sarah_fox

<p>Ed is correct: First try to flush out the river water with distilled water. Try to fill the camera with fresh distilled, drain and discard, fill again with fresh distilled, drain again, repeating a few times. Shake the camera gently to help the distilled water reach all the internal parts. (The seal between the sensor and AA/IR filter is air/water-tight in most of our cameras, BTW.)</p> <p>Then partially disassemble the camera and dry it for quite a long time. The attic is a bountiful source of hot, dry air this time of year. (We dry our herbs up there.) I'd put the camera in a very thin, loosely sealed paper bag to protect it from dust, while allowing moisture to escape through the walls. Then I'd leave the camera in the attic for as many as several weeks.</p> <p>Personally I wouldn't hold out much hope. The battery probably had ample time to destroy the fine traces on the circuitry boards. However, you've got a backup camera to carry on. After several weeks, pull your camera out of the attic, power it up, and you might get a pleasant surprise. Not likely, though.</p>

<p>To be clear, 76 FEET wide? Wow!</p> <p>The Canon 5Ds has something like 8700 pixels horizontally, so that would end up a pixel density of about 10 ppi. I agree with Wouter that you don't need anywhere near 300 dpi, but 10dpi is probably blocky enough that anyone walking within a few feet of the image would notice. Edges are also going to be a quarter inch wide. You can up-rez, and that might diminish the pixelation, but that won't buy you resolution.</p> <p>For such a severe aspect ratio, it might be good to assemble the image from multiple frames. You say that's not possible with an action shot, but I think it is if handled appropriately in post. You could probably set up a few (or several) cameras of the same type on tripods, dead-on level, aimed in different directions horizontally. Equip all with cable releases, use the same settings, etc. Have one person per two shutter releases -- and a count-down -- 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, SNAP. Then crop horizontally, stitch frames together (perhaps blending layers with PS, masking around individual boats), etc. I think you would come out much farther ahead, in terms of resolution. For a project like this, I would think you could rent the needed gear.</p>

<p>The yarn is cool, but it's the hand and the shuttle that make the picture. It's a bit out of focus, but I applied an unsharp mask using a very wide radius to squeeze out all the sharpness I could. It does get a bit vivid in the focal plane, but I think it's OK. </p><div></div>

<p>Kian, I think you're confusing "length" for "size." By "length," we mean "focal length." The focal length of the lens determines its magnification. Your 50mm lens has a focal length of 50mm. Your 18-55 lens has a variable focal length, ranging from 18-55 mm. The shorter the focal length, the wider angle it is. A focal length of approx. 30mm would give you a "normal" field of view on a crop body (vs. a focal length of 50mm on a full frame body).</p> <p>With this in mind, a 24-105 lens is a very nice lens, but mostly for a full frame body. On a crop body like yours, it will give you from "barely" wide angle (hardly at all) to somewhat telephoto. It's probably not a very useful one-lens solution for you. It will certainly not be as wide angle as the 18mm you already enjoy. I own both a full frame body, a crop body, and the 24-105 lens, and I think I am correct in saying I have never used the 24-105 lens on my crop body. </p> <p>I suspect you want some wide angle capability. If so, your lens should probably be in the 15 to 18mm range on the short end. Although a 17-40/4L would probably satisfy this need (being a bit lacking on the long end), your better bet would probably be one of Canon's crop lenses, designated "EF-S." They are smaller, lighter, less expensive, and probably better for what you're doing. There are also third party crop lenses, e.g. from Tamron, Sigma, etc. I think there is a Tamron 17'ish to 55'ish lens that everyone likes quite a lot. Perhaps someone will tell you what it is.</p>

