dallalb

<p>Thank you, Jim. Before blending the exposures in Photomatix I opened the scanned files in Photoshop, putting them in the same image file on different layers: then I aligned the layers manually, playing with layers opacity and blending modes. I finally save each aligned layer as a new image and process this images in Photomatix, to be sure that they are already aligned (the automatic aligning process is very time consuming)...</p>

<p>Hi Patrick, I am a film shooter and tried the HDR approach from different exposures of scanned film and then processed with the new blending exposures features of Photomatix 3.1... I got this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8312751&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8312751&size=lg</a> (2 exposure blending). When I shot slides, because of their narrow dynamic range I take two exposures and process them with the same technique, getting this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8448774&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8448774&size=lg</a>. Otherwise I take full advantage of the wide dynamic range of some color negative films and with a single exposure I can get this: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8651494&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8651494&size=lg</a>.<br>

I hope this helps, also if I don't shot digital...<br>

Regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>Thank you Neal. I still shot film with a Canon EOS 3 camera and scan it with a Nikon Super CoolScan 5000 ED...</p>

<p>I'd like to know which is the most convenient way to produce a good digital B&W image starting from scanned film. Is a true B&W negative film, with its wide latitude, smooth tonal transition, low contrast the best choice or a color negative film with its support to ICE technology, its color information and the ability of apply digital filters in post processing to affect the final B&W image? I did not mention color slides because of their narrow latitude, but maybe I'm wrong...</p>

<p>I own and use this combo and it works very fine.<br>

Regards, Alberto</p>

<p>I own a Canon EOS 3 and a 70-200 mm f4 L (non IS) lens and this is a very fine combo. Honestly I don't understand why you give so much importance to the possibility of using MLU handholding the camera... You loose the control of the viewfinder and I don't think this technique would improve the quality of your shots... In this case a good tripod + MLU would give you more freedom and outstanding results.<br>

Regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>I own and still use a Canon EOS 3 camera: it's a wonderful piece of equipment. It's a high precision instrument with all the "pro" features required by a skilled photographer. It differs from digital SRL cameras because it records the image on a film medium, not a sensor, but it gives you all the controls you may find on a modern DSRL... If you want some examples, look at my portfolio: the 95% of the shots was taken with EOS 3.<br>

Alberto.</p>

<p>...Check your scanned file in Photoshop (under menu "Image Size")... You should notice that unless the image kept the original 4x5 size, it should be at 4000 ppi or more... Just decrease the ppi at 300 (for example) and you should notice the image size increases! If you try to print the original file, the printer cannot handle the 4000 ppi resolution, so it interpolates it with a great loss of quality.<br>

I hope this is a possible explanation to your problem.<br>

Regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for your quick answers!<br>

Kind regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>I recently refreshed the frame of my photos creating a realistic-look frame, so I applied this new frame to my photos (which are not changed) and I wanted to substitute the new framed photo in my portfolio. I opened each photo and in the photo admin menu I chose "Edit Image Info" in order to upload the new framed image: no error message from the server at this point. But, if I open my full portfolio page I cannot see the changes in the photo thumbnails (with only one exception) and several photos have the old look and are distorted...<br>

What's happened? What did I do wrong?<br>

Thank you for your help and I'm sorry if I did something wrong.<br>

Kind regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>Thank you Steve. You can find more info here:<br>

<a href="http://handbook.outbackphoto.com/section_hdr_and_tonemapping/index.html">http://handbook.outbackphoto.com/section_hdr_and_tonemapping/index.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/index.html">http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/index.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm">http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.imagingluminary.com/">http://www.imagingluminary.com/</a><br>

But "try and error" is the best practice! No special techniques required during capturing in camera: just meter and expose right! I scan with Nikon SCS 5000 ED and with Nikon's software (I've tried Vuescan, too, but it's more complicated and I finally got comparable results....) leaving only digital ice on (normal setting) and everything else off: I take care only clipping by looking at the histogram and eventually play with Analog Gain. I scan at 4000 dpi, 16 bit tiff file, AdobeRGB color space, 8 pass multi sampling. Then I do all the editing step in Photoshop 16 bit.<br>

Here you can find a priceless source of information:<br>

<a href="http://www.zuberphotographics.com/content/general/site-index-main.htm">http://www.zuberphotographics.com/content/general/site-index-main.htm</a><br>

Alberto.</p>

<p>Hi Steve, I did some experiments with Photomatix and scanned film. Of course you cannot get a true 32 bit HDR image, since this is possible only with RAW files, but you can take full advantage of the Photomatix blending exposure features, which allow you to get more natural results, simulating the dinamic range that you could get with GND filters...<br>

You need to take multiple exposures of the same scene from your camera, mounted on a tripod, then, after scanning them, I suggest you to align the shots manually in Photoshop, before processing them with Photomatix, since this is the most time consuming and critical step to get good results. You will need a lot of RAM memory to blend scanned frames with Photomatix...<br>

Depending on the scene you are photographing, you will need 2 or 3 exposures to cover the entire dinamic range (it dipends of course to the latitude of your film)... I don't suggest you to get the 2 or 3 exposures by scanning the same frame with different exposures settings.<br>

In my portifolio I have some examples of photo obtained with this technique: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8312751&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8312751&size=lg</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8448774&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8448774&size=lg</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8483651&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8483651&size=lg</a>. When you shot at moving objects the difficulties increase since Photomatix will create artifacts around them and you need to correct them manually, as I did in the shots I linked before with the cars lights and reflections.<br>

Regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>Hi, I've read too much about NDG filters and filters holder that now I'm a bit confused.<br>

