galileo42

<p>I had a studio shoot this afternoon, and the combination C Mode-Dynamic-51 3D tracking... doesn'really work too well if you re-compose. I have plenty of out of focus shots. The hunt for another focus point to keep on the original area of focus is too imprecise and erratic.</p>

<p>I may be wrong, but I think the price of the D700 has increased lately in Canada, while the D3 has remained the same, or even decreased slightly. Go figure.</p>

<p>For the particular issue of the model in the studio, I just tried it, and in order to keep the focus on the initial area, you need to have 51 points 3D tracking set. Otherwise, if you move, or if the model moves, the camera will re-focus where the initial focus point will happen to fall.</p>

<p>Oh, and one thing which I think is very important: I always deactivate AF from the shutter release for that precise reason: I don't want the camera to re-focus when I shoot. So the AF is always on «AF-ON» (only)» buton. Try it. it might save the day for you.</p>

<p>Nikon AF system is great, but tricky to understand. I suggest you review a few articles that have been written on the subject (and your manual.) I believe that if you want the AF to remain focused on the first focus point you chose (recomposing or the model moving), you must use the C (continuous) AF mode, not the S (single), in conjunction with Dynamic. You will see the focus point in the VF chasing the original focus area (which YOU can chose.) But it will have to remain within the pattern of the focus points in the camera, so you have to follow with your camera if the model's movements are big. Some say you're better off with 51 points 3D tracking for that.</p>

<p>BTW, using a center focus point and re-composing may be viewed as «a thing of the past» by some, but only because now you can chose from a vast array of focus points. In my book, though, it's much faster and easier to use the center focus point and re-compose than it is to use the pad up, down, left, right... to pick a focus point.</p>

<p>Detail and sharpness are incredible with such a moving subject. Congratulations. I am jealous, even if I love my D700. I would make one minor criticism, if I may: to my eye and taste, I think the photo is overexoposed by about 1/2 stop. Am I the only one? Thank you, Martin.</p>

<p>I got it. Of course, it was simple. Once I shut down the computer and started it again, LR still showed the drive, but now all the folders in it showed with 0 images. So, I just selected them all, «minused» them, and they disappeared quickly one by one, When the last one was removed, the drive disappeared as well. Before that, the folders showed «?» and LR could only remove the folders one by one, removing the «ghost images» from the catalog, as if they were still there. It would have taken hours.</p>

<p>Thank you for your help.</p>

<p>Thanks, Howard, but I'm talking of drives, not folders. In the Finder (Mac OS 10.4) I moved all folders containing images from Drive A to Drive B. Now, Drive A is empty, but it is still present in the list of drives in LR 2. Of course, LR shows «?» for each previous image because the drive is empty. There are (were) tens of different folders on that drive, and I want to remove all of them as well as the drive from the catalog in one operation. Is this possible? Thanks again.</p>

<p>For you, Lightroom 2 users out there: I have made a serious shuffle of files on different external drives, and now I want to get rid of some of the now empty drives showing in the left list of folders in the Library module. Is there a way to do that in one operation instead of having to tediously go through each and every now empty folder one by one? We're talking tens of thousands of files here, so the task is very time-consuming if there is no way around. Thank you for your help.</p>

<p>I use Sandisk Extreme III 8 gig, and it gives me no problem. If you shoot Raw+ jpg basic you'll get around 280 pictures on it. </p>

<p>It's a great sharp lens, cheaply built now in China in an horrible plasticky stuff, and it's wobbly like hell. But it's a great lens. Go figure. Simple and proven optic design, as others have mentioned. Apparently the 50 mm/1.8 is the easiest lens to produce at low cost. No fancy glass, no internal focus...</p>

<p>Thanks for the lesson, Steve, and for trying to help, but I think I know how to use the camera and process Raw files. I already shoot Raw, process in LR 2, use K temperature most of the time, and check the histogram for exposure. What I know, also, is that, with a rather limited dynamic range, if I set the exposure to not have clipped highlights, I will get underexposure many times. But I fail to see what your explanations have to do with, specifically, contrast, as Peter hinted. I can understand underexposure and bad white balance when wrong colors are concerned, but contrast? But I'm willing to learn.</p>

<p>And, Steve, why the agressive attitude? Why wouldn't you sign the petition? It wouldn't take anything away from you, and you would still keep your sacrosanct coding, if such is your wish. But allow others to find this, yes, a real problem, Leica-imposed, and certainly not at all trivial. Thank you for signing anyway.</p>

<p>What is the purpose of coding? Essentially, 1) to have Exif data on the lens and aperture used, 2) mostly, to correct vignetting with wide angle lenses. That's about it. Don't tell me this can't be done in firmware and menu choices. Of course, you wouldn't have the data for aperture, but if you really need that, there will still be the coding solution. With the very high price of the digital Ms and the coded lenses, and/or the price and hassle of having Leica lenses coded, Leica seems to be going more and more towards the upper end of the very wealthy niche. I doubt this is such a good move. It's gonna be lonely at the top sooner or later. They have been on the brink of bankruptcy not long ago, and they should try to bring MORE people into the M8 line, not away from it, which the coding thing is certainly doing.</p>