<p>Your question is somewhat akin to asking whether you should buy a large spade or a hand trowel for gardening. They are different tools and do different things. I own the IS version of the 70-200/4, and it is a marvelous lens. However, it's a bit too long to be useful for much of my landscape work, and that would be doubly true if I used it on a crop frame body. I've found it is a wonderful lens for candid portraiture, but you might find it a bit long (high magnification, tunnel-visioned) on your crop body.</p> <p>You speak in terms of wanting to upgrade your camera body eventually to "the best one." You will find that the best one for one photographer is not the best one for another photographer. If you do not foresee a compelling reason to transition to a full frame camera, I would just buy crop frame lenses for now. They are lighter, smaller, and less expensive. If you want to carry just one single lens for a variety of situations, including landscape and portraiture, then that 17-55/2.8 lens might fit that bill a bit better. The 15-85 even more so. There are a number of options for crop lenses, and others will be more familiar with them than I am. But I would say that's a much more useful focal length range for you to consider.</p> <p>That said, there is no reason to buy anything different if your kit lens is already performing well for you. If you have the IS (image stabilized) version of the 18-55, that's actually an amazingly good (albeit cheaply built) little lens.</p>

<p>Wow, your photo could be given the boot on ethical grounds if it was oversharpened?! That might be a violation of good taste, but come on! Disqualified because of excessive manipulation? Because the scene wasn't really that sharp? What's next? Will color correction be disallowed? All tungsten shots must appear orange-yellow, and all fluorescent shots green? I'm glad my own work doesn't have to satisfy anyone else's ethical standards.</p>

<p>It seems odd to load-test a mercury cell. There's not much load from these meters; that's not how a mercury cell is used. There's a reason the cell lasts virtually forever. Heck, I once had a Genrad 1441c SPL meter with a small mercury cell soldered to the board as a voltage reference.</p> <p>Anyway, be my guest. Load test a mercury cell. Then load-test your voltage reference circuit. It may show some variation too. In the end, with such micro-currents, you should be more interested in voltage stability. See here:</p> <p>http://www.rokkorfiles.com/minolta/pix/batterychart.gif</p> <p>Also factor in the fact that an exposure scale is logarithmic, so each stop is a doubling/halving of light. Put another way, our craft isn't as precise as we like to pretend it is. In the grand scheme of things, a few mV here or there isn't going to make a world of difference.</p>

<p>Ah, Montreal! I saw someone pushed in front of a subway just for sport. Police didn't care, because he was a homeless man. They wouldn't arrest the murderer, a man who was standing 20 feet from them and who I identified to them. So just for Montreal...</p> <p>Corrected horizon, sharpened, applied curves (especially pulling down the reds), and added a layer with a certain alien glow.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Buying for use I would avoid mercury battery at all cost as meter designed to depend on the stable voltage of mercury battery simply isn't a good design.</p> </blockquote> <p>You're saying that a voltage reference based on the natural properties of an electrochemical reaction are inferior to a voltage reference based on the electrical properties of a manufactured semiconductor? What a strange claim! The only thing inferior about a mercury cell is the toxicity of the mercury. It's not bad design. In fact in the context of a world that didn't care very much about heavy metal pollution, it's quite a <em>good</em> design. And some of the meters of the day (e.g. a Gossen Luna Pro) are still among the best you will find, even by today's standards, so long as they are kept calibrated and in good repair -- and perhaps recalibrated to silver oxide chemistry (almost as good as mercury). If a meter can deliver accuracy to maybe 1/10 stop, far finer grained than the 1/2 or 1/3 stop increment of most cameras, and far less significant then the inevitable implementation error of the photographer (e.g. exact targeting of meter), exactly what's the problem?</p>

