falcon7

<p>Thanks for the Costco tip. A photographer I know that has shot NBA games for the past 40 years swears by Costco's photo products. Maybe he's onto something.</p>

<p>Red River offers three satin papers. Their top of the line paper costs about 40% more than their other satin paper. In looking over the specs, I see the more expensive paper is slightly thicker. The descriptions of the paper on their website suggest the more expensive paper is better, of course. I know these comparables are subjective to a certain extent, but not being a chemist and not doing my own experimenting (which I find often creates more embroilment than solution), <em>if you've used both, does YOUR eye notice a difference</em> between the two (I plan to use them with my epson r1900).</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. I am mainly concerned if there is some 'workaround' to improve the quality of B&W with the R1900 since I just bought one, and I've read so many criticisms of it regarding color casts in B&W output. Additionally, when the reviewer made the statement of the opacity with 'brown,' I'm not sure just what 'tint' of brown he referred to, unless, of course, it is a subjective decision on his part, which is most likely the case.</p>

<p>Jim,</p>

<p>Sic transit, gloria mundi: A universal point well taken -- OMNIA VANITAS</p>

<p>I was looking over some reviews about the Epson r1900 photo printer, and a reviewer stated the following regarding his 'improvement' of the quality of B&W prints by making a small color adjustment. Can someone explain what he is doing based on the following taken from his review? I suspect the question marks (?) are conversions from some html code.</p>

<p><strong>"I was delighted to discover that the 5% opacity ?slightly brown? toning which I sometimes add for B/W print ?richness? also enhanced the neutrality of the R1900 B/W prints."</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.redbubble.com/people/nakedpixels/art/6681124-2-nude-of-substance" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.redbubble.com/people/nakedpixels/art/6689359-1-flesh-and-smoke" alt="" /><br /> This issue has been brought before, i.e., an epson printer for B&W prints. I'm going to purchase a printer today, especially since the epson store has some big rebate offers for prior customers. So maybe the most direct way to ask what can a more expensive printer (and one with 3 black cartridges vs 2) do for me is to provide two images, and just ask, 'all things being equal (paper, proper printer/paper profiles, monitor calibration, etc., etc), how would the three black cartridge printers make an improvement over prints of these two images?</p>

<p>These are NSFW, and please no need for photo critiques. Just interested in what the printers would (or could) do.</p>

<p>I wonder if anyone has ever read (in a book or elsewhere) a suggestion regarding any aspect of photography that was clearly a marketing ploy. Here is what I noticed yesterday while browsing through a couple of photoshop elements books (written by the same author). In the PS Elements 7 version of a particular guide, the author mentions that PSE 7 doesn't have a true layer mask but there's an <em>easy</em> work-around to compensate for it. Browsing through the PSE 9 version of the same book (same author), the author states that one of the best new features of PSE 9 is a true layer mask, thus allowing the user to avoid the <em>cumbersome</em> work-around required in previous PSE versions. Enough said on that. Has anyone every found similar oddities? A contribution might help us save some time, effort, and money besides being humorous.</p>

<p>Thanks, I'm looking into all three possibilities. Nice to see that others think outside the lightbox as well.</p>

<p>I am interested in trying an LED flashlight(s) for bodyscape photography, and have found one flashlight that comes with a tripod screw attached. However, this is quite limiting and expensive. Does anyone have an idea or has anyone used or seen a DIY setup wherein you take a clamp, and rig a flashlight to a stationary object like a tripod with the clamp? I've considered trying to modify the round clamps with adjustable circumferances that come with cheap clip-on metal light shades. If I can rig something like that, I could experiment with flashlights of varied sizes--a variation on the product linked below. Any suggestions? Thanks.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/LED-Clip-Lamp-2d-Silvertone/dp/B001AHLOGG</p>

<p>I bought a GF dome. In all sincerity, I found it a piece of junk--both in terms of physical quality and its diffusion effect. Happily, it broke so I'm not tempted to use it again. I use the Nikon IR filter mounted over the built-in flash on my Nikon d200 to trigger strobes. Lately I've been using it on two slave lights I bought on Amazon for $6.59 each. Works great. I can hold one in my hand via a strap or heavy rubberband. I plan to strap one to my leg as well to get an 'over and under' two-light effect for spontaneous portraits.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Bracket-Cameras-Camara-Without/dp/B002X3VBFK/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1296352415&sr=1-2</p>

