neil_poulsen8

<p>I have a feeling that something is coming. Otherwise, Epson wouldn't be offering their high rebates on these products. K3 will become second fiddle.</p>

<p>My direction is to purchase the 3880 with the $300, since it has everything that I want. It's reasonably inexpensive to switch between photo and matte black, it has anti-clogging technology, and it's the best technology currently available for printing digital negatives. </p>

<p>I currently get great prints from my 4000. But it's clogging and constant and expensive upkeep to have an unclogged printer is driving me crazy. Plus, it's lousy on digital negatives.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I'm using a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. So, I plan on keeping my distance to avoid distortion.</p>

<p>Another question. How far should the sitter be from the backdrop? Approximately, what f-stop should I use to put some blur in the muslin backdrop?</p>

<p>In standard studio portraiture of a single sitter with backdrop, main, fill, backlight, etc., what's an appropriate height for the camera/lens with respect to the sitter? Should the height of the camera/lens be at the forhead, chin, neck, or the navel? (Clearly not the navel, but you can see what I mean.)</p>

<p>Does anyone know the thread size and pitch of the inside threads to which one can attach accessories on the front of the Bronica series S focusing helicals? It looks to be about 55 or 56mm. These threads are just on the inside of the bayonet to which one attaches standard Bronica S series lenses.</p>

<p>More to the point, I'm wondering if I can attach standard step-up filter rings of the right diameter to these threads. I'm thinking that, if I can do this, I can make a lens board to use non-Bronica lenses with my S2a.</p>

<p>I quite like HP5 medium format film for black and white. Note that I tend to enlarge on 8x10 paper, versus anything larger. I have several medium format cameras, including RB's, Mamiya Press, Bronica S squares, and an old-style Arca 6x9. I've also shot medium format B&W using roll film backs on my 4x5.</p>

<p>I've tried 4x5 HP5 black and white and didn't care for it as much. Could be various reasons, though. For one, I did calibrations on medium format and expected them to carry to 4x5. But, I was told by Ilford that HP5 medium format film was sensitometrically equivalent to HP5 4x5 film. So, go figure??? (Next step is to do calibrations on 4x5 HP5 film. Expensive, though.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm wondering if it's possible to combine a black f3.5 100mm lens with the helicoid of a chrome 100mm f3.5 lens? I have both, and my helicoid for the black 100mm lens only just began faltering. </p>

<p>From another well-informed member, apparently the black helicoids are made of aluminum and fail if not lubricated properly. This one hasn't been used in years.</p>

<p>What are the best lenses for Mamiya Press cameras. I'm thinking that there are different versions over the years the camera was in production. Black versus chrome, f-stop, etc.</p>

<p>I'm thinking the f2.8 is best for 100mm, from what I've read. What's best for 100mm that's not an f2.8?</p>

<p>What's best for 150mm? No clue here.</p>

<p>For 250mm, I'm thinking the f5 is best, since it can be focused using the range finder. (It's curious that the f8 can't be focused with the range finder. At least, that's what I understand.)</p>

<p>Is there a best for either the 65mm or the 75mm lenses? Do both of these lenses focus using the range finder?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. </p>

<p>My Pro-SD adaptor between film magazines and the body definitely has seals. It's labeled SD, and the opening is wider than the openings on either the Pro or the Pro-S. Maybe my model SD is an earlier version? Did any of the SD's have seals?</p>

<p>My so labeled Pro S adaptor between the film magazine and the body definitely does not have seals. Maybe they're missing? There's a only about a 16th inch or 3/32nds inch groove that could possibly hold seals. Dunno. It looks pretty narrow, though.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a ton of Mamiya RB equipment at a very reasonable price, and I have a couple of questions that I'd like to ask about this equipment.</p>

<p>FIRST QUESTION: Among my equipment, I have a Pro, a Pro S and a Pro SD. I notice that the Pro and Pro SD has foam seals, whereas the Pro S does not. It surprises me that Mamiya would return to seals in the Pro SD. Do these seals require changing? The seals on my SD appear to be in pretty good shape.</p>

<p>SECOND QUESTION: Were there different eye pieces for people with differing sight? (Some cameras have this.) It appears to me that it's easier to focus, and that images are sharper in my non-metered prism versus the metered prism that I got.</p>

<p>THIRD QUESTION: Are the meters in the metered prism or chimney any good for color. Is the meter in the chimney primarily for spot reading, given that it thas that sensor that swings into the center. (Kind of strange.)</p>