<p>I guess I didn't read the part about the Rollei carefully enough for it to register (keeping a camera without paying for it). Yeah, with that complaint in your past, the ebay people probably saw a pattern, which is probably why they decided for the seller. Just my guess. Honorable dealing work both ways -- or at least should.</p> <p>FAIW, it's always good to check the return policy and abide by the stated time periods. In the past, if I knew the return period might be too short because of some extenuating circumstances, I would communicate with the seller and agree to a longer period. People are generally pretty decent and above-board if you approach them in good faith. Karma.</p> <p>As for Gerry's comment about old junk belonging in the landfill? Never! (What an absurd comment!) Instead, it belongs in my collection of old junk!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Is that a serious or dripping-with-sarcasm remark?</p> </blockquote> <p>I believe that's a serious remark, and I would share that sentiment. Ebay almost always favors the buyer over the seller in these sorts of disputes.</p> <p>That said, I'm also surprised the seller wouldn't take the item back. On ebay, most sellers are very honorable, mostly because they dread receiving a bad feedback rating. Bad feedback can quickly destroy them. There are many people, like me, who will avoid a seller with any lower than a 99% positive rating. If I need to deal with someone with a lower rating, I make certain to read the negative feedback and determine whether it came from flaky buyers (of which there are plenty). </p> <p>I remember a situation similar to yours. I sold a radar detector that was in good shape and functional. Shortly after the buyer clicked "buy it now," he emailed me to request a cancellation of the sale. He said he didn't realize the unit wasn't capable of detecting a certain frequency band (and I had stated in the listing that it did not). I grumbled under my breath, because it meant I had to re-list the thing, but I "cheerfully" cancelled the order. That's how ebay usually works. I could have forced the sale, but I didn't want to suffer a ding in my 100% feedback rating.</p> <p>To be clear, the seller did nothing wrong by not disclosing that the meter requires an obsolete battery. You can still get the battery (although it's very difficult), and it's really a matter of due diligence. On the other hand, you did nothing unusual by buying an item and then discovering there was something about it you didn't know. Most sellers accept returns for this sort of reason. I would expect the seller to take a return if you pay shipping and possibly restocking, which would compensate him for the trouble of re-listing. It's rare that a seller says, "gotcha!" And it's even more rare that ebay backs such a seller. (Maybe I don't know all the facts.) That's just not how modern internet commerce works.</p> <p>Anyway, your recourse is to leave negative feedback, as it seems to be a negative experience in which the seller seems not to have done the decent thing. (Again, I don't really know all the facts.)</p>

<p>People may disagree with my claims, but here they are:</p> <p>Can a cheap Epson scanner do a good job of a small paper print, such that you can duplicate the print with the same color quality and resolution in the same size? Yeah, probably. There's certainly no harm in using a better scanner if you have it.</p> <p>Will we ever have "better" scanners? We might have faster scanners (and computers and interfaces), but more resolution is generally not needed, and many (most? all?) of Epson's scanners can essentially outresolve the color information in any printed image, which isn't hard. Prints don't actually have much dynamic range. There will never be an HDR scanner, because HDR isn't necessary in a scan. In fact it would degrade the image. So I agree with Tuomas: Scanner technology is mature. It has been for quite a long time. In fact my scanner, an Epson V700, was introduced in 2007. I bought mine used in 2013, when it was still available new. It was discontinued this year (?) and replaced by the V800, which is a bit faster, but not much better. (The V700 is already a superb scanner.) That's not much change in almost a decade. Incidentally, the V700 is gross overkill for scanning paper prints. The reason I have it is for scanning negatives larger than 35mm.</p> <p>Is a jpeg adequate for what you're doing? If you're going to do a lot of heavy restorative work, it's better better to start with a 16 bit TIFF, which will give you the "headroom" that you will need to get a better end result. Your final product can probably be a jpeg, unless the image is super special and destined for a large print. For most purposes (e.g. 4x6 snapshots), jpegs are fine. A jpeg will give you 8 bits of color information in compressed format. This color depth works reasonably well within the dynamic range afforded by a paper print. You won't start with more dynamic range than an 8 bit jpeg can handle, and if you print out your digital file, you'll be fine. The results will look good.</p> <p>The scanning charge of $1 and the restoration charge of $10 is pretty cheap. I don't know what quality of work they do. I couldn't/wouldn't do that work for anywhere near that price, but then I'd be spotting dust and dirt, healing scratches, and such. Heck, if they're willing to engage in such drudgery that cheaply, they can have the work! But for a quality restoration job on a photo that really matters to you, I would suggest using someone else's services. You really can't expect much for $10. I guess what I'm recommending is to set aside the really special images for more careful work. The casual snapshots can go off to India. (That said, I'd be nervous about shipping my paper prints off anywhere, especially overseas. I'd far rather give the work to someone local -- less chance of loss.)</p>

