aqualarue

<p>Thanks for the video Andrew, don't have light room but useful to know what you are teaching. </p>

<p>Thankyou Andrew, never thought for one moment that this was the case. Have used it a hundred times, but your comments I trust, so thanks for letting me this. (as a side issue I would have thought that adobe would have either substituted or abandoned this if it was inaccurate)?</p>

<p>operating Photoshop CS3 on Apple 10.6.8<br>

Colour management synchronized across apps<br>

Monitor calibrated up to date<br>

Before I contact the company I thought it wiser to post this on the forum. Having received a fuji test image through the post and having downloaded their ICC profile for this paper from a Printer in North England, I was pleased to see an almost perfect screen to image match during soft proofing their image. However upon switching to out of gamut colours I was shocked to see almost 1/3 of the test image show that frightening out of gamut range. Their digital image is in s'RGB and I did not convert to my working space of AdobeRGB during viewing in photoshop. This seems to me to be a ridiculous situation and I have no explanation.<br>

Question: Is there any possibility that there might be a glitch in the apple computer itself? I have not had this with other images that I myself make. Out of gamut colours usually range from a microscopic pixel to a handful of inconsequential bits and pieces.<br>

Any ideas please?<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Hi Jim. It's been a whole year! was surprised at your response. Anyway, thankyou for taking the time. I actually managed to perfect the cyanotype rather quickly, using different measurements of chemicals, different chemicals even and using both the sun and a UV lamp which was given to me, (not the sun the UV lamp). Worked fantastic, had great results, kept it up for about three months then got bored with it. Are you in England? went to your website but could find no contact email there anywhere. Have done now a completely new photographic project - www.aqualarue.com Cyanotpye were great - but there is only so much you can do with them and besides, not all subject matter is suitable for cyanotype, unlike many of the other old processes.</p>

<p>Best Regards<br>

Chris</p>

<p>I would like to hear from anybody who has a website powered by squarespace who lives in Europe. Reason for asking is that I contacted them to enquire whether or not they have mirrored sites in Europe and they said not at this moment. I am no expert but I did learn that if an American web host does not have a mirror site in other countries then this affects the Google SEO, not badly, but enough to give precedence to the USA and for google search terms coming from European home computers to weigh slightly negatively towards a webpage hosted in USA without having a mirror site in European countries.<br>

Is this true?<br>

(I understand that homepage construction, consistency and use of meaningful key phrases are important etc in SEO, but having read a document about the absence of mirror sites from web hosting companies I need some confirmation as to whether this is worth the attention)<br>

Thankyou.</p>

<p>Hallo, I wonder if someone might be kind enough to tell me the difference between these two lenses please and your opinions about them if you have used them .. thanking you kindly.<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-Macro-Canon/dp/B000AM7CJ0/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1367229509&sr=1-6&keywords=sigma+lens+70-300mm">Sigma AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG Macro Canon Fit Lens</a><br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-Macro-Canon/dp/B000ALLMI8/ref=sr_1_9?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1367229509&sr=1-9&keywords=sigma+lens+70-300mm">Sigma AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG APO Macro Canon Fit Lens</a></p>

 

<p>Hi, I see your shells have quite some DOF. This was a 12mm and about three inches away? And what lens did you use, at what focus? I have seen so many images on the web with extension tubes and became quite dissolutioned at the poor quality everywhere. Every image had unnattractive blur, and the DOF was just a hinderance to aesthetics instead of creatively allowing blur to enhance the limitations. But this image of the shells is almost what I was trying to ascertain - do you need to get so close in for the tubes to begin their ability to focus or can you use the 12mm or 25mm at 5 or 6 inches away and have really good (Acceptable) DOF, but not like those nasty little images we see scattered on the web. Everyone talks about how close you can get but I am desperately trying to discover how far away you can get and still have a roughly 0.25 or 0.3x for example with reasonably good DOF sat even 0.75cm or 1 cm behind which is quite good for my needs? It seemed that the canon250D magnifying lens would be a better at this than extension tubes. Unfortunately not being able to just spend 30 minutes with each item I have no other choice other than to keep hunting for some nice illustrations.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew, I'm quite surprised then, and actually very shocked - I am so glad I have not ordered them yet, they seem a total waste of money. It seems that these tubes are nothing more than cheap magnifiers? If you have to get within a hair's breadth to photo anything what is the point? And as you say that you used the standard kit 18-55mm on one shot and it did not even enlarge it that much it is looking more like that my 20euro glass filters have done a 100 times better than any extension tube could achieve. Have you seen all my flowers? They are all with the 20Euro glass filter dioptre 1 and 2. So I resent paying 150euro for a piece of plastic that gives you no freedom to move in and out and forces you to lose DOF. I mean I have noticed a lack of examples on the internet with these tubes yet many examples when it comes to macro lens and magnifiers from Hoya. All I wanted was to get in a bit closer so that I could enlarge the object a wee bit more, it actually seems that a Dioptre 3 is all I really need, at 30Euros. I really thought that these tubes would provide better quality, honestly. I appreciate your post very much though, thankyou Andrew.</p>

