colin_mattson1

<p>One other thought: If the front feed works, the rear single-sheet feeder <em>should</em> also work as it's almost entirely the same portion of the feed mechanism. It's not as convenient as dumping a stack of sheets into the auto feeder, but it does support most paper types.</p> <p>If you haven't tried it already and you have the feed guide attachment, give it a shot.</p>

<p>Still a good strobe if the price is right. </p>

<blockquote> <p>At present, although I can feed normal thickness of paper from the front the quality is poor. Why is this? Should the paper be thicker?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, the paper should be much thicker. The front feed is <em>only</em> for exceptionally thick media (1.0mm to 1.3mm) — the printhead is raised too high for standard media, and will give the "airbrush" effect you're likely seeing. If this is the only way you can get the printer to feed, it is possible to attach media to a carrier sheet to achieve the required thickness, but it's not ideal and the front feed limits the paper options available to you in the driver interface.</p> <p>For the feed issues, you might try carefully cleaning the grey rubber pickup roller in the auto sheet feeder using warm, soapy water. (e.g. Dip a clean lint-free rag into some warm soapy water and wring it out quite well.) It can become coated with dust and other detritus and lose its grippiness.</p> <p>At any rate, the printer can certainly be repaired, but it may not make economic sense (a) if the repair center isn't nearby, and (b) since the K3 inkset is now quite old and being produced in smaller quantities and at higher prices.</p>

<p>Correct—Finder's "Get Info" shows very limited EXIF data, but Preview's (the default program to actually view images) "Get Info" will show your copyright info. </p>

<p>Also, TTL mode or manual mode? Manual should be dead-on consistent barring equipment failure—TTL can bounce all over the place depending on what the camera decides the correct exposure is at any given moment. </p>

<p>Yeah, if you're using the cordless flash mode, it's most likely a timing problem. The meter will only look for a flash for so long before it times out—if you and your model aren't in good sync, you may be running into this. Naturally occurring ambient flashes can also interfere in cordless mode, since all the meter knows is "at some point before I time out, something is supposed to flash at me."</p> <p>Try hanging a trigger (Tx mode — the meter's popping the strobe) off the meter's PC port and set it to corded flash mode. If it works as expected then, you've got your problem and your solution nailed down.</p>

<p>Up in the Crop toolbar, there's an icon that looks like a grid.</p> <p>Click it to open a flyout menu to choose the grid format you like—you're on Grid now, and you want to go back to Rule of Thirds.</p>

<p>Camera > Auto Select New Capture.</p> <p>If Pause is checked, uncheck it and you're back to the races.</p> <p>If Never is checked, pick one of the other two options (Immediately will change images as soon as possible, When Ready will change images only when the image has finished rendering).</p>

<p>Scans, like raw files, need sharpening. Period. And that's left as an exercise for the scanner operator, as the correct means and amount of sharpening are going to vary based on scanner, settings, film stock, personal preference... Welcome to the jungle. Give yourself some time to nail down your process. ;)</p> <p>And, lest it go unremembered, <em>Lightroom is automatically sharpening your D600 files</em>. Lightroom, on the other hand, <em>does not </em>automatically sharpen non-raw images. So, yes, your D600 raws are naturally going to be sharper—because they've been sharpened. (And also because there are some frequently-tangible differences in the way Lightroom renders raw and raster images at reduced viewing sizes.)</p>

<p>X-Rite also provides <a href="https://www.xrite.com/documents/literature/en/N7_Memo_2013_en.pdf">updated N7 formulas for Behr paint</a> (the 1500A base is very much retired). </p>

<p>The iCloud app is for iCloud Drive; assuming you shot these photos using the iPhone, they'd be in the Photos app on both your phone and your Mac, <em>not</em> in iCloud Drive.</p> <p>That being said, let's take a time out here and discuss something very important: If you're using iCloud Photo Library, which it sounds like you may be, you have <strong>one universal photo library</strong>. There is no "on my phone" and "on my Mac", only "in my library". That library lives in iCloud, and the Photos app on either device is only an interface to it, not a copy of it. If you delete it from your phone, it will be deleted everywhere. (This is why the "Optimize iPhone Storage" option is available when using iCloud Photo Library—it'll swap out your full-size photos for much, much smaller phone-specific versions as your other apps need more space.)</p> <p>If you're not using iCloud Photo Library on your phone (i.e. you pulled them in from your Photo Stream instead), you can safely delete the images from your phone as long as you can see them on your Mac.</p> <p>You can double-check whether your iPhone's using iCloud Photo Library from the Settings app; scroll down to the "Photos" item and tap on that.</p>

<p>To quote Wikipedia:</p> <blockquote> <p>Using PNG instead of a high-quality JPEG for [photographic] images would result in a large increase in filesize with negligible gain in quality.</p> </blockquote> <p>The image quality of a photo in PNG is "good," but so is a much, much, much smaller JPEG file. Support is also still considerably broader for JPEG. <br /> <br /> If you're preparing for the web, use JPEG and make everyone happy. If you're preparing for print at a typical lab, use JPEG and make everyone happy. If you're just tossing these on your own hard drive, do whatever makes you happy, but don't expect a tangible benefit (because, unless you're setting your JPEG quality far too low, there isn't one).</p>

<p>If you're buying these from Amazon, bear in mind that they may in fact not <strong>be</strong> Lexar cards. (Same applies to SanDisk cards and nearly everything else Amazon sells, for that matter.) Amazon started pooling their warehouse inventory a couple years ago. No matter who's selling it or where it came from, it all goes into the same pick bin.</p> <p>One company ships in a bunch of counterfeits? Now every seller on Amazon, to include Amazon itself, is selling them.</p>