<p>As a followup to the first question, given the lack of seals on the Pro S, might that not be the better camera? Also, there would be no need for the adaptor rings on the Pro-S.</p>

<p>I've never used these, but I have a complete set of lenses and an S2a and S2 bodies.</p>

<p>Absolutely, the 75mm can be used for portraiture. I've used it this way. But, you don't need to use the bellows. Just use the regular helical that goes with the camera. I think of a 75mm as being a little on the short side for portraiture. A 135mm or 150mm are more commonly used for this purpose.</p>

<p>You could use the bellows for portraiture, though. And this is interesting. The S2 Bronica system is one of the few in which an accessory bellows can be focused at infinity. But, it would be a lot of unnecessary trouble.</p>

<p>I've not tried it, but Bronica made a reverse adaptor that enables one to mount Bronica backwards for macro work.</p>

<p>I'll add that the lenses appear to fit fine on the SD. If they have the adapter ring installed, will these lenses fit on older cameras. I ask, because one of my bodies is an RB-Pro, and the lenses fit it just fine.</p>

<p>How difficult are the adapter rings to find these days? If difficult, should I consider getting rid of my Pro-SD and Pro-S bodies and use the Pro body that I have?</p>

<p>I just bought an RB outfit including three bodies and five C or non-C lenses for an amazing price and am reading old threads to learn more about these cameras. I've never owned an RB, but have always been attracted by their design.<br>

My bodies include an RB Pro SD. How can I tell if the lenses have the adaptor rings that I read about in the archives? I've looked on the backs of the lenses, and I don't see anything that detaches. (At least that my inexperienced eye can detect.)</p>

<p>I've got a nice set of Canon EOS lenses for my digital camera, and I'm thinking of getting a film camera.</p>

<p>My needs are pretty simple. I'll probably do a fair amount of shooting with this camera on a tripod. On occassion, I might like to auto-focus on someone that's moving, but not moving fast. I will definitely want to be able to focus on an area, keep the shutter release half-depressed, and reframe the composition.</p>

<p>So, I'm wondering if there's any reason why I shouldn't get the EOS 1 film camera, versus the 1n? I tried a two or three EOS 1 cameras at our local pro shop two or three years ago, and they appeared to work fine for me. Plus, the EOS 1 cameras are less expensive, even in Ex+ condition.</p>

<p>But before getting an EOS 1 vs a 1n, I thought I'd check on the forum here.</p>

<p>Does anyone know if Picasa, the image engine from Google, is ICC aware? Does it enable a Picasa user to get the advantage of monitor calibration? I'm wondering what workspace it uses? Adobe RGB 98?</p>

<p>Also, I don't see that it allows one to specify a printer profile.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I screwed up on my my previous post, something maybe I should have expected since it was 4:49am! I was thinking that 5616 was the width in pixels; it's actually the length. Plus, one would have to have an actual image from a 5DII to follow through on my suggestion. Clearly, I was not thinking clearly.</p>

<p>A non-upsized 240 dpi print would give you a 15.6"x23.4" photo from the 5DII. You would need a magnification of 47/15.6 equal to about 3x from a 5DII to get the 47"x70" photo that you want. So, begin with a non-upsized print at 240 dpi and upsize it in a way that triples the length and triples the width and crop the image to fit on a standard sized 8.5"x11" paper to get an idea of the upsizing might do to the image. Again, upsize it at about 30% at a time to get a better result.</p>

<p>For myself, I tend to examine a print quite closely to get a feel of the "technology" of a print, regardless of it's size. But to take in a print from an artistic point of view and to get an idea of the overall effect of the print, I back off to a distance that is positively related to the size of the print. I think that print size has relavence to an appealing distance from which to view the print.</p>

<p>You can pick your optimum resolution for a fine print. I tend to print between 240 and 300 dpi. At 240, a 5DII get's you a 23.4" x 35.1" print. Upsizing this print by double the length and double the width produces the print that you want. </p>

<p>Try that in Photoshop and then crop the image to something you can print on a standard 8.5"x 11" sheet of paper to get an idea of the quality you can expect. Upsize 30% or so at a time, versus all at once. You'll get a better result. You could view at a little greater distance than you would a typical 8.5"x11" print, since you would be likely to view your larger print at a greater distance.</p>

 

<p>What's the purpose of a hair light? Two reasons for a hair light that occur to me is to put a nice highlight on the hair and give it some interest, and to separate the head from the background. How does the hair light relate to the shoulders? Should it also illuminate the shoulders. (Seems like this would be hard to avoid.)</p>