<p>About the photo in question that I don't want critiquing -- I'm not going to 'go there' as they say. I used to tackle with the issue regarding the subjectivity versus objectivity of visual phenomena -- photographic or otherwise -- until I read a research study conducted in Australia (I don't have it at the moment, but I'll try to find the link), which found that all things being "equal," (which of course they can't be) the typical human has more acute focus in the morning than in the evening. So, does that mean, we shouldn't fine tune images during the morning, or use a technological device that can override the physiological changes? The same researchers found that acuity of vision was correlated with the amount of reading an individual engaged in -- not because the eye is staying focused on one distance (as is often believed), but because when people read, they tend to look downward causing the eyelid to exert a small amount of pressure on the upper edge of the eye, and that pressure eventually causes a loss of acuity. I guess that may mean that reading by staring straight ahead with the eyes at a right angle to the page may prevent this problem. Of course, the differences may be so minimal that they don't make a difference in regards to engineering issues (BTW, Gregory Bateson's definition of information was "Any difference that makes a difference.") However, in aesthetic judgment, these differences are of a different order than those in engineering. Even in engineering, critical measurement and prediction isn't that stringent as it was predicted before the space shuttle program (by NASA), that about 2% of space shuttle flights would end in disaster. With 132 flights and two disasters, that was a fairly good estimate. Regarding aesthetics, Kant's definition of the aesthetic in his Critique of Judgment, i.e., "What is pleasing is that which is pleasing to me" doesn't seem much improvable upon, although contemporary culture would seem to favor McLuhan's definition of art, which is "Art is anything you can get away with," implicating a cultural/social belief system that can be implicated in the idea of "brainwashing."<br>

In any case, I don't mean to imply that many or even most images couldn't be "improved" via post-processing. I meant to inquire whether there is such a plethora of "information" about how images can and should be improved that many people will feel apprehensive about that rare image that seems just right intuitively, thereby casting doubt (if not color) on all images.</p>

<p>First, I'm not seeking a photo critique, so please don't bother checking out any of my photos owing to this question.</p>

<p>A few months ago, I posted a portrait, and listed under details that I didn't use any post-prod like photoshop with it. I got a positive response that since the photo was fine the way it was, and the ideal is not to use post if you get it all "right" via the lighting and camera. I thought how logical that was, but my initial posting of the photo was to see how to improve it since I figured that since I couldn't find any way to "improve it" via post, that there must be something wrong with it. Have I been brainwashed by the hype on all the software programs -- that every photo can use some improvement in post (even if subjectively the photographer sees no need for it?</p>

<p>I recevied the dreaded service message on my epson software, stating that the parts to my r1800 are nearing their 'shelf life'. I did go to the link Mr. Jon Cone provided regarding self-servicing epsons, but the website, which also offers epson printer parts, doesn't list spare parts for the R1800. This leads me to believe that when I get the final message, which I'm assuming will 'lock' the printer, I should buy a new printer.</p>

<p>My main hesitancy is that my epson r1800 (unlike a lot of reports about epson photo printers) has worked <strong>absolutely flawlessly</strong> over a three year period of heavy use. Never had a problem, never had a warning, just did the usual maintenance tasks as the software indicated. Is my particular printer (the one I own, specifically and/or the r1800 in general) seem to be more reliable than the other epsons.? I have read so many 'horror stories' I'm a bit nervous about getting another one -new or refurbished.</p>

<p>Kind of a late response but.... I should have clarified something about these super cheap slaves. I've triggered them with my built in flash on my Nikon d200 using <strong>the infrared shield/blocker placed on the hotshoe.</strong> Everything seems to work as it should. The slaves get triggered even when 10 or 15 feet away, and the Nikon shield blocks the on-camera flash so I don't have to worry about 'contamination.' Maybe I'll post a few shots with my $3.79 slaves. An interesting experiment would be to try a set up with my novatrons, then emulate it with these guys, and compare the difference. I don't use TTL, which I never use anway.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie Heyward</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 15, 2010; 05:24 a.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>"... for Witkin, whose photographic trances ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you know what the writer meant by 'photographic trances?'</p>

<p>To conclude, I think that overt references to named historical, narrative or mythical characters or events in <strong>still photography</strong> can and too often does degenerate into the equivalent of what, in Hollywood movies is "gratuitous." Stuff that is there for no other reason than a cheap thrill. Gratuitous violence, gratuitous sex, gratuitous reference.</p>

<p>When you use the term, "still photography" in this context, do you mean 1) still photographs as isolated images, for example, as exhibited in an online or actual gallery, or do you mean 2) still photographs that are 'co-opted' in the service of a commercial or conventional enterprise, like a magazine advertisement or a high school yearbook, or both?</p>

