andy_briggs1

<p>Hi chaps (and chapesses), I have a Plustek Optifilm 7200 which I use with Vuescan on my Vista machine. I've never been convinced by the results. The images seem to have a horrible colour cast on them and when this is corrected in Photoshop Elements the images look flat and lifeless compared to how they look through a projector or through a loupe. I'm trying to scan Fuji Sensia film, so it's not particularly over saturated images that I'm dealing with in the first place.<br>

I have also noticed that the images are very dark and when I look at the histogram in Elements it seems bunched way over to the left. Is this normal or are my scanner settings to cock???<br>

Any help would me most welcomed.<br>

Regards<br>

Andy Briggs.</p>

<p > </p>

<p>When you look at a lens 'front on' you will see that the glass is convex. This is to make the lens more aero-dynamic when you are taking photos directly into the wind. This explains why people who use filters and lens hoods suffer from camera shake more than the rest of us.<br>

To avoid camera shake completely, always shoot downwind.</p>

<p>Hi All,<br>

I'm not sure where to post this question but I suppose here's about as good as anywhere. I'm having several issues with the Organizer part of Elements 6.0.<br>

The first, and the one that is annoying me most, is that I'm missing dozens of images due to broken links and missing files. I read that this is a common problem with multi core PC's. I've done the adobe recommended fix and removed the multiprocessor support plug-in but this hasn't made the 'missing' images reappear. Is there a way around this?<br>

The second thing that is really annoying is that Organizer is full of multiple copies of my images. Sometimes there are up to 6 identical images. Is there a way I can rationalise this so that there is just one copy of each image?<br>

Thanking you all in advance.<br>

Regards<br>

Andy B.</p>

<p>Kelly,<br>

Thanks very much for posting those images. I'll be off to check the specs of the flatbed I've got. I think you've shown me the way forward.<br>

Regards</p>

<p>Andy B.</p>

<p>Cheers guys, I think the major thing is that I doubt I'm going to have 100 images that I will want to scan and I was interested in seeing if it was possible to get them scanned in dribs and drabs. Ideally, I would take Bob Sunley's advice and get myself a darkroom. Sadly, my house just aint big enough.<br>

Thanks for all the good advice. Does anyone have an image that they could upload to show me the sort of quality that I could expect to get from a flatbed scanning a MF neg?<br>

Thanking you all in advance.<br>

Andy B.</p>

<p>Over Christmas, I managed to pick up two old 1950's era Kershaw cameras in pretty good condition. They run on 120 film which I haven't used for a few years now.<br>

My plan was simple. Clean up these cameras, enjoy shooting with them for a few weeks then get the film developed and drum scanned so I can manipulate the images in Photoshop. What could possibly go wrong?<br>

Well, quite a bit if I'm not too careful. A quick search of the interwebs tells me that the only local company that scans MF negs these days only does batches of 100 (I think that's frames not rolls) at a cost of £4 per image. It doesn't stop there though. Multiple passes cost more, as does dust and scratch reduction. Basically, I won't get much change out of £600 if I'm not careful.<br>

Does that sound about right or have they seen me coming?<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Andy B. </p>

Many thanks to all those that have contributed an answer thusfar. It looks like I was wrong about the warm up filter (Lex & Mike, thanks for putting me straight) and it does seem that his images are straight out of the camera.

Time for me to get practicing then I presume!

Regards

Andy B.

Bob, I know that! I'm not a gadget geek - I believe (at least for most of us mortals) there's always more room for improvement in the individual than there ever will be in the equipment - but I don't think those images are unaltered. I believe that they are tinkered with, probably through the use of coloured filters. That being the case, I'm back to my original question, how does he achieve that look?

Let me clarify - The aesthetic beauty of the subject or of the model aside (I agree that comes from experience and / or lots of talent and NEVER through choice of equipment) I think the image is manipulated, probably through the use of filters. Could anyone tell me if that is true or not? If it is true, does anyone know what they are please?