<p>Hi Andrew, thanks. I just had a look at your cookie, Mmm, pretty narrow DOF. thankfully I do not want to get in that close, so out of curiosity at what distance was the lens from cookie? And which tube did you use? If it was that close I wanted then I would have to abandon hope, I only want to enlarge the subject, and that, at a distance of half of what I am able to get right now, so with my present set up I get in at around 5.5 inches to 7.5, I know I need between 3 and 4 inches distance and still retain excellent clarity.</p>

<p>Actually the closest you can get to judging sharpness, clarity, aesthetics and how the image may look at print is 50%. Use 100% to check pixel structure and for how well the image is pixel wise. Then if happy print a test strip of around 20% of full size and pick an area where sharpness, detail and colour are best represented. This really is the only way to see the print.</p>

<p>Thankyou William for the discussion, thanks Dan, both been a great help. Will go for the extension tubes. By the way I do do a bit of focus stacking, manually, it's fun, never make more than three shots at the most, mostly two suffice , have a nice day.</p>

<p>Thanks Dan, at least one thing - I did not know about the Kenko developments so that's a relief. William, the image you have of the pen, looks quite sharp at the edges where it begins to convex. What aperture is this taken at? Trouble with these images a relatively flat image looks appealing, the clarity and size is perfect, at only two inches as well, what DOF do you have here? Do you know, for example maybe 0.5cm behind that pen?</p>

<p>Thanks Dan for all that, much appreciated. William, you've gone also to a lot of trouble. I have uploaded a photo to my gallery right at the bottom called 'single photos', for some reason I can not upload photos directly to this topic? Anyway, I have only a canon 1.8 50mm prime and the 18-55mm kit, also a 70-300mm zoom but is useless now due to salt from years of use on the sea. I want to be able to have flexibility at distances between 3 and 6 inches, a tad more DOF than what you see here, this was taken with the 50mm prime and a 2 dioptre magnifying filter from Hoya. Problem is that I have to enlarge in photoshop to get it bigger. This was only about 1000 pixels in height but is now at 3000 pixels, I have retained much of the detail but this is not what I want to keep on doing. The extension tubes, I seem to be under the impression from reading outside this forum, give you that close in focus but the trade off is loss of DOF on a serious level, yet crispness is retained wonderfully. The 250D, it's said, really is not suitable under 55mm, I just need to get to within 3or 5 inches, fill the viewfinder 80% and get a slightly better DOF than what I get with the present filters, which I must say do an excellent job - I would never knock them, however if the hairs on the leaves behind the water droplet in this image were crisp then that would have been an excellent shot I think.<br>

I suppose it might be helpful to add that I am not after national geographic shots of the hairs of a wasp, or the standards that Macro lenses give where the eye of a wasp reflects back your face (if that were possible). I want to get in closer, so as to fill the viewfinder and not lose the droplets in the background or detail in the few leaves behind the water droplet. (This is just an example)</p>

<p>Thankyou Dan for taking the time to reply. Two things, I kept reading that the Kenko does not work with EF-S so could you explain perhaps? More importantly, magnification takes more priority than "in closer" so to speak. For example I am not interested in getting within 2 or 3 inches, more to the point what I need is to be able to see more detail and acceptable DOF at say 4 to 6 inches. I can not get this with my cheapy present filter. I had looked at the Canon250D and 500D, have you used these. From what I have read there is likely more DOF with this than with the ext tube, sharpness will be better than what I have at present but the extra glass will decrease it slightly - but honestly I do not see that this will be an factor that I need to be bothered with, it is magnification with DOF rather than sharpness that is important. Have you used these 250d or 500d canon lenses? Sorry for the long waffle, it's just that I do not have the opportunity to try before I buy, otherwise it would be an easy problem solved.<br>

