blairhall

<p>X-Pro1 user here. I've got adapters for M39, M42 and Nikon F. I've had no problem with manual focusing. The two that I use the most are a Jupiter 8 on the M39 adapter and a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 with the Nikon adapter. Both focus just fine. The only gripe I have is a small lag between focusing and the EVF updating. As long as I'm not in a hurry it's not a problem. That being said, and this has been brought up in just about every review of the XP1, it's not a camera made for fast shooting and focus changes. I have the M-mount adapter in anticipation of picking up some Leica or Voigtlander glass in the future, so I can't comment specifically, but I can't see why the manual focus would be different than what I'm using.</p>

<p>Hope this helps... cheers!</p>

<p>As an update after more testing... it would appear that if I shoot at f/2.8, everything is fine. Once I stop down at all, ERR message.</p>

<p>Ok so... just got a replacement (brand new) 24-70 f/2.8. The previous one got damaged. When I take a shot with the 24-70 on the D3, I get an ERR flashing on the top LCD. If I twist the lens (not forcefully) counter-clockwise while I shoot, the ERR doesn't show up. The lens takes photos and focuses just fine, and does so even with the ERR msg flashing, so I'm assuming it's not a blown shutter (which it appears from online searches, is often the cause of the ERR). I've mounted my 70-200 and it works fine, with the exception of... a couple of times it stayed stopped down after taking a shot, so my viewfinder winds up dim. The 14-24 was just great with no issues.<br>

So I'm wondering what the problem might be... some kind of lens mount error, or the new copy of the 24-70 is a dud? If there was an issue that popped up with the 70-200, maybe it's a lens mount problem, but it's a bit odd that it generally only affects the 24-70.<br>

I'm assuming a trip to Nikon for repair, but does anyone have any idea what the problem might be? Purely for curiosity's sake!<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of panoramic and 360 stuff for my day job, and have shot weddings (granted only a handful per year) for about 5 years... and I must admit I've never really seen the two worlds collide.</p>

<p>The image up for critique is absolutely fantastic in my opinion. The only things I'd do differently would cropping for symmetry, as mentioned above... and to bring up the exposure a bit towards the top of the image... just a subtle boost to bring out some more of the details. That's more of a personal taste thing though.</p>

<p>Excellent image, and inspiring in that I realize I have an extra trick in my wedding bag. Thanks for sharing!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yay! First post in the thread! Taken from a wedding on Saturday. The lovely bride was sitting down for a break and I really liked the light falling on her, so an image was born!</p><div></div>

<p>Ok this was a bit of an experiment...</p>

<p>First off, when there's stormy skies, I like to try and make them more dramatic looking. For fun (as in: I don't do this with my wedding/portrait work normally!) I saved out 3 bracketed images for HDR processing. I know that HDR can really add drama to a sky, so I figured why not. As a note though... yes it's fake HDR, as I just opened the jpg in Camera Raw and used the same image to make the 3 brackets.</p>

<p>Back in Photoshop, I brought in the original and the HDR and masked the HDR so it just included just the sky and some of the background. The exposure on the couple was great so I only boosted it slightly to accentuate them more (maybe a bit too much?). Some burning as well around the couple to help them pop a little more. EDIT: I forgot to mention that I cloned/healed out the house... as it wound up being distracting in my final composition!</p>

<p>I then converted to B/W using Channel Mixer twice... once for the background (that made the couple kinda gross looking) then another for the couple. Then cropped to 8x10 aspect to tighten it up and throw some rule of thirds goodness in.</p>

<p>All in all... I think it achieved what I saw in my head, but would I send it to a client? Probably not... although I think with the original RAW file, I could probably get a little more surgical and make an image that was less muddy.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing! Cheers!</p><div></div>

<p>Riding off into the sunset...</p><div></div>

<p>Ok small disclaimer... I've only been able to look at this on my laptop... so there's minimal processing and I can't guarantee white balance accuracy. Otherwise, enjoy!</p><div></div>

<p>Here's my attempt! Cropped to 8x10, converted to B/W via PS action, tweaked to taste. Added a sorta reverse vignette, which I felt helps with the "old slightly faded photo" look. Overlayed grungy texture partly because I love the look it gives. Also it adds some life to the sky, which I couldn't do much with after my previous treatments. I masked the texture off of the b/g because I didn't want them to look grungy! Then I added a border that I thought suited my vision for the image, and voila!</p>

<p>Thanks to Nadine, Victoria and Chris for sharing!</p><div></div>

<p>I really really really like this shot... the original crop works for me, because the environment is so interesting. I love the colour treatment, almost like the trendy "aged" or "vintage" photo look. As for what I'd change, I boosted the exposure slightly, because (in my opinion) I thought the image was just a tad underexposed. I agreed with Michael Chadwick about trying to make the individuals pop, so I also did a very light boost of each person with the adjustment brush in Camera Raw. Only a touch, because I still want it to keep the natural look.</p>

<p>Great shot, and thanks for sharing!</p><div></div>

<p>Can't seem to see my original respsonse, so I'll try again... moderator(s), if this comes up as a double, is it possible to delete one? Thanks!</p>

<p>Hey gang, here's my contribution. No post other than RAW tweaks. Nice bright sun, would have been amazing if we were out there about 2 hours later. I found some shade and got a bit lucky with partial clouds. Enjoy :-)</p><div></div>

