fred_wheeler

<p> There is also an update to Capture NX2 (2.3.1)</p>

<p>Tony, I like my Pro9000 a lot but I rarely print B&W. Just a thought but the Pro9500 uses 2 blacks and 1 gray among it's 10 cartridges which I expect would improve B&W printing. More $$ though than the Pro9000.</p>

<p>Canon provides profiles for their papers within the printer drivers. Each paper may have as many as 3 different profiles for various print qualities, standard, high, etc. If I download printer/paper profiles from Ilford there is just 1 printer/paper profile for each paper, no mention of print quality.<br>

Can someone tell me why Canon does this? Is it okay to use the Ilford profile for any quality print? I usually print standard (or medium) but I may sometimes print high (or best).<br>

Thanks, Fred</p>

<p>Charles, This is the only application where I see it. The video driver is up to date.</p>

<p>I am using Windows 7 (64bit) and Elements 8. Often (most of the time) there is an ANNOYING horizontal line through the upper bar (title bar?)<br>

I uninstalled and reinstalled Elements 8 with no change. The line is STILL THERE. Are any of you also getting this in your screen? Any ideas on how to get rid of it? It’s driving me nuts!<br>

Thanks</p><div></div>

<p>I have several books (at least 4) on Elements. The one I like best is 'The Missing Manual'.<br>

Fred</p>

<p>We've been watching a pair of woodpeckers for several weeks. First couple of weeks they were hard at work, 16 hour days, pecking this hole into solid (not rotten) oak. Then a couple of weeks of what we thought was rest. Then the little family appeared. Now, 16 hour days again keeping them fed.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm no pro, that's for sure, but you could try something I do when I want to soften skin lines. In PS Elements, open a file as camera raw and adjust the clarity slider a little to the left.<br>

Fred</p>

<p>Pom, In your original post you thought the lens was backfocusing. Later, you looked again and thought it was frontfocusing. I would download a good testchart, put the camera on a tripod set wide open at f/1.8 and see what it does then if you haven't already.<br>

Fred</p>

<p>The 2 images I posted were very carefully focused manually. I shot the f2.8 and then the f4 without touching anything except f stop and shutter speed. The 2 images do look very close to me also so maybe what I have is a auto-focus issue.</p>

<p>When I really noticed the problem was just walking around shooting (in auto-focus - center point). Then I saw a very noticeable softness and lack of contrast at f2.8. I will look closer into that and play around a little with the camera auto focus adjustment to see if I can get this lens working like I expected it to.</p>

<p>Eric, I think you're right,I adjusted exposure (increased about a full stop) using the histogram and I think that over exposed the brighter parts of the logs.</p>

<p>Thanks everybody for responding.</p>

<p>In the process of resizing and submitting the images detail was lost. I see very little difference myself. It is much more noticeable in the originals. It also looks like I could have found a better subject to show the difference. I am now wondering if the auto-focus is to blame for much of the problem I saw in most of the images shot this week.<br>

<br /> The distance was 40 inches. The far woodpile is about 30 feet behind that.</p>

<p>Second Photo at f4</p><div></div>

<p>I recently bought a used Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for my Nikon D300. As many here have recommended, it is the earlier model without the built-in motor. I am happy with the lens in all respects EXCEPT performance at f2.8. Based on reviews I expected it to be quite sharp even at f2.8. It is Very sharp, except at f2.8. At f2.8, images are low in contrast and very soft. At f4 and up even through f16 there is a huge improvement, nice contrast and very sharp.<br /> The auto-focus is fast and quiet but maybe a little inconsistent. Testing on a chart I find the focus point to vary a little with various zoom positions. For example it may be dead on at 24mm but front focusing at 50mm. The sample images here are in manual focus to separate the lens softness issue from any auto-focus problem.<br /> I have a few more days to return the lens if I decide to but I am very reluctant to do that unless this is really an uncorrectable lens problem. These earlier 17-50's without the motor are getting hard to find. But I bought the f2.8 lens because I want to use it at f2.8.<br /> The sample images were both taken on a tripod, manual focus, manual exposure, the first at f2.8 and the second at f4. Distance was 40 inches, so DoF at f2.8 was about 2.75 inches, enough that I am sure my manual focus was accurate.<br /> I'd like to hear from other Tamron 17-50mm owners about your lens performance, especially at f2.8 and on Nikon bodies. Am I doing something wrong or, please don't - should I return the lens and look for another.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the 18-70 which I got with my D70s 3 years ago. I extended the lens to 70mm and checked for the wobble you mentioned. There are 3 sections to the lens barrel. When I hold the middle section and try to wobble the outer (smallest) section there is no wobble whatsoever. When I hold the main lens body (largest section) and try to wobble the middle section, there is a slight wobble. I'm sure this is by design to allow the lens to move freely since my lens works perfectly and has never been abused or even bumped. If yours has more than a slight wobble there may be an issue but I think a little is normal.</p>