I found this interesting info, what do you think.<br>

"Close-up lenses have more effect when they are used on a camera lens with a long focal length than on shorter lenses. This is exactly opposite to the effect of extension tubes, where the amount of magnification decreases as the camera lens focal length increases. In practice, you may find that extension tubes are more useful with short lenses (up to 100mm, say) whereas close-up lenses are more useful with longer lenses".<br>

It seems that he is saying also that a 250D lens fitted on a 50mm lens would have little impact in magnification, what is he really meaning here? Does that make the 25D a waste of money then?</p>

<p>Looking for peoples' advice please and experiences, would be nice. I have been using for some time the canon magnifying filters on the front of my lens, but now need closer with more sharpness. Certainly can not afford a macro lens, so, with some research and reading I feel that extension tubes are the best option, but as always would need to hear people's experiences because I know that the Kenko set will not operate on EF-S lenses. This means that I could only use the tubes fitted to my 70-300mm and 50mm prime lens, which are EF only. Question: What sort of working distances can you successfully get in at with a 50mm prime lens? And is Auto focus possible with these tubes?</p>

<p>Hi Charles and Jim, thankyou guys, I saw this page many times and for some reason missed that email address, having read so many times that the journal had been discontinued and that some even said that you could not buy anymore, I guess I overlooked that email. I am sure I emailed her ages ago and did not get a reply. I came back to it again only yesterday and just thought perhaps someone might have some other info on this. Anyway, I will email her. Thanks.</p>

<p>Issue 1 I was able to download. But I can not find the other 8 issues which I believe and have read were once available to purchase. Has anybody here any information about these journals whether I can still buy them? Thanks. I finally find something I want to get my teeth into.....</p>

<p>Hi Les, I have no clue what you mean sorry Les. I know about internet protocols and how the address system works, but no idea what you mean by a fully legal program.</p>

<p>Thanks Karl. The video is interesting. The 200 dollar package not so....but thankyou anyway.</p>

<p>Thanks Chris. </p>

<p>well that was helpful thankyou, but I am unable to view anything since I do not live in USA. After signing up and going through the process I was then directed to time of visit. I thought that I might be able to view something on line as I had clicked on 'box request two' referencing some information from the link you kindly gave me. But alas it seems that it is only for people who can visit.</p>

<p>Looking for information about what technique he used for his photography, after searching quite a few informative websites I was only able to see one minor reference to his work as being 'Platinum'. But that was pointing to one image he made. Does anyone have any references about his work, his technique or his medium in particular, was it all platinum? Thankyou gentlemen.</p>

<p>A lot to go on. My most grateful appreciations for everybody's contributions. One thing hat stick out is the collodion plate process. Thanks Zack and David. Still do not quite get the Patent search that Ann suggested? And tracing on paper by Feodor? We are thinking of building a camera to suit the process that we use, so building it as big as the negative/plate that we want to make. <br>

I have read about the process of etching a photograph onto copper, but have there been any uses for thin wafer copper plate in photographic history? <br>

In the meantime I will be looking up your suggestions and very many thanks for all your pointers.</p>

<p>Hallo guys, thankyou all for this useful info - primitive is what I am looking for. Ann, I think you need more than that, I do all my own chemistry and make some of the chemicals myself, but coating acetate paper with light sensitive chemical will not make a negative. John and JDM, thanks for the tips, silver nitrate is not a problem I made my own. On a side note here in Ireland even in Cork's biggest library the number of photography books is counted on one hand, and they are all about pretty picture making with digital. Many appreciations for taking the time to reply.</p>

<p>Searching google and this forum did not turn up anything about this process, unfortunately my search methods are not sophisticated enough to target what I am looking for. I want to make my own B/W negative that will be then exposed in a home made camera, so basically everything from chemical through to final print is, for want of better words, hand crafted. I have no clue where to start as far as the negative is concerned, and have found no articles on this at all, even glass plate will do if this is possible. All I need are some pointers to references and perhaps some information from anyone who has done this. I appreciate this.</p>