tobey_bilek

<p>A 210 is about a 60 mm on small format. 100mm scalled up to 4x5 is around 360. <br>

Converted lenses use just the rear half and quality is not as good as if you used both haves. The part in front of the shutter is unscrewed and you put it in your pocket.</p>

<p>There are some Nikkor teles and other lenses made to be 360/400. Use these for best quality.</p>

<p>Teles do not compress. They provide a narrow angle of view. If you were to crop a picture from a shorter focal length lens, you would get exactly the same picture as it if were made with a longer lens.</p>

<p>t </p>

<p>For Dx I would take my original MF 35 2.0 Nikkor from 1969 . If i had nothing, the new 35 1.8 AFS +50 1.4 would be what I would get.</p>

<p>I have also been known to walk with a D40 + 18/135 zoom. It is full of distortion, but came to me new and almost free with the D40, so I use it. I would not buy one.</p>

<p>Now if I wanted to go light, a RF Leica with 35 2.0, 50 2.8, 90 4.0. The modern versions of these are cutting edge lenses. </p>

<p>I chose #3 a long time ago. X-rays, inspectors, shoe removal, whole body thermal imaging. I think they have gone nuts.</p>

<p>Years ago flying was a class act. Today it is nothing more than a flying bus and I refuse to board. I feel sorry for the people who need to travel that way.</p>

<p>For the 30 days after 9/11 the skies almost immediately turned azure blue over Chicago and stayed that way. I was showing my work collegues how clear it was. They all agreed. So 4000 airplanes, which is the average number in the air at any given time, have created noticeable air polution to the point where it looks like we are in the middle of a dirty cloud. And yes it got filthy again as soon as they started flying and the azure blue has not come back except for a scattered day or two after a series of storms to clean the air.<br>

To bad we can`t repeat the experiment and then shut `em all down so we can breath clean air.</p>

<p>I will not even type the insulting BS the the EPA gave me about the situation. I will tell you people with scientific methods of documenting the events were making a stink to EPA. </p>

<p>Nadine has it correctly.</p>

<p>Properly used, color range should work fairly well. Set the slider to a low value, pick the skin, then move the slider to be more selective. If you chop off some skin, back off some. Then use the plus and minus selectors to clean up what went wrong.</p>

<p>You now have a nice mask. Adjust the mask with the magic selector set to a very low value to add and subtract. I say magic selector, but it the tool that shares the icon with the magic wand.</p>

<p>Try the red channel and adjust it to suit. Go to the channel pallet, dup the red, double click so you see it full size. Adjust with black and white brushes or contrast or levels to get just the skin. opt or alt click on the resulting alpha channel to move it as a selection to a duplicated background layer which you left active before switching to channels. The go to layer, layer mask, reveal selection and you have a mask showing skin only.</p>

<p>Make a quick mask and paint out the skin with white. </p>

<p>Three ways. I hope one works.</p>

<p>Buy a really good lens or two, say 17/55 2.8 70/200 2.8 VR and then buy the best body you can with leftover cash.</p>

<p>Good low light performance is a D300, but if you do not have a decent lens for it, it is a waste of money. 16/85 is still a consumer lens.</p>

<p>Until you have enough money to do it right, work with what you have. For my photography, there is not a whole lot I can not do with my D40, but I have a D200 & 700. I like the full frame because that is what i am used to. But I have done nice pics on a D40.</p>

<p>I went thru college with a Waltz Envoy rangefinder with a fixed 50 mm lens and a few filters. I was tough, but I learned a lot and knew precisely what I needed when I had the money.</p>

<p>You need some education and experience and spending money is not a substitute. You got to pay the dues before you move on. </p>

<p>JPEG is waste of time if you want top quality work. My opinion. OK for photogs who grind out 1000 pics at a wedding, but they should use raw for at least the formals.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I will add I have a Wallensak 210 mm made for 4x5 close work. Sharp as a tack to around 3 feet. It refuses to focus at 10 feet to infinity. I can rack the lens in and out all day and all there is is a fuzz ball. It is not just not sharp a little, it looks like bokeh examples people show.</p>

