JosvanEekelen

I have no idea how DPP handles JPGs but most image editing programs will handle JPGs. One word of warning: subsequently opening, editing and saving JPGs degrades image quality because every cycle compresses the image. In this process image information is discarded and it cannot be recovered. With this in mind I would make a copy of the image and make sure there is always an original backup, just in case. I would prefer a parametric image editor like Lightroom because it only stores changes that have to be made to the original and only processes all the changes when the image is exported or finalized. Since JPGs don't have any excess of information highlight recovery is not possible, I don't think there is much difference between programs in the possible tweaking of JPGs, no magic formulas here. I'd go with Lightroom because that is the program I'm familiar with, in your case Photoshop is probably your best bet; not saving JPGs in between steps but keeping with PSD files. Success with editing.

I will not take pictures without being clothed; no place to store the lenscap :-) Nudes? Depends on the mood I'm in and on the picture in question.

Split personality ?

Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately it still does not open the EOS 10D files :-( although the download page accepted my 10D's serial. I guess I'll have to wait for the next update. @PuppyDigs: are you shure your 10D files are supported?

In another thread it was suggested to go to the profile of the spammer and report him as such. In that way you have the whole bunch at once.

I think Peter Krogh wrote a new book (or updated the DAM book) with focus on Lightroom. Check his website.

BTW, as far as I know Bridge is free at the moment. After reading that in a few places I just installed Bridge (latest version) a couple of months ago and it seems to keep running without asking for a license or so.

At the moment i'm scanning slides with a Canon setup: 50 mm macro lens and EOS-M + EF-m to EF converter. I need a 12 mm extension tube to get the proper magnification but then it works great. Pictures come out the same quality as with a Nikon Coolscan V but with better color and 6 times faster. So first I don't think you need the 1.4 x, the bellows should suffice. For the moment no suggestions about the noise. Do you notice the same amount of noise when looking through a loupe?

Most important is if it works for you. Think of a situation when your harddisk crashes, will you be able to rebuild your archive in a reasonable time. My archive looks a bit like yours, I had a harddisk fail on me and it took me little more time than that needed for copying the RAW files to a new harddrive. Lost about 15 pictures out of 60,000 or so. My conclusion was that my approach was ok. If you want to know all read Peter Krogh's DAM book.

Still uing a repaired EOS 5D. According to Canon they had replaced the mirror box. They did it a few years back, under warranty but I think that in the meantime they stopped serviceing 5D's altogether. AFAIK you'll have to look for an independant repair shop and hope they have the proper parts.

I If you have macro equipment available perhaps the easiest route is to photograph the microfiche. There was a recent thread about digitizing slides, if you can find it you'll find a lot of info on how to start. Only thing is with microfiche you probably have to use some tricks to reach higher magnifications, think about using a cropped camera body, macro lens with 1:1 capability and perhaps extension tubes to reach the desired magnification.

<p>Ditto for the Elan 7/EOS 30/33.</p>

<p>Hard to tell, but what we see is a mix of film, exposure, development, digitizing and probably digital altering. As far as I'm concerned the film type is not the most important in this eqyuation. </p>

<p>Looks ok to me. I have a Canon EOS-M + Canon FD lenses + adapter. This is a somewhat similar setup to what you are thinking about. What I dearly miss is the viewfinder but in case of the Sony the fold out screen should compensate for that. Handling will probably be a bit like the twin lens reflex cameras of yesteryear. (I hate holding a camera at arm's length).</p>

<p>I think Dpreview.com shoots the same scene with different cameras. You may have a look there and compare the 6D with 5DIII and 5DIV. Canon are improving their sensors so it might be worthwile to wait for a 6DII, whenever it will be introduced. </p>

<p>You will have a very shallow DOF, in the order of magnitude of a few millimeters. Here macro lenses show their advantage, being flat field lenses. I'm not sure about the Raynox or other close up lenses in this respect. These give you de needed magnification but be prepared for unsharpness near the edges of the picture. </p>

<p>EF 50/f2.5 macro is out of production. I've seen some places that still have (some) stock. For the rest it's an excellent lens but I use it mainly for close-up work. <br> EF 50/f1.8 STM would be my choice since Zeiss is more than a bit over your budget. Canon EF 50/f1.4 is due for replacement. <br> Most 50 mm's are based on decades old optical formulas, only exceptions I can think of are Zeiss and Sigma. </p>

<div></div>

<p>In addition to the above: a ballhead will give you more degrees of freedom in moving the camera but at a price. Cheaper units will not be as stable and move a little bit when or even after you have fastened the head. <br /> If it's for an occasional shot I reverse the adapter as stated earlier. When you're serious about astro photography you may want to consider the option David mantioned. Which brings me to an additional question: what about tripods that are made for other purposes than photography, like the ones made for surveying?</p>

<p>I have the same issue with the 410 geared head, it only uses a different QR plate. From my experience with your head (which is not a geared head) and the PL200 plate: #1 is the way to go, no problems here. The arrow is just and indication on how the lens can be mounted but for the head etc it does not matter. <br> #2 does not work, the plate will not fit reversed. </p>

<p>Quite mature I guess but I don't think there is a camera that's suited for all occasions. There are different needs when you shoot for the web or sports or full blown posters. Mirrorless fits into this equation, they have their strengths and weaknesses. As long as you realize this and see if it fits your needs they are ok.</p> <p>With regard of the hotshoe, hasn't Sony gone back to the standard one with a contact in the middle?</p>

Since it only happened once and the problem disappeared by itself I wouldn't worry. Keep an eye on the system, mark the card for future reference and be happy. Re. formatting. The genereal advice is to do it in camera but it doesn't seem to be too critical.

<p>I have a previous version running (in LR6) . Works fine. Only point is that LR plugins are scattered all over the (LR) program, but Lightroomfocuspoints can't help that. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that this lens was only recently added to Adobe's database. You need LR 6.4 or higher for a lens profile. </p>

<p>Hi Aneta, welcome to photo.net. Your question is not so easy to answer but you'll have to think of light, lightboxes and a lot of learning as well. <br> The info about Sigma is nonsense, Sigma make fine lenses but others to as well. <br> My advice is to start with a high end point and shoot like the Canon G series or similar ones from other brands, add the proper lighting and lightbox to this, a tripod and start shooting and learning. Others will guide you to DSLRs but for small objects cameras with a small sensor have their advantages regarding depth of field.<br> The "learning" tab of this site has lots of info and if you're doing this for a website to show or sell gemstones there are lots of guides on the internet as well. </p>