michael_darnton1

I shoot a lot of this general type of stuff, and find the definitely-superior screen on the back of the D300 is extremely valuable for checking focus. Which you shouldn't have to do. But it's always nice to know.... This was the feature that caused me to get the D300, which is really an overkill camera for the job, otherwise.

You will eventually discover if that's the case, if you repeatedly get white spots in the same spots, whenever your camera has been exposed to a lot of light through the lens. You could run a test by taking the lens off outside, and exposing the interior of the camera to the bright sky, then replacing, covering the lens and firing off a blank (unexposed) shot. If you get the same white dots, you've got holes.

It's possible--you just resample to a larger size. But you don't gain any detail or anything else--you can't add something that wasn't there, so what would be the advantage?

As for the white spots, did you burn a couple of holes in your shutter while messing around pointing the camera at the sun? Time, and subsequent pictures, will tell. . . .

Looks like he's (in Photoshop terms) enlarging the canvas a few pixels, and then stroking a tiny line.

The inclusion of motors was the end of many photographers use of their eyes. Maybe we should call it "the indecisive moment".

Justin, the sliders are for special backs that don't fit under the ground glass--things like roll holders,

Polaroid backs, and they also made a light box that clipped on to make the camera into an enlarger, for instance.

You cannot make something of something that is not there. Either your scans are rotten, or your negs are, but either way, something's horribly underexposed. I doubt you would have gotten good non-digital prints from either of these negs, if the scans are accurate, so don't blame digital. :-) This is not a case for restoration, but rather for creation from thin air, and I don't know of any software that does that yet.

When you're viewing pix on the back of the camera, there's a menu to apply a number of editing changes, and D-lighting is one. That menu lets you quickly cycle through the choices, so it's easier to see and learn what's going on. I played around with that until I better understood what D-lighting does.

Can't answer the question, but the guy sounds like a power-crazed jerk.

Inside the front, behind the lens mount on the top, there's the roller that follows the cam on the back of the lens. There's also a finer strip of metal that moves with the arm holding the roller--a strip with a twist in it that bottoms out on a smaller roller-type thing. See if the camera without the lens is focused at about the same distance as you're having problems. If so, the twisted bit is grounding out before the lens has reached it's closest. You can bend the twisted bit to give a hair more movement, but in doing so you run the risk of bending it wrong, and damaging the stuff you can't see--the bearing for the movement. If you're careful, though you can do that, and it won't take much. Or maybe you don't want to do it, satisfied that you know the problem is that they didn't go far enough with something that will be easy to fix later, at some CLA.

If you run out of patience, shift+click opens bookmarks in new windows, and ctr+click opens them in new tabs, by the way.

Do a filter for the word "tab" and a lot fewer options show. It looks like there one near the top for your search need; I don't see one for favorites. There's one for loading bookmarks in background--I don't know if that would do what you want or not.

You change them by double-clicking the appropriate line, by the way.

Type about:config in the address bar and have a look at the things that pop up; see if one does what you need. Ignore the pop up window about voiding the warranty: it's a free product, right?

For small stuff I use my desklamps and reflectors. A full-spectrum bulb works fine. It's amazing how little gear you can get along with, when you know what to do with it.

An additional value of having a small, easy to use camera on hand is that you will find yourself pulling it out to shoot progress and process pix that your customers will find interesting, and will be useful on PR pieces and websites. The easier it is for you to make those photos, the more you will take.

 

As Ronald points out, the camera is the least of it--learning to do it right will be the most important thing.

I do a lot of very close work in my work, and though I have a fancy macro setup and was once a "real" photographer, often I will use an old 4MP Pentax Optio 4 point and shoot, for the following reasons. It's easy to use, even handheld, and with enough light and low ISO setting it does a fine job. 4MP is more than enough for web work and small prints, up to even 8x10 for some things. The screen on the back is much easier to use for macro composition, because I don't have to lay myself on my stomach on my bench to see in the back of the DSLR. It's small, and always there. The macro mode is painless.

 

In short, if you're not really a photo geek anyway, a point and shoot may be entirely adequate for the job, and will give you a nice carry-around camera, too. The important thing, though, is to get a point and shoot with a good macro mode that allows all the distances you will need at all focal lengths (some only go macro at the wide-angle range, or don't go nearly close enough).

For photographers it's already been invented:

http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/media/image/k/0/sd_coneheads_01_large.jpg

The only AF lens I know of that's not up to previous manual focus versions is the 28/2.8. Unlike other lenses in the line, they played around with 28mm quite a bit before getting a really good one, and then moved backwards with AF, to a simpler and worse version. Otherwise, I'm surprised at the optical quality of the modern lenses, especially my 18-135 zoom, which I took only because it came with the camera and which has ended up doing a lot of studio work because of its convenience and quality.

It does appear to be so, yes.

The problem with depth of field is that it's not a situation with absolute boundaries that expand with smaller stops, within which everything is sharp. There's really only one critically-focused spot, and everything in front and in back becomes progressively unsharp. The smaller the stop, the broader the range over which this happens. So in order to make a thicker subject appear in focus, it's inevitable that things in the background that you don't want in focus will become gradually sharper.

Are we to understand this is with the 18-200,? Which doesn't have a very good reputation at the long end. Nevertheless, it looks to me like there are spots that are sharp, but that the depth of field isn't sufficient to spread the narrow focus zone across the distance the picture needs.

I'd second Dmitry's recommendation of the 20/2.8 AF-D. Mine is one of the best lenses I've ever had, and great for grab shots. It's on my camera as my standard lens, and I rarely change it. I can do pretty much everything I want with the 20 and a 50. Having gotten used to the instant and precise focus that auto-focus offers, I'm reluctant to go back to manual lenses for anything. Though I understand the 28 MF lens in the phot above is a gem, the 28mm AF-D lens is a real dog--maybe it's OK on film, but on my D300 it's Mush City- and though I thought I'd like the length, for me it's turned out to be a no-point-of-view=boring-pictures lens, so it gets no use at all.

I have different lights, but totally support the idea of big heavy stands. I have the 8' stand sold for my light, and another 13.5' stand bought for another reason that will never get used that high. It was only about $60, and I wish I had two--the 8' stand holds the light OK, but bump it wrong and it's gone. The big stand is totally secure, with a footprint that's only a few inches wider.