bill_rundell1

<p>Mark,<br>

See answers to a previous question about a day ago. This is a common topic and the answer is its possible, but not without major issues and it becomes more of "is it worth it" than "is it possible". A quick search will bring up many of the options.<br>

The problem is the registration distance - that between the film/sensor plane and the mounting flange. For an adapter without extra optics to work the lens has to have a greater registration distance than the camera body, but FD lens have a 42mm registration and all EOS bodies a 44mm.<br>

See also the link <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html" target="_blank">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.htm</a>l for more information here.<br>

-Bill</p>

<p>Tom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I know Minolta is making them for the Sony cameras but I doubt they are as good</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>I would not be so sure about this. Lenses like the 58mm f1.2 were superb in their day and might not be much worse near wide open than the Canon f1.4. Color balance could be an issue (Canon is superb here) but the feel of the "brass and glass" Minolta might make up for it. I have seen these lens in very good condition for $250-$300 - so even if you paid $100-$150 for a "conversion" (see below) this would still be a an interesting prospect for the money.<br /></em><br>

<em>However, the problem remains. The film to flange distance of the Sony cameras is the same as the later autofocus Minoltas - 44.5mm - even more than Canon EOS. This would make any adaption, which requires removing the MC/MD mount, cutting the stop-down pin, and re-milling the rear of the lens to take off material to take an adapter for another mount an even trickier job. Also, after this there is no possibility of ever using it on a manual Minolta again. <br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, If these are the manual focus MC/MD variety they won't work in any satisfactory way. I moved directly from Minolta manual to Canon EOS digital and have big collection of MC and MD lens and would love to try some of the old favourites on a full-frame sensor.<br>

The problem is in the lens focal plane to film/sensor distance. The Minolta is a few mm smaller than the canon and so any adapter will not allow focus to infinity - or even sufficient to be useful. There are adapters that include an in-built lens, but that isn't going to do much for the optical quality and you would be better off with other solutions I'm afraid. -Bill</p>

<p>It's not clear if you intend to process the raw files in batch mode<br>

before outputing as dng - if not why not just also shoot RAW+JPG?<br>

There are various routines available for dng->jpg conversions -<br>

see for example : http://www.reasoft.com/rea-dng-convert.shtml<br>

but I have never used them. The .dng format is Adobe's and has not<br>

been as widely incorporated into freeware.<br>

For more common formats there are more options so<br>

if you already have .jpg files then there are several ways to<br>

batch process them into (say) a different quality index or size<br>

- for example the NetPBM package for unix-based machines - including Macs.<br>

See: http://www.linux.org/apps/AppId_1193.html<br>

I use these utilities all the time to convert from tiff->jpg and to resize<br>

jpg images in batch mode - several hundred at a time.</p>

<p>Jim,</p>

<p>You are not going to need Photoshop on the account of the file size.<br>

See this link: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/402/kb402760.html<br>

This Technote from Adobe says that the maximum file size for Elements<br>

is 30,000 x 30,000 pixels. A 6x7 format negative is 2.36" x 2.76".<br>

Thus with the largest likely available scan resolution possible<br>

(9600 dpi) you are within the limits of PSE.<br>

Even a 4"x5" negative can be scanned at 5400dpi and loaded into PSE.</p>

<p>Since you are "new to this stuff", Elements will serve you well until<br>

you gain enough experience to decide if you need to spend the considerable<br>

difference in price for the full Photoshop. Your major limitation will be using<br>

layers with 16bit files - but you can do levels/color balance/tone curve adjustments<br>

all in 16bit within PSE (where the advantage of 16bit will be felt).<br>

Then convert the 16bit tiff to an 8bit file for any further<br>

things that might be involved, for example , layers.</p>

<p>Your likely problem was hinted at by a previous responder.<br>

In addition to RAM you also need swap space and both PS or PSE are real hogs<br>

here since they store a long history of changes to each file - especially with layers<br>

each of which adds the same file dimensions as the original.</p>

<p>In a Linux system one can set the swap size - the traditional lower bound figure is twice<br>

the RAM size, but in a Mac this is dynamically increased as the need arises - it<br>

isn't user-settable in other words but the OS takes care of this for you.<br>

I have NO experience whatsoever with microsoft OS. However, even low<br>

end PCs these days come with 4Gb of RAM, often 6-8Gb, and this is an indication<br>

of the needs for the Windows OS. I don't know how it sets the swap space.</p>

<p>Even with much smaller files (100Mb 16bit tiffs from 35mm scans) my Mac<br>

often uses 5-6Gb of swap. If this wasn't available on disk it would shut down.<br>

As soon as I load one of these files the available space on the hard drive drops by<br>

around 1Gb - not a definite, but some, indication, of the swap being requested by PSE.<br>

I can only imagine what would be needed for 500MB files.</p>

<p>I thus suspect that your computer system is the issue and perhaps some technical<br>

help here is what is required. Maybe another responder can better address this issue.</p>

