francisco_disilvestro

<p>It could be the three pads under the mirror, which is not an easy thing to solve and it is normally not included in a CLA. Check with David about this repair.<br> You might check by repeating the test with the camera upside down and sideways. If the pads are gone, the mirror will move inside its frame.<br> <br />On a final note, do not expect "pixel" or "grain" perfect focus at large apertures with an over 30 years old device. For that you will need a recent digital back capable of live view.</p>

<p>The out of gamut warning tool in photoshop is not accurate. It is not intended for this type of test</p>

<p>Maybe a Contax 645 or a Pentax 645NII</p>

<p>There is a chance the problem is due to the lab. Some of them start to unroll the paper back with the lights on to reach the beggining of the film (it has happened to me many times). Try to advance a little bit further than the arrows aligment when you load the film and note if the burnt area changes accordingly</p>

<p>No, editint DNGs in Lightroom will give you the same quality as editing from NEF</p>

<p>In addition to what the previous posters said:</p> <p>The main difference between the "silver" and "black" old "C" lenses is that the blacks are multicoated, which may give you more contrast and better resistance to flare. There might be very few lenses that does not follow this pattern, so look for T* (in red) which identify the multicoating.<br> <br />I second the advise about David Odess. It will cost you more but you will enjoy the experience. These cameras are around 40 years old by now and lubricans may have lost their properties and some parts may need replacement beyond the obvious light traps of the back. One example is the rubber piece (the name might not be accurate) that goes around the frame that supports the focusing screen, that absorbs the impact when the mirror rises: this deteriorates with time and it should be replace.<br> <br />If you are looking for critical focusing with the lens wide open: Get the new series with the gliding mirror. The old mirror sits on top of three cushions that also deteriorate which are difficult / expensive to replace. The new system is much better (They are more expensive of course).<br> <br />For the record, I have a 500C/M, 500EL/M with black C lenses.</p>

<p>No, Lightroom does not have that capability</p>

<p>The AF-S Micro 105 on a digital nikon body will compensate the aperture at close range to keep constant the "effective aperture". This means that when you are close to maximum magnification the aperture mechanism will move while changing focusing.</p>

<p>I would recommend leaving it to a professional, unless "mechanically savvy" means someone trained in lens repair.<br> BTW, I had the same issue with a 50mm f1.4 AIS, and after service it was like new.</p>

<p>One possible cause is a temporary bad connection between the lens and the camera due to humidity, movement or dust. When this happens, the lens will be closed to the minimum aperture (Nikon behaviour) and the resulting image would be very dark, almost black.</p> <p>It is not a common issue, but it happens once in a while. The first thing to check in detail is the EXIF for those black images lookign for minimum or missing aperture values. If you have non-CPU lenses defined in your camera, it will use the values of the last used non-CPU lens to write the EXIF.</p> <p>Since you mention the action was "Fast and Furious", there is a chance that movement between camera and lens produced the issue, even if it was inside the tolerance of the mechanical lock</p>

Make sure you are using process version 2012 in the camera calibration panel

<blockquote> <p>But I remember the color correction filters I used to use in bright sunlight, light overcast, to shade with Daylight Kodachrome. Those allowed me to tweak the results in camera so the image would be correct. My filter did the trick</p> </blockquote> <p>Trying to match different digital cameras would be like using in the film days Fuji Velvia, Kodachrome and Kodak Portra and pretending matching results</p>

<p>You can do it with ACR/Bridge if you wanted without any issue. Recent versions of ACR allow you to use a database to store the adjustments instead of creating xmp files. Just go to camera raw preferences and select "Save image settings in: Camera Raw Database"<br> I just tried for fun with 700 images from a D800, all at once, and the adjustment took only seconds, while the update of the previews took a few minutes.<br> <br />Bridge, ACR, LR and even Capture 1 use the same database SQLite, (Yes, part of the Bridge Cache is a SQLite database) and 900 is a really low number of transactions for a database.</p> <p>LR is perhaps the most ambitious implementation that I know for SQLite in terms of the schema (tables and fields) and its main difference with other programs is the library implementation, not the database itself, because almost any other program use a database too.<br> <br />One comment about copying white balance in LR: If you copy the settings from an image where the WB is "As shoot", then it will copy "As shoot" and not the temperature / tint values. Maybe this is obvious to everybody else but it was not obvious to me.</p>

<p>In addition to what Andrew Rodney said, if you only want to display your images (library, slide show) for keywording, rating, slideshow, etc, you just need the standard previews<br> <br />Another big advantage of LR (for me) is that the logical organization of images through collections is independent of the physical organization (drives and folders) and you can have an image in more than one collections. E.G. I can have a collection for red cars and other for european cars. In a folder structure I have to choose either red cars or european cars or have duplicate of the images.<br> <br />Most complaints I read in online forums are from users that want to use LR as a browser. Well, it is not, so if you can't stand the import process and preview creation, then keep using Bridge, which is a fine tool too.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Is Bridge multi-user?</p> </blockquote> <p>Bridge is just a browser so you might have more than one user accessing a folder. Also once you complete your work on an image, it is available to any other user without having to export first</p>

<p>Both programs have their place and there is quite an overlap of things you can do in either of them.<br> The biggest issue that I can think of LR for business/commercial use is that it is strictly single user, a major drawback for teamwork</p>