Hi everyone. I guess I'm not alone in admiring the photos of Steve McCurry. I think he's not only the foremost travel

photographer of our times, but also one of the best portrait photographers too. However, I have one question to ask

anyone out there with more experience than myself. Basically, how the hell does he do it? Many of his more recent

photos (Mid 90's onwards), and especially his shots of Cambodia, have the most fantastic light. Many also seem to

have a slight orange caste.

Am I right in thinking that the majority of his pictures are taken in the golden hour? Also, does anyone know if he

uses a very soft warm-up filter (I'm guessing by the dates that he would have taken these images on film rather than

digitally). This 'fantastic light' even extends to indoor portraits hence my assumption of a warm-up.

Finally, not that I'm going to rush out and upgrade, but does anyone know what kit / film he uses?

Thanking you in advance,

Andy B.

P.S. For those without a clue who I'm talking about, please have a look at the following.

http://www.stevemccurry.com/main.php

Hello Nick, jargon in photography is one of them things that we all have to put up with. I will try and answer your

questions as simply as possible.

1) EF/EF-S. EF (IIRC) stands for Electronic Focus. It is the name given to the bayonet fitting that Canon uses for

the EOS camera system. Each manufacturer uses a different bayonet mount; Nikon has the D/DX fit, Pentax has the

K. The difference between EF & EF-S is to do with the glass of the lens. Basically, in the old days, a 35 mm camera

created an image on film that was 36x24mm. When digital SLR's came along the sensors (APS-C) were a little bit

smaller. This meant that they didn't need to have as much glass in the lenses, so for cost purposes Canon

introduced the EF-S type of lens.

The advantages of EF-S are price and weight. The disadvantage is that if you use an EF-S lens on a 35mm film

camera (or a full frame DSLR like the EOS 1 and EOS 5) you see vignetting (dark edges in the corners of your

image). You have to have a think about your future camera upgrade plans as to whether EF-S makes sense or not.

Confusingly, Canon's professional spec lenses (the sexy looking white ones) are known as 'L Series' lenses. These

still have the EF mount and can be used with any Canon EOS's. As a final note, some canon lenses are marked as

FD. These are the old, pre-autofocus, type lenses and are not compatible with any Canon EOS's.

2) f/2.8 is a measurement of aperture. Brace yourself because this has many different names including aperture, f-

stop, depth of field, bokeh and can be used to determine whether a lens is 'fast' or 'slow'. To see what happens when

you vary this number, pick up your camera, set the top dial to ‘Av’. Set the camera to the lowest number you can get

(Typically, somewhere between f1.8 – 5.6 depending on the kit you are using). Now, stare directly into the lens and

hold down the depth of field preview button – have a look in the manual if you can’t find it but on my 30D it is in the 4

o’clock position just underneath the lens release button). You won’t see much happen. Now change the number to

the highest (somewhere between f22 – 45) and repeat the exercise. You will be able to see the aperture changing.

Changing the depth of field has an effect on the finished image. Under the old adage about pictures saving a

thousand words, please have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field for examples.

3) Correct, they are different sizes of zoom lenses. The lower number represents how wide angle they are, the higher

number is how telephoto they are. Without wishing to blind you with science the human eye sees at roughly 50mm

(cue pedantic corner re. different sized sensors!) so if the number is lower than 50mm the lens is considered wide. If

the figure is above 50mm then it is a telephoto. Lenses tend to become fisheyes at around 12mm (i.e. very wide)

whereas a wildlife photographer will seldom use anything less than a 400mm.

Hope this helps,

Andy B.

Generally speaking, since migrating to digital, I don't use filters unless it's a polariser / ND for artistic effect.

I may be storing up trouble for later but I reckon the lens hoods (which I do have for all of my lenses) would provide

some protection for the front elements.

The only exception would be if I expected rain / sea spray / sandy conditions where I will always put a polariser on

for protection.