I know that Cokin produces a patented system to hold several square or rectangular filters in front of the lens. There are different sizes of filters holders to suit different diameters of lenses. One common problem is vignetting with wide angle lenses.<br>

My case is border line: I own a Sigma 24-70 mm which requires filters with diameter 82 mm. The "P" series of Cokin filters holder is recommended until 82 mm. If I mount a "P" filters holder on my Sigma 24-70 mm and shot at 24 mm wide, should I expect vignetting? Does anyone has experience with this?<br>

Thank you, Alberto.</p>

<p>Does anyone have experience with this monitor? It's a 22" e-SPS panel but it has a resolution of 1680x1050, so it's not 1:1 scaling... What about this monitor for photo editing usage?<br>

Thank you, Alberto.</p>

<p>Try this: "Photoshop Blending Modes Cookbook for Digital Photographers" by John Beardsworth... Very inspiring book on blending modes in general!<br>

Regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>Don't worry, Dan, I don't want to put in your mounth words that you don't agree! I saw your photos and I consider you a good photographer. I believe in your opinions and I understood what you mean. Thank you for your suggestions.</p>

<p>Dan and Marc, thank you both for your suggestion. Now I understand why you both coupled the 24-105 with a 17-40... Beyond the wider angle of view you prefer the optical quality of the 17-40 to the 24-105 at lower end :-)<br>

The 24-105 is maybe the best "compromise" and allows you more photographic possibilities but you admitted that the 24-70 delivers overall superior IQ, also if in many cases the results are quite similar and differences hardly visible.</p>

<p>Thank you Dan. I still shot film with a "full frame" :-) SRL camera (EOS 3). My lenses are: Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX Macro and Canon 70-200 mm F4 L. 24 mm is wide enough for my purposes, but I'm thinking to replace the Sigma with one of the two mentioned lenses. The Sigma is a "honest" lens: with a good ratio quality/price. I like its f2.8 and its overall quality. I don't like its autofocus (not performing as USM) and its distortion at both ends. This is why I'm so fixed about IQ. When I shoot landscapes I often use a tripod. The IS feature would be welcome for handheld, since I don't have the possibility to "rotate" the ISO knob as with digital camera... I was thinking to complete my lens set adding a Canon 100 f2 or 100 f2.8 macro lens for portraits.<br>

Dan, what do you think now that you know more about my gear? Take a look at my portfolio to see more about my photos...</p>

<p>Thank you all for your precious suggestions! I did not guess that many people own both these lenses (so curious :-)! So, if IQ is very similar and distortion and corner performances are not so visible, I think that the 24-105 is a clear winner for my photography (landscapes and portraits). I agree that the lack of a large aperture can be easily compensated by a fast prime. What really scared me were some landscape shots taken with 24-105 @ 24 mm with a horrible horizon distortion! I think it's hard to accept that distortion in a 1000 $ lens...</p>

<p>Hi Mark, unfortunately I cannot effort both lenses! From your words I understood that you do a different use of these lenses: the one with IS for walkabout use and the other with greater aperture for low light shots and moving subjects... But in general which one do you prefer for fine landscape and portrait photography?</p>

<p>Dan, from many reviews and users opinions I've read so far there are differences between the two lenses beyond the maximum aperture (f2.8 or f4), IS feature or physical dimensions and weight. For examples there are differences in performance at wide end, in terms of distortion, vignetting, center and corner sharpness... I don't mind lenses targets: I'd like to look at true photos taken on the field, which show how these differences affect the global image quality.</p>

<p>I've read many posts about these two lenses: they are quite similar and quite different. Beyond the classical lens tests and charts, it would be useful to compare the results on the field... I kindly ask you to post some images taken with these two lenses, maybe better at wider (24 mm) and closer (70 and 105 mm) ends, so that everyone can draw his own conclusions. In particular the photos should show pros or cons aspects of these lenses.<br>

Thank you, Alberto.</p>

<p>Every photographer knows that there are two main tasks to perform when taking a photo: setting the exposure and setting the focus (and composing). I'd like to know how do you perform these tasks with your EOS pro or semi-pro camera for both static and dynamic subjects. And I'd like to know how do you customise your camera commands to best fit your needs.<br>

For example, when taking a shot, what is your sequence of task? What exposure mode do you often use (Av, Tv, M, P, Bulb)? What light metering mode do you rely on? What type of autofocus do you use (for static and dynamic subjects)?<br>

I know the answer may vary with the subject and the type of your photography, but I think can be interesting collecting everyone experience.<br>

Alberto.</p>

<p>Hi, I just bought a Manfrotto/Bogen 055XPROB tripod equipped with a 488RC4 ball head and I love this combo. I preferred the 488 to the 486 because its weight-bearing rating (8 kg towards 6 kg) and I preferred the RC4 to RC2 plate because the larger contact surface with the camera and the double bubble levels, very useful if you shot landscapes. Because of the construction of the ball heads, I think that the extra weight-bearing rating is very important to give you the right stability: in fact you don't have to match that rating, but you need a good difference between tripod's head weight rating and camera+lens weight to be confident on stability.<br>

Very useful the separate panning knob on the 488, as well!<br />Regards, Alberto.</p>

<p>Hi, does anyone have experience with the ND grad kit by Cokin (Z-Pro U960 or U961)? I have a Canon EOS 3 SRL film camera and I'm interested in ND grad filters for landscape photography... Any advice? Apart post processing time, is still the on-the-field filtering solution better than combining multiple exposure (blending, not HDR) in terms of image quality? I shot film, but for scanning purposes...<br>

Thank you, Alberto.</p>