<p>Why ? Because of the trade off the optical designer must make in order to achieve F 1.4.<br>

Field flatness is the first to go. Then come some other aberations. There is a reason why micro lenses were 3.5 first, then 2.8.</p>

<p>Two or three decades ago, modern or popular photography magazine tested the 50 1.4 and 50 2.0 in close range, 1:2 and 1:1 ratios, and the 2.0 was miles better. It still did not match a lens designed for those reproduction ratios though. It was just better than the 1.4.</p>

<p>Basically a lens is made to work in a certain range and when you change that, aberations begin to show. Sometime reversing the lens helps. Sometimes a symetrical desighn helps.<br>

But basically the designer optimises for one thing. </p>

<p>I`m not saying the 85 1.4 will not work at 1:2 or less, I am say you are stressing the design criteria. How bad it falls apart and how fast, I don`t know. But after you spend money it is too late. Buy a proper micro lens if you want to do close up work so you know it will be optimised for that. If I had a 85 1.4 I would test and report it. I can only give general principles for now. If you live near Chicago, send me a PM and we can arrange a test. Then you will know for sure. Or I will test anybodys if they care to volunteer a lens.</p>

<p>The faster the lens, the less likely you will get good results with tubes/bellows.<br>

I am working now experimentally with a 105 2.5 and 60 2.8 on a 6" bellows, el cheapo PB2 borrowed. Visually the results seem good.</p>

<p>My usual set up is Elpro Close up lens from my Leica R system on the 105 2.5. These are quality two element lenses. Results are very good.</p>

<p>I also use the lens heads from 65 90 135 Leica rangefinder lenses on a bellows with CameraQuest Leica/Nikon Adapter. Results are excellent.</p>

 

<p>A MC UV will work, thin for wide lenses.</p>

<p>If there is blowing sand, you need to worry more about lens crevases and body seals as much a the front of the lens. Blowing sand can work its way in.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The lens is wide, the mount is small. It should fit.<br>

I will warn you the old teles, no matter how good they were for the time, do not perform like the later ones. 200 mm and shorter seem fine, but my old Vivitars look terrible on digi, but they worked ok on film. <br>

The MTO had a decent reputation in the 1960 era, just not outstanding. The Vivitar solid cats were the best of the time, and they do not measure up to todays standards.</p>

<p>I will also tell you you will need really solid support to make it work even if it is a perfect lens.<br>

A 20/30 lb tripod for the lens and a second for the camera to stop the see-saw effect.</p>

<p>I guess I am telling you not to buy it.</p>

<p>I see nothing special except the photog was there at the right place at the tight time. PP does not make up for not having a decent file to start with.</p>

<p>Post a 600 px wide JPEG and state what you want to see.</p>

<p>Check to see the the lens diaphragm moves freely if you actuate the lever by hand on the back and clean the CPU contacts on the rear of the lens.<br>

Also check to see if you are getting the correct light meter reading both open and stopped down..</p>

<p>.xmp is the "side car" file that stores the changes you made to the raw version.</p>

<p>Bill Gates again. <br>

Sound to me like the award was for projected sales $ and there is nothing for the loss of the negatives.<br>

Maybe photogs ought to get together and form their own assn owned by photogs and run for photogs like Magnum and not deal with Corbis and the like ?<br>

Thats a business model for someone. You may forward the finders fee anytime.</p>

<p>High contrast implies pushing tones toward the low and high ends leaving fewer in the middle. Since the tux and dress are at the the extremes now by their nature, raising contrast will kill detail in both.</p>

<p>The only other thing to do is select the background and raise the contrast and maybe saturation there alone. You might want to consider a slight slight slight saturation boost.</p>

<p>To me one hallmark of a good wedding photo is a dress with detail and a tux with detail. I don`t want to see black and white blobs.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf</a></p>

<p>Follow instructions exactly if you have a diffusion enlarger, subtract 10% for scanning or condenser enlarger.<br>