This is my friend Bryan at his wedding. He's trying on his new wife's

tiara!<div></div>

This is a shot I took earlier today of Kiska the one year old Amur

Leopard at Marwell Zoo, Nr. Winchester.<div></div>

One interesting point to bear in mind is that when you are taking portraits in Black & White, it's not uncommon to place a coloured filter in front of the lens. Usually, for portraits, this will be orange. The reason this is done is because it masks blemishes on the skin such as freckles /spots etc. and can give a more flawless 'porcelain' look to a models skin.

As for the colour v B&W debate, take a look at the gallery on this site and you will see many photos of models are taken in B&W. There are numerous theories why B&W is so popular, ranging from B&W offers a timeless look, to colour can distract from the shape / form of a model. Personally, I can never quite put my finger on it but I know whether a particular shot will look better in colour or B&W almost instinctively. In a nutshell - B&W rocks (some of the time!)

As for the ISO debate it looks like the other contributors on here have nailed the answer from a technical point of view. When I used to use film (I, like many on this site have long migrated to digital) I tended to use slow speed films (Ilford PAN F 50 and the ubiquitous Velvia 50 for landscapes / wildlife - both are / were ISO 50)as much as possible, however, I was asked to do photos for a mates band in a dingy music club. I shot using Ilford Delta 3200 (ISO 3200) and got some great grainy images as a reult.

It's horses for courses really, although these days I tend to shoot digital with an ISO of 100 and add any grain effects using photoshop.

Hope this helps.

Andy B.

If you crop further in (I have but i'm not teccy enough to do what James has done above) and completely take the bridge out, the photo looks much better IMO. I also cropped out the tree on the left and the dark block on the right. That way, the photo was framed by the lampost on the left and the scaffolding / bridge support on the right.

I like the B&W too - it gives it a very 1940's London Blitz look.

Taking that idea to it's natural conclusion, I tried burning in a moody sky and, again IMO, it made a vast improvement.

Hi Wolfgang - it looks to me like you are trying to frame the shot using the bridge at the top, the dark bit on the right

and the walkway on the left. Additionally, the handrail looks like it might have been an attempt to lead the eye into

the picture. Unfortunately for the shot, I think there's too much going on and that those elements dominate the

picture rather than the subject, i.e. the Houses of Parliament.

If you are to take the shot again, may I suggest discarding some of the distractions and concentrating on getting the

HoP as the main focal point of the picture?

Finally, I don't like the metering. Whilst it was always going to be a tricky one to get right with there being so much

contrast between the brightness of the sun and the shade of the bridge etc., the HoP themselves are either

overexposed for a silhoette, or under for a normal shot. I would have been tempted to spot meter on the face of Big

Ben and be beggar the consequences, or meter on the brightest points to get a perfect silhoette of everything.

Finally, after scratching my chin for a few minutes I would have had a crack at HDR and probably nailed it that way!!!

Either way, congratulations for taking a photo of a London tourist attraction without getting stopped by the police!

Practice, practice, practice and then practice a bit more. Then, when you've got umpteen shoeboxes full of negs / hard drives full of images edit, edit and then edit your collection some more.

Before I migrated to digital I had literally hundreds of rolls of film and I had a top 12 prints - incidentally, 12 was the number of photo frames I had dotted around the house. Every print is a knockout winner (IMHO) and most people who see them are very impressed. What they don't know is that for every print that hangs on my wall there must be about 2000 that didn't make the cut!

I used to work for the BBC in Television Centre, London (although I had absolutely nothing to do with any programme making and certainly nothing to do with Planet Earth). My job was to build the facilities to allow the BBC to transmit High Definition. Half way through the project we noticed a buzz about the place. BBC Bristol (the department that creates all of the BBC's natural history programmes) had created a new series to showcase HD. We were, at the time, crying out for demo material to show off to the rest of the BBC what HD was all about and Bristol had a reputation for creating stunning photography through the immensley popular 'Life' series voiced by Sir David Attenborough.

