Jump to content

paddler4

Members
  • Posts

    2,529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

511 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have always just popped in a new cartridge when the old one runs out and let the printing re-start. The worst case would be having to print that print again, but I don't recall ever having to, with any of my canon printers, which included in the past a 100. A count of dots would be useless because the number of dots per line of printing varies with the image and the type of paper.
  2. Not clear to me what you are asking. Are you trying to create ICC profiles for specific papers using your printer? Or are you trying to adjust your printer itself? And what printer and papers? I have never had to calibrate my printers. Except in one case, I have always used the paper manufacturers' ICC profiles for papers. I do have one custom ICC profile for one paper, but it doesn't produce results noticeably different from the manufacturer's.
  3. Indeed, but so is whatever is in your personal possession. the safest is to have one local backup in your personal possession and a second backup that isn't. In the old days, that meant a physical backup in a second location, but that's cumbersome. the alternative now is a second backup in the cloud.
  4. I vaguely remember that years ago, after years of heavy use, one of my three Kenko tubes got loose and no longer had a reliable connection. I replaced the set, so now I have 5....
  5. Notice that the letters are not all in focus. This is not surprising: the label is curved, and DOF is razor thin at these distances. The only solutions are to stop the lens down or focus stack. If you stop the lens down, you are likely to find that the increased appearance of sharpness from having everything in focus far more than offsets any loss of sharpness from diffraction. For example, this shot was taken at f/13 nominal with a 100mm macro lens and a 36mm extension. The effective f stop was much smaller, so diffraction already started. I didn't calculate, but as a rough rule of thumb, this is an effective f/stop of at least f/26. However, the image looks sharp.
  6. Usually, the reason would be low light. However, I can't answer why you have a problem with 12+20 but not with 36mm. My guess is that the electrical contact is weak and that having two tubes makes this worse.
  7. yes, but then again, there are more people than at any time in history 😁 What I think is the big change is the number of pictures per person. the combination of digital and cell phone cameras has had a huge effect on the number of photos taken.
  8. Maybe simpler to shoot digital and put the weed to other uses.
  9. Yes, that's one reason I ruled out the R7. No really good RF-S lenses at the time. Now we have to wait to see whether Canon will license third party RF lenses too.
  10. Also, lots of files related to the OS could be either out of date or corrupted. You could run the Windows file system checker and let it repair what it finds, https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/use-the-system-file-checker-tool-to-repair-missing-or-corrupted-system-files-79aa86cb-ca52-166a-92a3-966e85d4094e. that might not help, but it's easy enough to try.
  11. My old windows machine became cranky because the graphics card was not sufficient for current Adobe programs. I upgraded to a new computer with Windows 10 in June 2022 and stayed on it only Sept 2023 because that was still what my university was using. I had zero problems with Adobe under Windows 10 after getting a new computer. The transition to Windows 11 was seamless.
  12. You might get more answers in the wet darkroom forum. This is the forum for digital darkroom work.
  13. It depends on what you shoot. For me, having the 70-105mm range and the IS trumps the difference in optical quality. I had both the EF versions and agree that the II is not greatly better than the I, but it did avoid zoom creep. I now use an RF 24-105, and it's one of my two most used lenses.
  14. In this case, more than good enough, if it's in mint condition. The original 70-200 f/4 L was a superb lens.
×
×
  • Create New...