patrick_j.

<p>hello andrew --</p>

<p>thank you for the quick reply. i do have a ColorChecker but never really knew how to use it properly. do i take a photo on a sunny day or rather on a cloudy one? also, do i then use the JPGs which the camera produces using the film emulations, or do i use the RAW file the camera produces and then tinker in lightroom to get the film emulation?</p>

<p>thanks in advance,<br>

patrick.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>hello --<br>

i was lucky a few weeks ago to get a fuji x100 and right around that time Lightroom was updated to support it's RAW format. However, the RAW files look very dull compared to the quite good JPGs the camera delivers. for a quick and dirty raw import flow i'd like to emulate the film emulations of the camera (velvie, provia, etc.) which it applies to generate the JPGs. however, i haven't had much luck with getting a good rendition so far.</p>

<p>have any of you happen to find any Lightroom DNG Profiles for this, or is there another approach on how to achieve this? if i were to create my own profiles, would i have to create different ones for different lighting conditions?</p>

<p>thanks in advance for your time.<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>hello and thank you in advance for your answers. i am considering to my first lighting kit, and mulling over an Elinchrom Ranger RX kit to start with. I have no previous experience with studio lighting so i hope to learn a lot of new things with it. however i am not sure which one to settle on. the ranger RX comes in 3 flavors:</p>

<ol>

<li>RX</li>

<li>RX Speed</li>

<li>RX Speed AS</li>

</ol>

<p>i will primarily use it for portrait photography, and would like to use it on location (hence the battery pack). the RX is quite a bit lighter than the RX Speed, and RX Speed AS, so i wonder if it would make more sense to get the lightest one of the 3. I also don;t understand the advantage of the AS version. I understand the it is asynchronous for when you use 2 heads and allows for different outputs. It seems to me that i would be able to set the output differently anyways on the heads, so what is the advantage of it. <br>

and finally, which one of the 3 would you recommend?<br>

i am sorry if these are complete newbee questions, and will very much appreciate any help with this.</p>

<p>thanks,<br>

patrick.</p>

 

<p><strong>@mark:</strong> thank you again for your infos. i think my older lens is probably pre-PQ and not even an EL lens. the other one i have is a PQS lens but after some examination do not see any window on it, neither on the barrel or anywhere. have you seen this window yourself and where it would be located? </p>

<p><strong>@Graham: </strong>yes, i forgot to mention that the PQ also only does the "500th", but the part with the HFT lenses is interesting. i found very conflicting information on this subject and can only go by the lenses i have here (80mm PQS, and 80mm 'HFT' i suppose). the lens i have has a bayonet filter mount and it's not a PQ or PQS lens. So i assume it is one of the older ones, as it doesn;t support the auto modes properly (only A priority with stopping down).</p>

<p><strong>@Mark: </strong>thank you for looking this up. this does shed some additional light on things. do you know what those older lenses are called? mine is designated "HFT" which as far as i know only is a coating, like the T* coating on zeiss hasselblad mount. the lens is made in germany by rollei and works in limited fassion on my rolleiflex. what is that "little aperture window" you mention? where would i find t on the lens? is it on the inside or can i see it from the outside? the mount looks pretty much the same on both of my lenses.</p>

<p>again, thank you both for sharing your knowledge. i very much appreciate it.</p>

<p>patrick.</p>

<p><strong>@mark:</strong> if i recall properly the EL lens doesn't support the 1000/s speed and one of the auto modes (shutter prio if i recall properly), or you have to stop down the lens to make a measurement. i have the lens in a box here and will confirm later, but i am pretty sure that's the case. the lens i have appears to be a rather old model, so later lenses with the PQ designation might be different. it seems there are so many models out there. </p>

<p>@Graham: Thanks for the quick response. I read your article and that's what i meant, but used the wrong term. Thanks for the hobby shop tip, i will ask around and get it done there. :-)</p>

<p><strong>@Wei: </strong>As far as i know the batteries are the same. Though there are different "types" as in older and newer, i think the only difference is how much charge they hold (newer ones hold more), but since you just want to rebuild it anyways, it is just about getting the casing and the internals, since you will stick new batteries into anyways. so i wouldn't worry about that. Try to find one that is dead and replace the internals.</p>

<p><strong>@Jackwong:</strong> Congratulations on your camera. Personally I have a love-hate relationship with the camera. I love it for the image quality it produces as well as it's handling, and just the sheer beauty of the equipment. It feels solid and is just great to use. However, it is very heavy, it is very very expensive as a system, the PQ lenses cost a small fortune (i have an older EL 80mm f2/8 spare if you are interested), the battery is an issue, and i always worry what i will do if the electronics of the camera die one day. Regardless, i love it and hardly imagine ever parting with it. If you want to stay on a budget, try to find a cheap lens to start with (the EL is cheaper, but doesn't allow you to use all the features of the camera, for that you will need the PQS or PQ at least lenses), you will need a back (there are multiple types: 6003 and 6008), and film inserts, you will defintely need a battery, for that you might want to buy cheaply a "dead" one and rebuild it as graham suggests, and then buy the right charger accordingly. Personally i would start with the battery, as it is the cheapest to get by, just to test the electronics, before you invest in more gear. when all is set and done, get some slide film, and i promise, the negatives will be unlike anything you have ever seen before. And most of all enjoy your camera.</p>

<p><strong>@graham:</strong> thank you for the link. i have been contemplating rebuilding one of my packs. how did you deal with soldering the new batteries together? i have been able to find them as individual units but not as a block as it would be needed. thank you for your advice in advance.</p>

<p>hello jaime -- thanks for uploading the images. i unfortunately am not familiar with this camera, so i can't help you with it. good luck though!</p>