Needless to say, when we first saw what they had created we were completely in awe. I admit, even as a hairy ar$ed engineer, at the first time that I saw it some of the scenes were so stunning that I had tears in my eyes. The previous Natural History programmes, whilst visually stunning in themselves, were all about education. Here someone had thrown the rule book out of the window and gone for broke to show stunning images like no other had before. Quite simply, I don't think there is a duff shot / bad montage sequence anywhere in the eleven hours of programming.

I raved about it, I told everyone I knew about it, and sure enough it was a massive hit in Britain and throughout the world. The BBC takes a lot of criticism these days but it stands preeminent amongst broadcasters as the best maker of wildlife documentaries bar none.

Every two or three years the BBC seems to raise the benchmark of wildlife documentaries. Planet Earth was released in 2006 - how good can we expect the next series to be?

Hi Loretta, I assume you mean HDR (High Dynamic Range) if so, it's not too tricky but you will probably be better taking photos with this technique in mind rather than trying to 'retro' manipulate any images you have taken thus far.

Firstly, set your camera to spot metering and select aperture priority mode. Once you have selected the correct aperture (For examples sake f8) take a meter reading of the brightest part of the picture. (For arguements sake lets assume you get a reading of 1/1000 of a second. Next take a meter reading of the darkest part of the picture (Again, lets assume 1/30th of a sec). Now, reframe your picture and lock the camera off on a tripod.

Flick the camera into full manual settings mode and set the aperture to f8. Now, take one shot at 1/1000, another at 1/500, another at 1/250, another at 1/60 and a final one at 1/30th. You will now have 5 shots. When you next get in front of a computer, download a programme called Photomatix (available as a free trial here at http://www.hdrsoft.com/).

Go to HDR>Generate, and select the five images you took earlier. Run the program. Once it has finished, go to HDR>tone mapping and the image should be OK. If it needs anymore tweaking done I prefer to then import it into elements and finish it off.

Hope that helps.

Andy B.

Sounds like quite an itinerary! As a native (English, Winchester if you're asking) whose travelled and photographed most, if not all of the places listed above, my advice would be don't try and do too much, but rather take your time and really experience the highlights.

As for the highlights, I'd forget Dover. It's just a big ferry terminal famous within Britain for its proximity to France (popular with day trippers for the cheap booze/fags they sell in France).

Must see places are London (although don't even think about trying to drive around the place - remember, London is the spiritual home of road-rage), Windsor, Canterbury, York, Edinburgh (whilst in Scotland give Loch Ness a miss - as mentioned above there ain't a lot going for it. If you want picturesque Scotland take the 'Road to the Isles' from Fort William to Mallaig, catch the ferry 'over the sea to Skye' and try and come back through either Ullapool or Oban)

Heading south again the Lake District (Grasmere, Windermere and Ambleside) and Liverpool are worth a visit (If only because I was born and raised in nearby St. Helens). Liverpool is brilliant if you're a Beatles fan and the cities architecture is unique in Britain. North Wales (especially Snowdonia and the bits between Betws-Y-Coed and Llanberis), Bath is worth a stop as is the rest of the Cotswolds (Bourton-on-the-water / Chipping Norton / Blenheim Palace) and for the full Jane Austen treatment may I suggest Winchester. (Let me know when you're coming and I'll stand you a pint in the oldest pub in Britain and bore you to tears with camera talk!). Also Salisbury, Stonehenge (and the more approachable) Avebury Rings can easily be covered in a day.

Places to avoid like the plague... Oxford, the midlands (The area 50-100 miles around Birmingham), Glasgow, Bradford, Blackpool, Newcastle (you won't understand the locals), Bristol and Luton.

Hope you have a great time over here.

Andy B.

Many thanks for all of your responses. I am very grateful to everyone who has posted above. I will definitely try to follow the advice that you have given and will keep you informed as to how I get on.

Many Thanks,

Andy B.