<p>The Pro-100 is a different beast. It uses a completely different inkset (ChromaLife 100<strong>+</strong> — that little plus sign is important), and a newer, much better, completely different printing engine. Its B&Ws, yes, look fantastic.</p>

<p>The entire PIXMA Pro series ships with starter cartridges. It stinks, but future (full capacity) cartridges will last you longer.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it's (likely) part and parcel to the ChromaLife 100 dye ink set your Pro9000 uses. You may be able to minimize it with a custom profile, but the easier, free solution is to apply a tone to the file before printing. (Just like the bad old days of first-generation pigment printing.) The driver's greyscale mode <strong>may</strong> help to a degree if you really don't want toned prints.</p> <p>B&Ws on the Pro9000 and its kin are greeny even on the best of days with proper workflow. The black's not neutral and the inks have some pretty funky metameric failure, and that really comes to the surface as you strip color out of the equation.</p> <p>Green output can also be a sign you're missing a step in your color management workflow, but the fact color prints look fine suggests it's just the usual ChromaLife ink issue.</p>

<p>If she already varnishes her oil paintings, she can most likely use the same varnish on the mixed-media pieces. Give it a test run and see how it pans out. This <em>may</em> even work if she uses a brush-on varnish, but sometimes the agitation and wetting from brushing can be too much for the printed art.</p> <p>If you run into any issues, a quick run to the art supply store will find a spray varnish compatible with both.</p> <p>For a little helpful artist background, the UltraChrome inks are pigments encapsulated in acrylic resin. Essentially what you're dealing with is oils on acrylics on paper. It's just that pesky ink-receptive layer in between the acrylics and the paper that makes things a little fussier.</p>

<p>As Wouter noted, Capture One's only an option if you're not using a Hasselblad back. Since you're using an H4D, you're using a Hassy back by necessity, so your options largely amount to Phocus and Lightroom. (On the H-series bodies that accept third-party backs, C1 will of course work with a Phase One back.)</p> <p>Adobe and Hassy have worked together on the Lightroom support, so if you like Lightroom and you're happy with the output, there's nothing <em>wrong</em> with it. Might you get a better result out of Phocus? Yes. The tradeoff is that Phocus's interface and workflow often leaves something to be desired.</p> <p>But hey, it's free. Give it a shot. Worst case you hate everything about it and don't see any improvement.</p>

<p>Is it still printing that way? The nozzle check you printed is from the automatic cleaning mode; the first row is pre-cleaning, the second row is after the printer ran a cleaning because of missing black patches.</p> <p>So, at the start, you had no black ink reaching the page.</p> <p>You've still got some contamination in the yellow (so you'd likely want to run another, manual cleaning), but your issue should be resolved unless it clogged again in the interim.</p>

<p>It's different based on the lab because not every lab runs images the same way.</p> <p>Speaking generally, the first way is the "right" way, and the option you should take at any pro lab and nearly any other lab.</p> <p>The method recommended by Dry Creek for Costco and Walmart stems from the way those labs run (or, more accurately today, historically <em>ran) </em>their printers. The Fuji equipment they typically used had some, er, <em>eccentricities</em> surrounding ICC profiles. Converting worked around them to yield the expected output.</p> <p>Today, any knowledgable tech at a Costco lab with updated equipment will tell you just to soft proof and make sure to request no adjustments. </p>

<p>Hold down the space bar and you'll get a temporary hand cursor.</p> <p>Occasionally this will trigger an extremely old, still unfixed Lightroom bug (in which case you may have to fall back to your method or, in the worst case, quit and reopen Lightroom), but about 95% of the time it'll work without issue.</p> <p>You can also use quickly pan around using the overview thumbnail in the left? sidebar.</p>

<p>No "contrast boost" is kicking in unless you've added one—Lightroom initially displays the in-camera JPEG thumbnail generated by your in-camera JPEG settings. As Lightroom renders an actual preview using the Adobe Camera Raw engine, it replaces that camera JPEG.</p> <p>Lightroom's defaults are effectively flat. But if you'd like something else, you can always <a href="http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS58F97739-1485-4613-B5D7-C7EA4AFECDC4.html">set your own defaults</a>.</p>

<p>Alas, no. The Acute/D4 and Pro systems only converge in the D4 pack (and even then only one at a time).<br> For a Pro pack, you need the ProRing.</p>

<p>As Ellis said, examples would definitely help.</p> <p>If you're using bare Speedlites, the thought that immediately comes to mind is that they can present a much smaller target to meter. Particularly if you're cranking up the head zoom, it's definitely possible to pop off a reading outside the "hit zone" and end up hotter overall than you intended.</p> <p>The zoom optics on some models also hotspot in a gnarly way, but if you're using a consistent lighting setup, the pattern would probably pop out at you if that were the issue.</p> <p><strong>Edited to Add: </strong>The blinkies vary from model to model and firmware to firmware, but more to the point, they vary with your JPEG settings. If you want fewer blinkies, turning down the contrast (because the defaults are pretty punchy) or trying a different Picture Style (and then again adjusting the contrast as needed) is an excellent start. Canon's "Neutral" style will blink a lot less than the consumer-friendly "Standard."</p> <p>Personally, I have the Technicolor CineStyle profile installed and use that for everything. It gives me a good idea what I've actually got—at the cost of being <em>extremely</em> flat and desaturated if I need to show a client something on the back of the camera.</p>

<p>Everything's compatible with Time Machine, so you needn't worry about that aspect. Time Machine just wants a physical drive; any directly-connected (FireWire/USB/Thunderbolt/eSATA) drive will work. The "gotcha" is with network (NAS) enclosures.</p> <p>I'm partial to G-Technology drives. Cheaper than LaCie, nice minimal design, fantastic warranty and support, and nice reliable Hitachi/HGST drives inside. And all the cables are included.</p>