<p>You could run your photo through the proprietary Weekly Post-Processing Challenge! ;-)</p> <p>The simplest way to address the flare in PhotoShop would be to create an adjustment layer that would correct the blue tones and bring out the contrast. Then use the accompanying mask to apply the adjustment selectively where the flare is located.</p>

<p>Went for moody! Lots of dodging and burning in layers.</p><div></div>

<p>A mercury battery is actually 1.35 volts, so yes, the Wein cell battery will work.</p> <p>I don't have an intimate knowledge of the Pentax spot meter, but I am quite familiar with the venerable Gossen Luna Pro and Luna Six meters, both of which were designed for mercury cells. In my experience, these meters, which are considered among the most stable and accurate of their kind, are almost all inaccurate without re-calibration, even when running the old mercury cells (which can still be found). I'm not talking about fractions of stops of errors, but rather whole stops -- even several stops. I would be stunned if the Pentax meters were more stable and accurate without periodic service and recalibration.</p> <p>My approach to the Luna Pro has been to clean/repair and then re-calibrate the meter to Silver Oxide cells (1.55 V). Silver oxide cells, like mercury cells, have a very stable voltage throughout their life. (Alkaline coin cells, often confused for silver oxide cells, do NOT have a stable voltage.) I don't know whether you can recalibrate to the 1.55V silver oxide voltage with the Pentax spot meter.</p>

<p>It's still a bit unclear what you're asking or why. If you want to understand the impact of sensor size, focal distance, and aperture, on critical sharpness at a given object distance, then conventional depth of field computations can be useful. On the other hand, if you want to understand the degree of background blur, you really need to get away from depth of field computations and turn to an object field approach, as discussed by Harold Merklinger. It may take you an afternoon to bend your mind around the concepts, but you will come out of it with the ability to determine IN YOUR HEAD how blurry vs. sharp a given object will be at a given object distance, focal distance, and physical aperture size, independent of format and lens focal length. You will be able to estimate the "size" of the blur. Please see this page for links to Merklinger's 4 article series on this subject:</p> <p>http://jimdoty.com/learn/dof/dof_merk/dof_merk.html</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>it seems blurry almost all the time</p> </blockquote> <p>Before throwing wads of money at a new lens, you should try to figure out the issue you're having. I would suggest four possibilities:</p> <ol> <li>front/back focus (auto focusing errors). You should be able to do micro-adjustments to rectify this. (I know this can be done, but I have no experience with it on my older cameras.)</li> <li>shutter speed too low</li> <li>bad holding technique</li> <li>defective lens</li> </ol> <p>So the first question you need to answer is whether your lens can take a satisfactorily sharp picture. For that, I would take the camera and lens outside in the full daylight sun. Perch them atop a tripod. Aim squarely at a brick wall. Set your aperture to f/8, and turn off the IS. Focus manually using 10x magnification in liveview. Snap a frame using either a cable release or the self-timer (i.e. not touching the camera). Load into your computer, and scrutinize the photo. If you're satisfied with the sharpness, the problem is something else. In that case, a new lens would not help you.</p> <p>The next test is auto-focus. Repeat the above, except use auto-focus and the largest aperture. Shoot several frames, pre-setting the focus at various random starting positions. If the focus is not good, then you probably have a front/back focus problem. Note: The lens will not be as sharp wide open as at f/8, but neither should the focus be "blurry"</p> <p>Assuming your AF passes muster, consider your choice of shutter speed and holding technique. The worse your technique, the higher the shutter speed you will need. And to catch action, you probably need considerable speed anyway -- 1/500 or faster. IS will help considerably with camera shake if you're photographing a still subject, but it is a useless feature if your subject is moving quickly.</p>

