marco_de_biasi

<p>Yes, in both OS color space is sRGB.</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff.<br /> If I look at the imagei from Win on Mac I get the same issue. About the application it seems this happens with any application I use, whether is simply the browser, PS or image viewers. I thought it was gonna be a hard issue to fix without a proper monitor calibration.<br /> The thing is on every Mac I look at the images they all look the same, over saturated. I would almost tweak manually my laptop monitor settings to react as close as possible to what I see on Mac, but I'm not sure this would be actually I good idea...</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I'm getting some really weird shift in terms of color saturation and a bit in terms of contrast when I move from Windows to MacOSx. When I work in Windows the image looks good to me but if I move to Mac then it looks too saturated (way too much indeed) and also quite darker. I know there are different gamma values for Win and Mac but I don't know how to handle this. Also I'm aware of the monitor calibration but I cannot afford any system to do it properly on my laptop.<br>

So, any idea or tips is very welcome at this point as I'm feeling lost with this!</p>

<p>TIA!</p>

<p>Thank you very much for your help people! Really interesting. I'll digg more into PS techniques. I've downloaded the power point from Cole Thompson, really cool. I'll definitely keep looking at Cole's next posts.</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I'm trying Silver Efex Pro and I'm amazed by the results. I'm wondering though if I can achieve similar effects just using PStools (B&W adjusment layer, Shadow Contrast, Blending layers and so on) .<br>

The thing is, even though I try to get as close as possible to what I get with Silver Efex, it seems to me that I'm missing something else. Does Silver Efex uses some particular method to boost certain areas yet retaining enough details at the same time?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your replies.</p>

<p>My budget theoretically is already over with the Rokinon 14mm, but I guess I cannot get nothing acceptable for 200 bucks. So, if the lens worth the money, I could try to stretch as much as I can my wallet. I hoped for a used one or a old/vintage, but it seems that wide lenses are not easy to find, at least as bargains.</p>

<p>Thanks Sarah for the Zenitar, but that's a fisheye lens, non exactly what I'm looking for.</p>

<p>Orlando, the Pentax looks nice.</p>

<p>One last note. I may expect that wider lens comes at higher price. So, I'm wondering if I can save some bucks going a bit less wide than 14, but yet wide for a APS-C sensor (and honestly I don't know how far I can go... 16?)</p>

<p>It's for a Canon 7D. It could even be manual, that's not a big issue.<br>

The only one I spotted so far is this:<br>

http://amzn.to/pBPS41</p>

<p>I don't know how good that lens is. But I'm wondering if there's something else around.<br>

Any hints?</p>

<p>Thanks Timothy,<br>

I completely agree. Yes, not all old lenses are good deal. I've got 5 so far, 1 is a definitely a keeper (a Nikon 24 f/2.8) but 2 of them I'd probably sell.</p>

<p>Backing to the topic, I'm thinking to go with the Nikon again, even though I was really curious about the Rikenon.</p>

<p>If anyone has got some experience with this lens, please post your thoughts. Thanks</p>

<p>Frank,</p>

<p>I already have the *modern* marvel, if you read my previous reply I wrote I've a Canon 7D.<br>

The reason why I go with old lenses is easy to tell: first off I use the camera for picture and videos. Using it for videos there's no advantage using an automatic lens. Probably the only advantage would be the stabilization, but using a tripod doesn't make any difference. Said that, I love old lenses and I love to shoot manual. I started with modern lenses but I find old lenses simply lovely when they come in good shape: I prefer the feeling, also often there's a chance to get a better quality, i.e. they last long.<br>

About the zoom lenses I don't like them so much. A good zoom lens means more bucks, but besides that I just prefer fixed focal lenses. There's also a matter of taste, old lenses often mean a particular render in terms of bokeh and colors. Last but not least they are cheaper.<br>

Yeah, of course there advantages and disadvantages but so far the disadvantages are not a big issue. I still have *modern* lenses, I just don't use them that much anymore.</p>