I would use D76 1:1, 9 3/4 min at 68 deg. Agitate just like they say with only enough liquid in the tank to cover the reel. Do NOT fill it up. Drop the loaded reel into the prefilled tank in the dark if you can, then use the hole in the top for pour out and adding fix. I do not use stop or water, develope, fix, wash.<br>

D76 needs to be kept in full containers to keep its activity level constant for 6 months. That means I make a liter and store it in four 8 oz bottles for one time use each. Activity level goes up, then it dies in partially full bottles. Prediction of where it is at is not possible, therefore keep it full.</p>

<p>Stay off Massive development chart.</p>

<p>ACR custom picture controls are downloaded for acr and appear under the camera corrections tab. ACR does not read the picture control from the NEF.<br>

They are similar to the Nikon pic control and adjust the contrast, sharpness, saturation setting in ACR to give that look. You could make an ACR preset to do the same thing. Adobe just did the work for you. </p>

<p>There is no 50 1.8 G, only screw drive 50 1.8 D. It will meter like a 18/55 with D40/60 but not auto focus. For new comers that may be a problem. For portraits and landscape ok, for kid`s soccer no good . Try your kit lens on manual focus.</p>

<p>Yes it is better at 1.8 to 4.0. Then after that they are equal.</p>

<p>Someone is wrong. 1.4 to 1.8 is 2/3 of a stop.</p>

<p>G</p>

<p>You need a new camera and should have had a back up all along. Your clients have been lucky. You too unless you had an equipment failure clause in the contract. Otherwise you did not perform the job, no excuses.<br>

If you feel high noise limits you, then D300. If not, another D200 will do.</p>

<p>You can substitute a universal focus mount + 16472 adapter for the SOOAN. They are functionally the same .</p>

<p>Clarify that , length wise the same, 16464 is bayonet on the back, SOOAN or maybe ZOOAN is screw on the back. </p>

<p>Definately ZOOAN. Hard to remember this stuff. There is one on EBay but I can not link to it- P net rules. Put ZOOAN in google and it on the first page.<br>

If the OUBIO will go on to the viso, then ZOOAN is all else you need after you break the hens head off.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> You need the short focus mount called SOOAN or something close. OUBIO+ SOOAN +135 head. That is IF the OUBIO will mount to the front of viso 11 screw. It may not as it OUBIO is bayonet on the back, female thread on the front. I don`t have a viso II screw.</p>

<p>You can substitute a universal focus mount + 16472 adapter for the SOOAN. They are functionally the same . </p>

<p>.</p>

<p><a href="http://elshaw.tripod.com/Visoflex/Visoflex.html">http://elshaw.tripod.com/Visoflex/Visoflex.html</a></p>

<p>The short focus mount for 135 is pictured above attached to viso I which is screw mt both ends so you can see what it looks like.</p>

<p>If you can`t get this answered, contact Jim Lager at jlager at bellatlantic.net. He is the world renound expert who has written the Leica reference books. Do not bother him unless you have resolved all other issues .<br>

Jim can also give you the correct letters for short focus mount also.</p>

<p>My experience the lens heads are hard to remove the first time. Apply force. My 50 2.0 from 1969 was frozen but now it is fine. It took all my strength to break it free. Yours is way older. Just do not apply force to the diaphragm ring.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Try the file- "save as" and change the name with a suffix, img 1234 to img1234-2.</p>

<p>You need to use DNG or a later version of Photoshop CS or NX2. NX2 is the best converter for Nikon files and does most anything you want to edit pics, burn/dodge, curves, sharpen, correct CA, add picture controls. Then you can move the resulting file to CS by going to File- open with and it moves as a TIFF. You should rarely need to do this.</p>

<p>$119 at Cameta Camera. Download a trial free from Nikon USA.com. Then just use the registration number you get from Cameta. Do not uninstall and reinstall. </p>

<p>I have one and it is a remarkable camera. ISO 400/800 and up are less noisy with a D300<br>

My upgrade step was D200 to D700, but that is way more costly. Image quality is about what you get with your D60, but the camera is way better made and you can use all the nice older Nikkor primes that are Ai`ed or later in M or A mode which is my prefered way to work. </p>