<p>Hi, I have used the Gel Stick on a D800 and D300 and have been very satisfied with the results. No residues or marks left and all dust cleaned.</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments Tim,</p> <blockquote> <p>Just curious to know what can go wrong in reference to your statement of needing a catalog-centric approach in order to avoid problems. I'm guessing preventing images from getting lost or corrupted.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />In order to keep integrity of your image collection, the "catalog" must be aware of all changes you perform in the images. If you edit or make changes with ACR then you need to update the catalog using the information in the xmp files. If you need to move folders / images to another location, you should do it from inside LR so the references get updated.<br> An important thing to remember is that LR does not merge the catalog information with the xmp files. It either overwrites the catalog with the xmp files or overwrites the xmp with the catalog info.</p>

<blockquote> <p>But what is the advantage over just clicking to open?</p> </blockquote> <p>It is a different approach, not necessarily better or worse, and it depends on your needs and your desired workflow. Lightroom is just a single-user digital assets management solution.</p> <blockquote> <p>It appears creating a record of registry by importing is similar to creating an alias that points to an actual file that resides on a hard drive which seems like a setup for errors to occur if and when a catalog gets moved to another hard drive for clients and/or other post processing workstations to work on or view images across multiple platforms.</p> </blockquote> <p>When you use LR, you need to have a catalog-centric approach in order to avoid problems.<br> A few ways to work with other parties or workstations:</p> <p>- Use the sidecar files (.xmp): A record in the LR database is equivalent to a sidecar file. The good thing is that you can create and/or syncronize information between the LR catalog and the sidecar files in both ways.<br> Example: Create the xmp file from LR, then edit the image in ACR (which will store the edits in the xmp) and finally back to LR where you have the option to update the catalog with the new content in the xmp.</p> <p>- Export the desired images from LR "as catalog": LR creates a folder with a catalog, images and previews than you can move to another workstation. You can performs edit in this catalog and then import back the changes to your original catalog.<br> An additional advantage is that you might not need to export or distribute the original image files but only previews and work with them in other workstations saving a lot of space. If you use smart-previews you can even edit the images.<br> Same as before, you can then import back those changes to your original catalog</p>

<blockquote> <p>There's a thread over at LuLa that suggests there's more to it than that going by posters complaining about slow performance after long editing and processing of many images. They found quitting LR and restarting gave back the performance they had before. Optimizing the catalog didn't do anything.</p> </blockquote> <p>I know that thread and have contributed to it.</p> <p>First, the catalog and the cache are two different things (the cache is just a temporary storage area, usually configured on a fast drive).</p> <p>If you have performance issues that get solved by restarting the application, it is likely due to a cache or a memory leak issue, and has nothing to do with the catalog.</p> <p>If the issue were due to the catalog not being optimised, the problem would not be solved by restarting the application. Unfortunately none of the posters that experienced the issue tried (or reported) increasing and/or rebuilding the cache.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Import? Export? Why? Why not a simple double click for "open" just like the computer OS and Adobe Bridge.</p> </blockquote> <p>Because LR workflow is based on a register or catalogue. Importing an image is just the process of creating the record in the register.</p> <p>Think of it as a library compared to your personal book collection. If you buy a book for yourself, you might just put it in an available space in your bookshelf after you read it.<br> A library instead, will go to a process of creating an entry in the catalog before it is available to the public.</p>

<p>You can think of the LR catalog as a register of images which handles the following information:</p> <p>- Where the original image file is located (Disk / folder / filename)<br> - Development instructions, similar to a recipe<br> - Information about the image (metadata, keywords, ratings etc)<br> <br />Since it does not containg the image file itself, the size of each individual record is relatively small, so you can manage a large number of images in one single catalogue.</p> <p>Further:<br> - In order to speed up the visualization of images, LR builds previews of the images + recipe, which are stored separately and can be regenerated at any time.<br> - In order to speed up the develompent process, LR uses a "Camera Raw Cache". Usually increasing the size of this cache or buffer, may improve the performance when you manage a large collection of images.</p>

<p>The Lightroom catalog is a relational database with references to the image files (the images are not stored inside the database) so a few hundred-thousand records should not be a problem in most modern computer. </p> <p>There might be valid reasons to have multiple catalogs depending on your workflow, but image quantity is not one of them.<br> Have your catalog, previews and cache in a fast disk.<br> Also, increase the camera raw cache if you have performance issues (and space available)</p>

<p>That is normal, I have a couple of CZ lenses (C T*) and the depth of field catch button starts to work from 1 stop from fully open (i.e. f4.0 for the 80 F 2.8, 5.6 for the 150 f 4.0).<br> Having said that, you can just close one more stop, between f5.6 and f4, press the depth of field button and then open one stop to f 3.5 and you will be able to evaluate the effect, which I presume will be insignificant, as Rodeo Joe said previously.</p>

<p>There is research going on in this area. An interesting paper from a few years ago: "Aesthetics and Emotions in Images, a computational perspective" (IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing) can be found <a href="http://infolab.stanford.edu/~wangz/project/imsearch/Aesthetics/SPM11/joshi.pdf">here</a>. However, I think that the audience for an application like that is mainly non-photographers. In most photography forums you will get negative answers telling you the tool is not required<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>The Photoshop version matters. Here my results with an i7-2600, Windows 7 64 bits, 16 GB RAM and 256GB HDD (image stored in a standard HDD)</p> <p>Time for the image to show completely in the liquify filter:<br /> Photoshop CC 2014 - Immediate<br /> Photoshop CC (32 bits) - Immediate<br /> Photoshop CS3 (32 bits) - about 9 seconds</p> <p>Regards</p>