<p>My first post in this part of photo.net! Just finished a holiday in the beautiful mountains of British Columbia and Alberta. Sunday night I found this river/stream close to the camp site, and figured I needed a shot. I shot it in HDR, because I didn't want anything to silhouette, and wanted the sky to keep the dramatic look that I saw. It's a 9 bracket exposure, which is probably way overkill... but I tend to shoot 9 no matter what, just in case. Storage is cheap ;-)</p>

<p>D300 - 12-24 f/4 @ f/11</p><div></div>

<p>Peter, the cloning out of the choke-hold makes a HUGE improvement, in my opinion! You're right, the pose is still a bit awkward, but that, coupled with your other adjustments, makes for a really nice image. Thanks again!</p>

<p>I'm really liking the higher key one Simon... good job!</p>

<p>I do like the idea... however, the combination of the brides arch backwards and the grooms hand position certainly make it look like a more sinister act was being captured.</p>

<p>As for the technical stuff, it's underexposed, and I found the colours a bit flat. I think the off-camera flash was either too far away or underpowered, because I felt the b/g didn't pop out from the background (Which I'm assuming was the intention if flash was used?). I do love the reflection and the sunset, I've always been partial to those kinda shots.</p>

<p>I tweaked it a bit in Lightroom (about a minute's worth). Basically just upped the exposure and painted in some more on the b/g. Also boosted the colours and added a wee vignette. I cropped it a bit tighter, in part to move the b/g so they're looking into the frame, and in part because I felt that other than the reflection and the sunset colours, there wasn't much going on with the background, so better to put more emphasis on the couple. Thanks for sharing, and please note this is personal preference!!</p><div></div>

<p>Brilliant idea Matt! ;-)</p>

<p>Ok so assuming it will function the same as a D200, if it were me, I'd use the SB-800 to command the other 800 and the 600 using infrared. The drawback to this, is if you're outdoors, you need perfect line-of-sight or it may not work. Come to think of it, it's a good thing to have line-of-sight indoors as well. If you're intent on radio triggers, maybe take a look at the Cybersyncs... I've heard plenty of good about them here on photo.net, and they're a lot easier on the wallet than Pocket Wizards.</p>

<p>Use the other 2 flashes as optical slaves? What kinda flashes are they and how far are they away? If money is an issue, there's the Cactus triggers, but I find they're not the most reliable thing in the world. I think you can mount an SB-600 and still connect a trigger via your camera's PC sync port. Could be wrong though, I've never actually tried it.</p>

<p>Woohoo first one! D3, 70-200 VR, 180mm, F13 (stupid sun!), 1/200 (stupid flash sync!), ISO 200, PW triggered Profoto Compact 600r through 60" octa.</p><div></div>

<p>I just got my Zorki-4 last week, with the Jupiter 8. I have yet to run a roll through it, but I examined it when I got it and it looks like it's in perfect working order. I'm taking a road trip this week with a bag full o' film so I'm excited to see what it can do!</p>

<p>Great shots... thanks for sharing!</p>

<p>To respond to the scanner comment above, I respectfully disagree with the notion that you need a V700 or better. Like a lot of people have said about camera selection, it's all about needs. I have a V600, which weighs in at half the price of a V700, and for my needs (small prints and/or web) it's great. I figure for the number of times I'll be doing large prints (so far: none), I can just take the negs and pay to have them drum scanned... OR, the local camera club has a Nikon 9000 for use by members.</p>

<p>If money was no object (or I was shooting film for clients), I'd definitely get a 9000, without hesitation... but for someone who's on a budget, some of the lower-end scanners are good options.</p>

<p>I actually bought a Holga as my first MF camera... it only cost me $20 and it was mostly a cheap road into having my own MF film to learn darkroom stuff with... I actually love the camera, but admittedly it's a novelty and just a fun thing to shoot with. That being said... I've also just bought an RB67 kit (Pro S body, 120 back, WLF, 90mm C lens) for $195 and a second Pro S body (mostly for parts or a backup) on EBay. I'm crossing my fingers that it was a good deal, and will at most need a good CLA or less to be ready to rock. I'm always a bit leery of EBay... but the price seemed decent, so why not!</p>

<p>I went through all the comments here and I may have missed it, but has anyone else noticed in the "About Us" section, that the name "Jerry" is referred to as well? Looks like Mr. Peele has a partner in crime?</p>

<p>Might be a completely irrelevant detail, but interesting nonetheless... and makes me wonder if a) Jerry actually exists and b) if he's got his own site ripping people off too.</p>

<p>David, if you have some time to take a bit of a trip, I would suggest driving up the Icefields Parkway towards Jasper as well. It's a few hours to Jasper from Lake Louise, but the drive is spectacular. I had to stop every few hundred yards for photos of the scenery. Which, as has been pointed out... have all been done, but to be there and see them for yourself is incredible.</p>

<p>As for how to get there, if I recall correctly, just past Lake Louise on Hwy 1, there's a turnoff for Hwy 93 to Jasper. The weather should be ok by now, but road closures due to nasty winter weather aren't especially uncommon.</p>

<p>Cheers! I wish I was going on that trip!</p>

<p>Kinda bummed that I missed the competition this year... clearly I'm not on PNet as much as I should be these days!<br>

I found each of the winning photos from each category to be absolutely brilliant, so congratulations to all. I haven't had a chance to sift through all the entries as of yet... but as has been mentioned, just submitting an image is a big thing in itself, and everyone should be congratulated as such. Except for me, who didn't get around to it ;-)<br>

Next year!!</p>