<p>Steve, you obviously have never used the Nikon system of entering data for lenses: one menu choice for focal length, one menu choice for max aperture, that's it. No keypad there. Who said anything about 50-100 lenses? I doubt there are even 50 M mount lenses out there.</p>

<p>«Check your set-up choices under contrast levels Ray.»</p>

<p>Exactly, how do you correct colors with contrast, Peter? I, too, find the M8 colors unreliable at best.</p>

<p>Wolfgang, you maybe right because I never use NX. I don't like it a bit. I also never use Active D-lighting or D-lighting. Of course, to each his own, and YMMV. But I always thought Raw was... raw, no in-camera correction whatsoever.</p>

<p>Of course, I meant «public performance.» Interesting slip of the keyboard, though. Sorry about that :)</p>

<p>The progress that has been made in dynamic range in the last two or three years is phenomenal. I just can't believe it when I compare studio shots with my D2X of only two years ago to my present D700 shots. Still, generally, digital has a little less latitude than negative film. It behaves more like slide film, with highlights easlily burned out. The recent crop of Nikon DSLRs have the Active D-lighting function which exercises some control over the dynamic range, but only in jpegs.</p>

<p>I'm entirely wth Elliot on that. Work in manual mode and Auto ISO. Why? Because you can set a given shutter speed according to focal length and the need to freeze the action (say, 1/125th.) and let Auto ISO adjust EV according to light changes and/or aperture changes. You have complete control. If you use A mode, you'll have to keep checking the shutter speed and then quickly adjust the aperture if it gets too slow. The minimum speed set in Auto ISO settings does not guarantee that your shutter speed will not go slower, only that the ISO will change when you get to that minimum speed. If the lighting goes real dim and your max ISO is reached as well as your max. aperture, then the shutter speed WILL go down, and you will have movement blur. Also, I guess CW is less risky than Matrix, IF you meter from the right place. The stage is a maximum contrast and unhealthy place, photography-wise.</p>

<p>One other thing: if you shoot from the audience during a pubic performance, I strongly advise against the D700. It's too noisy, and you will badly annoy the spectators. They will eventually shut you up. I know I would. So, it's either during a dress rehearsal or from the wings (where you will still irritate the actors.) Believe me, I've been in the professional theater all my life.</p>

<p>I am going back to b&w film photography after a long hiatus due to digital laziness, so I have this rather important stock of b&w film that's ben sitting there for a couple of years. My question is: can it become bad after two ot three years, if it has been kept either in the freezer or at least the refrigerator? And if it has been sitting on the shelf in my office like these two 100 ft reels of Tri-X ans Plus-X in their Bobinquick loaders? Thanks a lot for your advice.</p>

<p>Are you sure you're not mistaking some camera rubbing noise (the strap, your clothes...) for focusing? I know it happened to me, and I kept wondering what was this faint noise, which I thought was focusing noises, until I realized it was only this little piece of leather at the end of the strap rubbing on the camera. Seems silly, I know, but things happen :)</p>

<p>I use the LCD cover when provided, and a Screen Patronus when not. They are great, and are cut to size for your speific camera.</p>

<p>Send them the URL for this page. This might make them consider. And learn that a business reputation can be ruined in a matter of hours on the Internet.</p>

<p>Let me add that the new local retouching tools in LR 2.2 are, in my view, better than the Nik's U-Point thing. </p>

<p>Thanks, Godfrey. I've tried again, and this time, it worked. The only thing I may have done differently (I'm not sure) is that I chose «New folder» from the drop down «+» menu instead of only clicking on the «+». </p>

<p>I am using vers. 2.2. Yous see, there is the problem: you did the same thing as I did, and your folder showed right away in the list on the left. Mine does not. I am goin to try again. Thanks anyway.</p>

<p>I am sorry, but I don't understand this theory that only NX2 will «understand» your original Raw file. Since you're going to tweak the file anyway before converting it to jpeg or tif or whatever, you will achieve the same end result with any good Raw converter that can read Nikon Nef. And since we're talking Raw files here, what is there to «understand» that other programs can't understand? It's a... raw file after all, isn't? NX is horribly sluggish (on my Power Mac G5 runing OS 10.4, anyway), has a convoluted and undecipherable interface, and has a nasty habit of changing the parameters of a previous «step» when going to the next «step» (try to rotale a file, then do some more adjustments after that, you'll understand what I mean). And, above all, you can't make last minute minor adjustments to individual files in a batch before launching the batch process. Now, is that silly or what? I have seen nothing in the trial version of NX2 that says it's any different. I try to avoid ANY piece of Nikon software at all costs. For me it's either Lightroom 2 or ACR 4.6. Then PS CS3.<br>

YMMV.</p>