<p>Where did you post the photos?</p>

<p>hello holger --</p>

<p>i haven't personally worked on such a project, nor have i used a RZ67. I have used several Rolleiflex models (fixed and interchangeable lens models), which i all love, as well as Hasselblad. If i were in your position i would probably go for the RZ67, for the following reasons:</p>

<ul>

<li>Varying lenses available, I might want to experiment with wider for environmental shots and long for people</li>

<li>The larger negative might be nicer over just 6x6 esp if I wanted to print bigger</li>

<li>The revolving back for the 6x7 for portrait vs landscape/environmental</li>

</ul>

<p>but i am sure either way you go, it will be a fun project. :-)</p>

<p>hope it helps.<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>hello --</p>

<p>how does LR's way of 7 channels related to the 3 channel PS way? Like most know, if i just use the red channel in PS it's like a red filter, however in LR there doesn't seem that straight up way of doing it?! how would i achieve a red filter (or green or blue) preset in LR?</p>

<p>thanks in advance,<br>

patrick.</p>

 

<p>Oh, and before i forget it. could somebody explain to me what the difference is between the 3 ways to create a B&W conversion? i se these ways:</p>

<ol>

<li>in the basic panel i can desaturate</li>

<li>in the HSL i can desaturate individual channels, and get b&w if i desaturate them all</li>

<li>i can just click on b&w and get an instant one (i have disabled to automatically apply settings)</li>

</ol>

<p>i am not sure i understand the difference and the benefits of the various ways.</p>

<p>thanks again,<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>thank you for your replies. <br>

<strong>@Robert: </strong>thanks for the tip. why is it important to desaturate later? it seems that in LR3 i can desaturate and still use the luminance settings. however, so far, i haven't been able to reproduce or get a close enough preset. any tips there?<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>hello --</p>

<p>I keep experimenting with B&W conversions and wonder if there is a way to emulate the look of a luminosity based conversion in lightroom? so far i keep going to PS and using an action to create a new virtual copy. a simple preset would help me getting a sense which conversion method would be best, as i am having a hard time visualizing the results ahead of time. </p>

<p>thanks in advance,<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>i might be coming a bit late to the discussion, but i don;t think it has anything to do with sharpening, because it requires the filter to be set to about 50px radius. much rather i believe it has something to do with increasing the tonal range in a narrow range of b&w. i did notice that the last few steps do add a bit more depth and interest. using a high-pass filter for sharpening usually requires much smaller radius. </p>

<p>i might be coming a bit late to the discussion, but i don;t think it has anything to do with sharpening, because it requires the filter to be set to about 50px radius. much rather i believe it has something to do with increasing the tonal range in a narrow range of b&w. i did notice that the last few steps do add a bit more depth and interest. using a high-pass filter for sharpening usually requires much smaller radius. </p>

<p>hello --</p>

<p>may be an odd question. but i am looking at ways to make my gear as light as possible. i realize while all that L glass micht be really nice, it also is quite heavy. So i am wondering what the lightest AF canon lens. A reasonably wide prime would be fine. Any buying recommendations and experiences?</p>

<p>thanks in advance.</p>

<p>patrick.</p>

<p>hello again -- so i was lucky i guess and was able to get a B+W 49mm UV/IR filter from amazon for a reasonable price. the filter does work with the hood as described above by Ted and Alex. I ended up using the rubber band solution, which keeps the filter perfectly in place. if placed in it's normal orientation the hood doesn't close completely, but there is no wobble. Either way works, but since i prefer compactness, the rubber band seemed "better" to me. On a side note, and essentially confirming everything written above, the filter is not the "slim" and i bought the regular sized B+W. So far I highly recommend this option.</p>

<p>thanks again to all of you who contributed to this.</p>

 

<p>Hello --<br>

I am sure that I am not the first one to wonder why Lightroom upon import sets <strong>brightness to 50</strong> and <strong>contrast to 25</strong> and sets a default contrast <strong>curve of medium </strong>when I import RAW files. I don't quite understand why though. Wouldn't an image be closer to it's original exposure if all values were left to zero and the ACR setting to the camera profile? May be I am naive or don't fully understand what happens during RAW import and why those values are necessary. I would gladly appreciate any insights.</p>

<p>thank you in advance,<br>

patrick.</p>

 

<p>On a somewhat unrelated matter, i noticed from your photo that your summilux 35mm pre-asph is lens coded. i have read on other forums that there is no code for this specific lens. it also doesn't seem listed on the leica site as a lens that can be coded. does it yield any benefits?</p>

<p>thanks in advance.<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>On a somewhat unrelated matter, i noticed from your photo that your summilux 35mm pre-asph is lens coded. i have read on other forums that there is no code for this specific lens. it also doesn't seem listed on the leica site as a lens that can be coded. does it yield any benefits?</p>

<p>thanks in advance.<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>hello --<br>

very insightful thread, thank you all for posting. it sounds like the E49 Leica UV/IR Filter is the way to go in the 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH hood instead of the Series 7. The site above does seem to carry also the B+W filters as series 7 or 49mm version, so that might be an option also. <br>

on a side note, i couldn't find an UV/IR in town yesterday, however was able to try out a 49mm "slim" heliopan filter in the hood, and it seemed to work fine. I hope this thread will be helpful to others who are trying to use filters with this lens. </p>

<p>thanks again,<br>

patrick.</p>

<p>Thank you for all your replies! It seems that a B+W 486 in 49mm might be the easiest solution for me as they seem simple to get. I noticed though that there are 2 versions, the slim and regular one. Would both of them fit in the hood of the 35mm Summilux pre-asph?</p>

<p>thanks again in advance.<br>

patrick.</p>