<p>What's the best type of strobe hair light? I'm thinking of three possibilities. One is open flash with a 7" reflector and possible barn door. A second is placing a 7" diffuser over the open flash. The third is using a 2'x3' softbox with inside diffuser. Is there something else that would be better?</p>

<p>Also, what's the best positioning of the hair light, and what's the optimum height above the sitter? Should it not be placed a little to the back, so that the hair light doesn't cast a shadow down the front of the face? Or, is it too weak with respect to the fill and main lights to cause these shadows? </p>

<p>Should both the sitter and the hairlight be placed far enough forward that the hair light does not illuminate the backdrop? (I don't have a great deal of room, maybe 20 feet or so.) With open flash or with a diffuser, one can use a barn door. But, this isn't an option with a softbox.</p>

<p>In any event, I'm going to be doing some experimentation. But, I'd appreciate any input that people might have on hair light strategy.</p>

<p>Brian, What's the difference between using HDR correctly or incorrectly? What insights would you off to use HDR for interiors?</p>

<p>Tom, How would you describe the old Hollywood style?</p>

<p>I should have said that I'm interested in a kicker's use in portraiture.</p>

<p>And, I was referring to a true kicker, that's placed behind the subject. I didn't mention fill, because I figured that a kicker is placed with respect to the main light, depending upon the situation.</p>

<p>Also, placing the kicker behind the subject, are there standard means used to make sure it doesn't add to flare in the camera, like putting up a flag or something?</p>

<p>Kickers are often used in connection to "Hollywood" lighting, which is one of the types of lighting in which I'm interested in reproducing.</p>

<p>I hate to say this! Some lenses add a more complex distortion that can't fully be corrected. For example, I've heard of a "moustache" type of distortion that's not fully correctable. 'Bout all you can do is just be aware of this potential eventuality and do the best you can. The corrections end up being a compromise. For example, my Sigma 15-30 mostly adds simple distortion that can be corrected.</p>

<p>I use the FILTER | DISTORT | LENS CORRECTION quite a lot and find it very handy.</p>

<p>As others have said, find a line in the center that's supposed to be vertical and use rotation to make it vertical. (There's a utility on the upper left of the Lens Correction window that makes this very easy.) Then I deal with the horizontal and/or vertical perspective controls. As you bring verticals to vertical, you will be able to tell if you need to readjust rotation. One can go back and forth without a problem.</p>

<p>After adjusting both rotation and perspective, one can then adjust Distortion at the top to get rid of any pincushion or barreling. As I say, it's possible to go back and forth from one adjustment to another.</p>

<p>Make use and adjust the grid. Sometimes, I find that it's better not to have as dense a grid. At other times, the opposite is the case.</p>

<p>If you bring in multiple images as different layers with the intent of blending them for expanded latitude, you'll need to make the same Lens Correction adjustment to each layer. (Each layer is the same image taken at a different shutter speed.) But it's easy, because at the top right of the Lens Correction window is a drop-down menu that includes an option to use the previous correction. So, you don't have the copy down the different settings.</p>

<p>Make the Lens Corrections first. If you make any masks before you do the corrections, the masks are unaffected, even if on the same layer. There's at least a couple of ways to make Lens Corrections to a mask. But, it's kind of tricky and laborous. Better to do Lens Corrections straight off.</p>

<p>I had the same question a few weeks ago. Take a look at the following two threads:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00S3MF<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00RtWi</p>

<p>As I heard the differences described, LR is for a Production environment, where one needs to do basic editing to many images and prepare them for use.</p>

<p>Think of PS as being for a Craft environment, in which one wants to make an image the best it can be. </p>

<p>The best is to have both. I just received CS4 yesterday in the mail and haven't yet opened it, and I plan on picking up LR as well.</p>

<p>But if I had to pick only one, it would definitely be CS4. I'm very much in the Craft category for all my images. I spend a large amount of time post-processing my images, even for commercial work. It's kind of the way I'm built, and I will admit that it's not very efficient. Plus, at least as I understand it for CS3, most of what you can do editing images in LR can also be done in Adobe Camera Raw. </p>

<p>But, I have a lot of training and experience with PS. So, Photoshop's complexity does not intimidate me.</p>

<p>Adobe is pretty good about allowing prospective users to do 30 day trials. See if you can get a trial version and give both a try. Which one you select can only based on your particular needs.</p>

<p>I read some of the archives regarding placement of a kicker light.</p>

<p>Is it necessarily placed on the same side as the main light? Are there cases where it would be placed on the opposite side of the main light?</p>