 

<p>What is new in 1.5? Like Phil, I haven't been prompted to upgrade from 1.4 and I wasn't aware of the new version.<br>

Fred</p>

<p>A few have recommended the Manfrotto 488RC2 Ballhead. I have it and I'm not really happy with it when using my D300 and 70-300 f4.5-5.6 lens. After composing and tightening the ballhead, when I let go of the camera/lens the lens drops slightly. Is this what is called lens creep? Anyway, I am now looking into replacing it with the AcraTech or Kirk BH-3. I just bought the 488RC2 last February. I guess what they say is true, keep buying until you get it right.</p>

<p>I don't think a hot shoe cover even came with my D300.</p>

<p>David,<br>

I also purchased the same lens in April and mine seemed to underexpose. Then I tested it on a tripod at f4 with correct shutter speed for a good exposure (using manual control, indoors, artificial lighting). I then stopped the lens down 1 stop with a 1 stop slower shutter speed. And again and again until I was at f22. All of the exposures should have been very close to the same but instead were very varied.<br>

I returned the lens and got another. In the meantime the price of the new DXII dropped $60 so I got that one instead and it has been fine.<br>

Before you make a decision about your lens try some tests under very controlled conditions.</p>

 

<p>Dallas, on my monitor (nothing special 2006 Dell Flat Screen) I can clearly see the noise you are talking about. But, I would expect noise, using ISO 1600 on your D40. I suspect that your new monitor is representing the image with greater detail and clearity than your old monitor did.<br>

Fred</p>

<p>I tried some controlled testing today comparing my Nikon 18-70mm with the Tokina at 24mm and 18mm. With the camera set on Manual and adjusted for a good exposure, I shot with both lenses and got almost identical results. I also tried the Tokina at 12mm with the same result (correct exposure). I then tried the Tokina at f22 and every full stop down to f4 with a corresponding change in shutter speed and I got very similar results in all the shots.<br>

In all of these shots I was in Manual mode and had adjusted the exposure up quite a bit (about a full stop) from the meter reading. When shooting in Auto Exposure whether in spot, center weighted or in matrix, my shots come out underexposed.<br>

The attached pic is the Tokina at 12mm. Auto exposure 1/200, f/4, spot metered on the center sail just above the strings where there is a little shading. It is under exposed as I said happens in Auto.<br>

Maybe its my technique and I have to learn to pick a darker area to set my exposure. I guess its also a lesson to check the histogram and reshoot, don't trust auto.<br>

What do you think?</p><div></div>

<p>Second Outdoor shot at 12mm</p><div></div>

<p>Dan, Thanks for your ideas. Please check back tomorrow. I will take some shots with a gray card and post them.<br>

Eric, The following are 2 shots taken at the beach. They were both metered center weighted, 12mm, 1/1600, f/8, ISO200. The first was metered and focused at a point near the center with both some sand and some rocks (to try for and average brightness). The second was metered on the water bottle.<br>

I want to add that with my other lenses (all Nikon) I have never had this problem.</p><div></div>

<p>Second Pic for this post at 12mm. Sorry Lex / Shun.</p><div></div>

I just received my new Tokina 12-24mm f/4 DX (not the new DXII). Trying it out shooting various scenes outdoors, I immediately noticed that it seemed to underexpose on my D300. Doing a little testing I see that the underexposure is mostly when shooting wide, close to 12mm but also noticeable up to 18mm or so.

 

When shooting in Manual Mode at an evenly lit wall with tripod, the histogram shifts to the left as I shoot wider, going from 24mm to 12mm. When shooting in Aperture Priority mode (spot metering) the problem is even worse because often the camera adds 1/3 stop to the shutter speed at 12mm.

 

In the examples below, 1/50, f/8, ISO 800 (NOT auto), Manual Mode. The first shot is 24mm, the next is 12mm.

 

Do others notice this, especially those of you with the same lens? Is this some phenomena about wide lenses that I never heard about? I will love to hear any ideas to explain this. Is my lens OK?

 

Fred<div></div>

<p>I could be wrong, but to me it looks more like a focus problem than camera shake.<br>

Fred</p>