls that replaced them were not superior in any way.</p>

<p>Get the fastest processor, the highest level(i7) quad core that you can.<br> I went from a MBP 2009, core-2 duo, 2.8GHz, 8GB unit to a MBP 2012, i7 quad-core, 2.7GHz, 16GB unit. Lightroom....especially those D800 files...sped up enormously.<br> 500GB internal drive is fine for me, as I have all raw files on external drives.<br> By the way, those 74MB files could be losslessly compressed, in the camera, down to about 45MB if file size is an issue, but compressing won't speed anything up on the Lightroom end.</p>

<p>Besides the little flip out guide, don't hesitate to place a hand on the paper when it is sucked into the printer. That's when the misalignment happens.<br> I've had to do this for the rear feeder more than the middle, "auto" feeder.</p>

<p>The 28/2.8 Ais is known to have sample variation. If you've got a good one, the next step is to rent a D810(or D800/E) and run your own tests. That's the only way you can know if the camera and lens will deliver what you need.<br> I have a 28/2.8 Ais(and D800/E) currently, also a Zeiss ZF 28/2. I'd pick my Zeiss for higher resolution any day over my copy of the Nikon 28, except maybe in the extreme close up range where the Nikon is pretty good.. </p>

<p>The flicker is a non-issue for the vast majority of people. There are a few who claim to see flicker where 99% of folks don't. If you happened to be one of those---unlikely, since you would already have had issues with current monitors----then it'd be good idea to have an easy way to return the purchase.</p>

<p>Google "French Flag"</p>

<p>Haven't used the setup you propose, but the idea of the Zeiss 50 sound like a good choice of lens. I tried the ES-1 with my Nikon cams and lenses, and it's rickety little device with which I found it difficult to focus, and too easy to copy the slide rotated or lose focus during handling. I strongly prefer a dedicated lens on a bellows.</p>

<p>If the camera neutral isn't flat/lowcon enough, I suggest creating your own user-generated preset; take a typical shot that you'll want to have the flat look , adjust the exposure, contrast, etc until it's got the look you want, then create and name this new preset. Then you can just click this user preset on previously imported files, and in the future you can use the "import with preset" function to apply your user-created preset as the images are imported. You may, over time, build up a collection of user presets that are all subtly [or radically] different from each other</p>

<p>"Optically I t's an overhyped (by Ken Rockwell) PoS compared to modern lenses. Forty years ago? Great lens. today, not even close. Bad coma, and chromatic aberration."<br> Apparently, the sample variation on this lens is pronounced. Who knows how many you'd have to go through to get a "good" one.<br> I think my copy is somewhere between the extremes; it's blurry on the sides until about f/5.6.</p>

<p>I have not had this issue, but I have read anecdotes where there can be a leak in the printing mechanism below the cartridge, and the printer cannot account for the lost ink since it doesn't know there is a leak. </p>

<p>The 135/2.8 Q.C is better...the "C" means multi-coated to improve color/reduce flare.</p>

<p>Keep the D3...it's worth very little money now anyway. New shutter might only be US$400-500 or so.<br> I had two D3's for 4,5 years, then got a D800E and D800. I miss the D3 bodies, the D800's are junky and fragile by comparison. D810 at least promises improvements like quiet shutter and better finder optics(finder not very good on D800....a constant annoyance.)</p>

<p>I love my Fujifilm XE1 for it's quietness, size and, therefore, portability. Picture quality is damn good as well.<br> But until they fix the time-delayed, too-dark-for-bright-daylight viewfinder, and general slow responsiveness, I'm giving no thought to dumping the 24x36 Nikon stuff.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The Zeiss 18/3.5 Distagon is another choice at 18mm. It's a notch smaller--shorter, really--- than the Zeiss 21mm, and has the same overall snappy color and ultra performance at the center. The edges of the 24x36 frame are another matter; sometimes you can get it acceptably sharp all the way across, other times it's a bit funky at the sides, sharpness-wise. Must have to do with curvature of field. I'm still experimenting.<br> Technically, my Nikon 14-24 is the better lens, test chart-wise.</p>