lwg

<p>External monitor is the way to go. The Retina display on the MacBooks is pretty good for color, but not perfect. But given your limited space it's the best option I have seen (but I've not looked at even 1% of the laptop options out there).</p>

<p>The issue is your settings. The HARD sharpness and HIGH noise reduction will create the bubble look. I never shoot JPEG because it's hard to get all the settings correct at the time the shutter is pressed, so you might want to try shooting in RAW. If you want JPEGs I'd reset things back to the factory defaults and do further sharpening in a decent image editor.</p>

<p>Long washes also help remove it. But I long ago learned to just live with a very faint stain.</p>

<p>If I was to try the approach Bob is suggesting I'd print a black border and then trim up to that. Then I'd use the actual ink from the printer to cover the edge with a brush. That should look the most natural. You could get black ink from a used cartridge with a syringe or by cracking open the cart and cutting the bag (both would work for Epson).</p>

<p>Negatives can fade after being developed, especially if it's not properly washed and stabilized. I don't think this is your issue.<br> Likely there really was a blue cast to the light many of the these pictures as they were shot in partial shade. Keep in mind when scanning color negatives you will almost never get perfect color straight from the scanner. At least none that I've used. So you should expect to adjust the color balance slightly to get pleasing colors.</p>

<p>I avoid doing any adjustments in Lightroom to film scans. Then I choose to edit the original file when I open it in Photoshop (from LightRoom). That way LightRoom doesn't make any changes to the file.</p>

<p>I've got one of these that hasn't worked since I bought it (wasn't worth sending back). I tried to take it apart but I got nowhere. Please explain it if you do figure it out.</p>

<p>I have used RRS and a few of the cheap brands from ebay, including Sunwayfoto. RRS is by far the nicest and most well constructed on the L brackets. But the cheap ones are adequate and seem to do the job almost as well. The fact that RRS L brackets are made for one model camera is a huge positive as far as getting a product that does not twist and fits well. It's also a negative if you wish to keep the bracket and use it on your next camera. I use RRS on my D800 and the cheaper ones on my film cameras and OMD-EM5.</p>

<p>Look into mylar or polypropylene film sleeves that open to place the negative in without sliding it along the material. http://www.archivalmethods.com/product/side-lock-film-sleeves is one example. Been using them for years and no complaints. I keep them in file folders http://www.archivalmethods.com/product/negative-file-folders in storage boxes http://www.archivalmethods.com/product/hinged-lid-boxes.</p>

<p>I'm on the $10 a month subscription. It's cheaper for me than staying up to date with the old way. So no complaints here. I still own the old versions, so if I decide to I can always revert back, though I'm sure with some pain for LR like rebuilding the catalog from the sidecar files.</p> <p>The fact that I end up buying a new camera every few years pretty much necessitates keeping the software updated one way or another. Being in the software industry myself also means I don't have an issue paying for the programs. So I don't really find much to object to.</p>

<p>I have a 30" NEC and it's great as far as color goes. I also have a Macbook Pro with the 15" retina display. The retina display is so much easier on the eyes. I would not buy a new monitor without a higher pixel density closer to the retina display. So I'd look for a quality 4K monitor with excellent color in the 24" to 30" range. <br> Another factor to consider is the aspect ratio. I find the 16:10 more useful than 16:9 for most tasks.</p>

<p>With flat light I'd just develop as normal. The film will record the scene with the correct contrast, but it will just be denser. By pulling you will decrease the contrast, which is even worse than dense film for a scanner. If the scanner can handle slide film (and it can) then the slightly denser negatives won't be an issue.</p>

<p>You will be severely cropping the image. With a 24mp 2x3 aspect ratio camera you are at 6000x4000 pixels. Cropped to 4x76 aspect ratio the image would be 315x6000 pixels. That will print at 6.6 pixels per inch.</p> <p>You could use medium format film and a 6x24 camera (an 8x10 would be about the same). A drum scan from that will have much more resolution than a DSLR cropped to that extreme of an aspect ratio. In addition it would allow a single shot without stitching. Though you would loose the ability for a high frame rate to give you multiple shots to choose from. Assume you can get 3000 pixel per inch (with proper technique this is a conservative estimate) from a good scan. The image will be 9" wide, or 27000 pixels. That's still only 29.6ppi, but is several times better than your 24mp DSLR.</p>

<p>It was a dark leak.</p>

<p>RZ isn't easily and quickly hand holdable for me if I want sharp and in focus pictures at wide apertures or with slow shutter speeds. The 645 Pro TL was much better in this regard. I imagine the 645AF would be similar in handling.<br> Still I sold the 645 and just bought another RZ. But for one the go work and portability I'd go with a 645. Also you might consider the Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 systems. Both are better for handheld work in my opinion.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am hoping and praying Olympus survives their current troubles (at least in terms of their cameras) because I love this system...</p> </blockquote> <p>I recently bought the first generation OMD EM5 along with the 17mm and 45mm f/1.8 lenses. I'm really liking the system as well. I too hope they survive. </p>

<p>Open each one and see if the rolls are dry. If so they are still usable, but don't load it if any water got through to the film roll.</p>

<p>Isn't the 7-14 an f/2.8 lens and not f/1.8? If so can we get the title fixed?</p>

<p>Try exposing to the right (set the in camera exposure to an exposure that just avoids clipping the highlights). Then back off on the exposure slider until the midrange is properly exposed (about how much you "over exposed" the image in camera). Then adjust the other sliders until you are happy. I'll use the tone curve to add contrast back into areas of the image if the sliders don't offer a precise enough result.</p>

<p>I only brought up HDR and supersaturated pictures just to show I don't have a lot of experience with images with a lot of out of gamut colors. I'll add microscopy to my mental list of image types likely to produce wide gamut colors. Most of my work where the printer's gamut isn't enough has been flowers and plants, and for the most part they print satisfactorily. I'd love to see some of your work.</p>

<p>I don't try to manipulate the image to bring the colors into gamut. Though I do find that if there are a lot of out of gamut colors there is a good chance the image has been overly manipulated and I might consider backing off. But in general I'm not a huge fan of HDR or the super saturated look so it's not a common problem in my work. I can't think of a case where I haven't been happy with the printing of out of gamut colors based on one of available rendering intents.</p> <p>However I can see if your work relies on very saturated colors where you would want full control of the printing (well we all want full control, but often it isn't worth the effort for an invisible difference). In that case I think it would make sense to try to address the issue at the editing stage. But since you often can't see the full gamut of the paper on the monitor you will be flying blind. Make lot's of small test prints.</p>

<p>As you probably know you can't print the out of gamut colors. You might be able to expand the gamut a bit by using different paper and getting a quality profile made. By changing the rendering intent you can affect how the software treats the out of gamut colors. I would try all your options and see which you like best. You can read the descriptions of what they do, but in this case a picture is really worth a 1000 words.</p>

<p>I also agree with Ellis</p>

<p>Look for flash exposure compensation. I forget on the D7000 but I think you can press the flash raising button and then turn the sub command dial to adjust the compensation. </p>

<p>I sold my first generation 70-200 when I got the D800E. I was never happy with the lens when using the TC-14E II teleconverter. I'd expect the 1.7 to be much softer.</p> <p>I'd recommend the 300mm f/4 AFS. It's very sharp across the frame on the D800E, is very good with the 1.4 teleconverter. I've only recently acquired the 1.7 converter, but it looks a little softer with this lens from the limited testing I've done. To me it's the best budget option I've seen (budget when compared to the 400mm lenses that is).</p>