<p>The Sigma is a pretty good lens. (The Canon is obviously much better.) Its lack of distortion is freakishly good. You have to stop it down a bit (e.g. f/8) for it to be at its sharpest. That said, I don't think you will find it (or the Canon 11-24) a very useful lens, except in very unusual situations. As with any UWA rectilinear lens, you will see a lot of stretching of 3D scenes in the edges and corners. Some people like that, particularly for clouds in landscape images. However, the stretching is so extreme as to be somewhat ridiculous. I find 16 or 17mm on a full frame camera to be just about all the wide I ordinarily want for photographing most subjects -- at least for any photograph I want to be pleasing to the eye. When using my Sigma, I usually don't use 12-15mm.</p> <p>FAIW, I've taken a lot more photos with my diagonal fisheye than with my Sigma 12-24. And my 17-40 also gets a lot more use. The Sigma mostly sits around waiting for those special situations when it, and only it, will shine.</p>

<p>I couldn't afford fancier gear any more with a million extra dollars than I can now. I'd be grateful for the windfall and would stash it away for more pragmatic uses (e.g. future medical care). FAIW, a million dollars doesn't go really far -- a camera or five here, a car or three there, a few grand vacations to some exciting destinations, lots of meals out at expensive restaurants, and so forth... and pretty soon you'll have consumed it all.</p>

<p>I wouldn't buy a 35mm film Leica just to scan the negs into a digital workflow. If you want to shoot film, put together a darkroom! My grandfather had a Leica IIIf and a Kodak Precision enlarger with Condenser Head A and Wollensak 100mm lens, which I inherited and still have. I don't have my grandfather's IIIf, but I have my mom's. The Leica and the Kodak enlarger are a wonderful pair, and the enlarger will also handle 620 and 120 negs with no problem. You can pick up one of these enlargers for a song (maybe $100) on ebay.</p> <p>If you want to work with small-format digital, buy a digital camera. If you are wanting a Leica rig for the Leica lenses (which are certainly excellent, although there is nothing magical about them), then consider adapting a Leica lens to a full frame Canon dSLR body. Canon is generally the manufacturer of choice for adapting miscellaneous manual focus lenses and shooting them with stop-down metering. For the money you are talking about spending, you could afford a very nice camera/lens pair. Edward's Sony recommendation also sounds quite good.</p>

<p>FAIW, here's an HCB "decisive moment" that is a completely unmanipulated, unstaged, un-PhotoShopped<strong> lie</strong>:</p> <p>http://colectivofuturo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/20_lg.jpeg</p> <p>(The woman on the right is actually striking the woman on the left, and her grimace is from the strain of her striking motion, not some frenzied gleefulness at dragging a wrongdoer before an ad hoc court.)</p> <p>To me, what makes a photo truthful is that it tells the truth, as reasonably understood by an ordinary person. It's little more than that. Staging, posing, re-creation, and PhotoShopping can actually be utilized in a truthful photographic process, IMO. Every one of my photos passes through PhotoShop (and previously through PaintShop Pro). Half of my images are heavily processed, although few look like it. And yet I feel my photography is more truthful than most journalism. Most of my photography would not pass the "truth test" in the journalism community, and most of today's journalism doesn't really adhere to my own standards of truth. I find that both troubling and amusing.</p>

<p>Stripes occur when the toner is extremely low or the drum is worn/scratched.</p> <p>My general-use laser does a decent enough job of newspaper quality B&W prints and is dirt cheap -- Samsung Xpress M2875FW. Prints start streaking when the toner cartridge is about 90 - 95% exhausted.</p>

<p>More a matter of it being poorly read, Tom. My brain doesn't completely quite wake up until noon'ish. ;-)</p> <p>Anyway, I am marching forward on my edits with renewed confidence, using adjustment layers. (Such a nice feature!) Hopefully I'll cough up a substantial bolus of finished photos into my portfolio in a week or so. It seems one of my biggest talents is procrastination, and it takes my getting sick to motivate me to sit down in front of the 'puter and get a few things done.</p>

<p>And Tom, now see you found the same thing with your installation of PS. Sorry I didn't read it correctly the first time.</p> <p>Thanks, guys!</p>