 

<p>Here is a link to super-cheap mini slave flashes. I just got two of them, and am experimenting with them for edification and fun. I am thinking of trying some <strong>DIY</strong> projects with a group of them --like strip lighting or ring lighting. Has anyone tried these or similar cheapo lights, and if so what did you use them for and what was the result. Thanks.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Bracket-Cameras-Camara-Without/dp/B002X3VBFK/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1292807410&sr=8-7">http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Bracket-C … amp;sr=8-7</a></p>

<p>As the O.P., (as they say), I don't want to give the impression I just posted and ran. I'm truly happy to have gotten these thoughtful responses--so thoughtful that I want to consider them before responding, which I am hesitant to do now--being too groggy. I was on the site this morning to check out information about polarizers--a theme that doesn't take quite as much mental effort.</p>

<p>As someone with a background in literature (English teacher/professor and writer) and the visual arts (film, painting, photography), I think the former may have influenced some of my photography in that I will make references or correspondences to suggest meanings outside the image. Giving a literary analogy is probably easier for me, so I'll just give a couple. For example, in a short story I wrote that occurs on the spring (vernal) equinox, the main character drives a Dodge Aries (plus there are other casual descriptions that are meant to add to the spring/equinox theme) -- now I didn't spend time thinking of some arcane reference, it just came out that way. Another example: In a play I wrote with 3 characters -- a homeless person and two social workers, one character says 'Where 2 or 3 are gathered, there shall I be' which is a reference to the new testament. And the play revolves around doing acts of kindness. Again, I didn't try to be clever, just came out that way. So, my question is basically does anyone find themselves taking images that have equivalent visual references or references to other works of art? Not that it's required to appreciate the image, but maybe you find yourself just doing it to try to add another dimension to it?</p>

<p>Thinking back on a college English lit course, the amiable professor was discussing a point about modern British literature. He stopped his analysis, smiled, and said, 'Let's face it. Other than a few English professors, nobody cares about this stuff.' Would a commensurate statement be valid about the world of 'fine art photography?' (As opposed to photo journalism, specialized photography like forensics and macro-photography, etc).</p>

<p>I'd like to keep my reflector/diffuser set, but adapt them as the hand grip variety to eschew a second person holding the reflector. I know this isnt' ideal, but it could come in handy. Does anyone have an idea or has any one constructed their own DIY handle/holder for this purpose. I envision it to be like the accessories used in pizza parlors for placing and retrieving pizza pans from the ovens--difference being they'd be attached and stable.</p>

<p>I did a google search for nikon d200 for studio flash and came up with this thread, and as it turns out, I'm doing just what the earlier poster recommended, using the infrared screen. If anyone is still out there with this issue.</p>

<p>Card reader it is. I sure don't want to pay Nikon a couple of hundred dollars for a repair. And I'll try supercharging the battery to see if that makes a difference. Now I can go back to trying to get my printer to work properly even though I'm convinced it's a sadist and won't ever tell me when it will allow me to get the image I was hoping to get.</p>

<p>I've had no trouble in uploading files via a usb cord to my computer with my<strong> D200.</strong> Today, there was something different. The computer does not recognize any evidence of the camera being connected. I tried using the same USB cord with my<strong> d40 </strong>and had no problem. It was recognized immediately and began the upload procedure. So I am eliminating a problem with the cord and computer (I tried a second computer with the same two cameras and the same thing happened. Any suggestions concerning what's going on, or a workaround to use to upload the files from the D200? BTW, I did try changing the USB setting in the camera from MASS to PTP and back, but this didn't change anything. Thanks. As mentioned, this failure to be recognized happened for the first time today. No problems previously.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link. This answers my question.</p>

<p>OK, sorry for being ambiguous. I am referring to the <strong><em>pop up flash,</em></strong> and my camera is the <strong>Nikon D200</strong>. When setting the flash on manual exposure, you can go with full intensity or lower it by one-half increments, i.e., 1/2, 1/4...up to 1/64 or use the output selector -3 to +3. I think I have my answer though: Experiment thoughtfully with a working hypothesis. The best definition of hypothesis I've read is "The predicted relationship between two variables." So in my case, my prediction will be that there is an optimal pop-up flash burst for outdoor shooting but circumscribed to unique situations, so that each of these situations should be tested with a range of flash intensities until I find one that seems appropriate to my needs and taste, and to find that optimal setting I will experiment by using discrete increments, while trying to account for or obliviate confounding variables.</p>