<p>if you are going to downsize the files then you would be much better off with a 35mm<br>

system - it's pre-downsized! There is no need, enjoy the medium format advantages<br>

that you have,<br>

but you might be in the market for a computer if your current one originally only came with 1Gb<br>

RAM - it will likely be torturously slow with these large files.</p>

<p>Ronald,</p>

<p>This is pretty much what I have been doing and it it does take some time<br>

-especially when I am combining over a dozen individual pictures.<br>

Some final brushwork is always necessary, but when I have<br>

been able to use an automated gradient (when for example both<br>

inner and outer curves are rectangles - by combining gradients<br>

in the N-S and E-W directions) the result looks quite a bit smoother<br>

than the "by hand" brush strokes unless I have taken a lot of time over it.<br>

PS has so many buttons to do amazing things<br>

that I was hoping there might be one for this - or a clever<br>

trick to take advantage of existing gradient options.</p>

<p>I want to make cut-outs (for example of people)<br /> to use in complex montages.<br /> The external part of the selection should fade<br /> to transparency - not uniformly with distance but up to a second<br /> outer boundary which might have a very different<br /> shape from the cut-out (so the feather command won't work).<br>

<br /> Since this will likely be done with a mask, can view this<br /> as the following: I have two closed curves one inside<br /> the other (but they may be far from the same shape<br /> as may their distance apart).<br /> I want the interior curve to be solid black,<br /> the exterior of the outer curve to be transparent and a<br /> smooth black-to-transparent gradient between them.<br /> <br /> My current method is to fill the inner curve solid black,<br /> use the radial gradient starting at one point on<br /> the inner curve and ending at outer curve along a radial line,<br /> and then use the paint/erase tool at low opacity to make a<br /> better approximation to the desired gradient.<br /> Finally I use a gaussian blur to smooth it out.<br /> This can take quite some time.<br /> <br /> Is there a way I can do this quickly assuming I have saved<br /> both inner and outer curves as selections?<br /> I am using photoshop elements 6.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Warren,</p>

<p>I am sure many of these programs will work.<br>

Time machine seems to have initial bugs fixed - but<br>

on retrieval you have to worry about which version<br>

of a file (that may have undergone several changes<br>

in the meantime) you really want.</p>

<p>The wonderful thing about the Mac is it has a unix OS underneath<br>

and so amazingly simple, precise and fast programs are available:</p>

<p>Thus, for example, to make an initial backup from your subdirectory called<br>

say, " Pictures_home" to a directory "pictures_copy" on the external drive<br>

the hard drive (mounted probably as /media/backup/)<br>

in a terminal window type in the commands</p>

<p> mkdir /media/backup/pictures_copy<br>

<br /> cp -a /home/yourusername/Pictures_home /media/backup/pictures_copy</p>

<p>Then when you want to make a subsequent backup that deletes files from<br>

the external drive that are no longer on the Mac as well as update additions./changes<br>

type in a terminal the command</p>

<p>rsync -a --delete /home/yourusername/Pictures_home /media/backup/pictures_copy</p>

<p>This is infinitely adaptable of course and can be made as sophisticated as you desire.<br>

To check the exact name of the external hard drive you can first type in the command</p>

<p>mount</p>

<p>If this is something you want to pursue then just google rsync and more info<br>

than you need will come up.</p>

<p>James,<br>

The changing lens in the field issue is a real one.<br>

I would worry about another problem - a backup body.<br>

The 5D with the 70-200mm and a crop sensor body with the 300mm<br>

will give you the ability to have the best of both worlds -<br>

using the excellent lens you currently have plus the optically excellent<br>

and image stabilized 300mm IS as a 420mm prime (with the option<br>

of getting double that for a shot that might otherwise be impossible).<br>

The Xsi has come down in price enough ($500) that even if you<br>

don't have a crop sensor body the puchase of this is valuable insurance.<br>

It is also adds insignificant weight/volume to your package.</p>

I just purchased a Bogen super clamp - partly for studio work

but also with the idea of using it as a camera stabilizer

instead of lugging a tripod.

I have two small tripod/monopod heads (Bogen 3/8"-16 thread)

that would work well here.

It seems the accepted way to do this is to use

the standard stud; an alternative is to use a 3/8" - 1/4"

reversible stud and mount the head onto the clamp using

the 1/4" threaded hole on the top.

However, both these options have the head suspended giraffe-like

nearly 2" above the clamp on a brass stud rather than almost

flush as you would want.

Clumsy, but also takes up more room in the gadget bag

and leaves the camera with a long lens looking precarious.

There has to be a better way ....

There are 5 pre-drilled holes on the top face of the clamp -

3 threaded and 2 that go all the way through and look

like they should take an accessory but I don't see any such

object on the Bogen site or from any of the usual sources

such as Adorama or B&H.

Has anyone solved this issue?

Both my srt101 and srt102 have standard 1/4"-20 threads.

The original srt102 manual seems to indicate this was the case for

all srt models