<p>Forgot to mention that it's for Canon 7D, it will work fine with the M42 adapter.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I was asking about the Nikon in another thread even though I didn't buy the Niikon yet.<br>

I saw a Rikenon 55mm f/1.4 and it seems another good lens.<br>

I saw some good samples around of the Rikenon. The price of the lenses are pretty close.<br>

I would use the lens for macro too.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

<p>TIA</p>

<p>p.s. thanks JDM for the infos, that's another interesting thing to know.</p>

<p>One last thing. Some friends of mine are telling me for that price I should go with a Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4. They say its bokeh it's better and it's as sharp as the Nikon 1.8. Also it could works as macro (is that true?)<br>

I don't know the SMC at all, but since I've already bought another Nikon and I'm happy with it, I would be more oriented toward the Nikon.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the detailed info.<br>

Michael, if the 50 f/1.4 is the winner, should I be concerned about this description?<br>

<em>50 F1.4 AI (52) FILTER RING DAMAGE</em><br>

It's actually the same price as the early 1.8, but the ring damage could prevent to put any filter on it, right? I guess that could be a problem...</p>

<p>Last thing I've seen is this 1.4 <strong>non ai</strong>. Would this make a big difference in terms of usability on my Canon 7D?<br>

Nikon 50mm 1.4 non ai<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/21AzC.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /> </p>

 

<p>Thanks for your reply Craig.<br>

I was thinking to go with the early 1.8 as it should be sturdier than the late 1.8. Also, from what I've heard, it seems that there isn't so much difference between the 1.8 with the 1.4, and wouldn't be a matter of cost as their price are very close i.e., going with the 1.4 shouldn't give me more much more sharpness.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've seen several posts here about old manual Nikon lenses, but still I'm confused.<br>

Basically, I spotted three Nikon lenses and I'm not sure about the differences that might exist.<br>

I'm gonna use this lens on my 7D as I was looking for a good sharp lens, with good bokeh. I hoped to find a good bargain to use this next purchase for macro as well (with extended tubes), but so far I've only seen nice old lenses on eBay those cost almost as the Nikon if not more (usually more). So, at this point I'm thinking that probably the Nikon is a better choice. On top of that I've already bought another Nikon from Keh and I'm finding their bargain very good.<br>

Btw, on some threads here I've read that the 1.4 isn't actually a better choice compared to the 1.8.</p>

<p>Here are the pictures of the lenses:<br>

Nikon 50mm 1.4<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/hXT8P.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></p>

<p>Nikon 50mm 1.8 early 35mm<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/qXlBl.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></p>

<p>Nikon 50mm 1.8 late 35mm<br>

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/yYykm.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="300" /></p>

<p>Thank you all for the information and the links, this is very interesting.</p>

<p>Whether there should be any actual risk or not, at this point I'll probably won't buy the lens.<br>

The thing is, first off I've to get rid of the yellow and I can probably succeed in that. But then there's this radiation issue, and to be sure that the lens is safe I should make it check by some professionals or labs. I mean, at the end of the day I'm gonna pay around 80-100 bucks and that could be fair for a good lens. But I also have to take care of other things to make sure I'll feel comfortable taking this lens around with me, in my bag and in front of my eye. I'm not gonna win any award because of the lens, so I can probably look for a good sharp alternative.<br>

Oh, by the way, the lens was a SMC 50mm 1.4.<br>

At this point I probably have to start a new thread asking for some good advices about any other not too expensive good vintage sharp lens.</p>

<p>Thanks again to everyone. You guys here are amazing, I always get help. Hard to find nowadays polite forums like this.</p>

<p>Thanks for the hints Wouter, it makes sense.<br>

It would be a relief to know that's something I don't have to worry about as the lens I saw seems pretty good to me.</p>

 

<p>Yes Chris, that's exactly the problem. Sorry for haven't explained it better in my post.<br>

There's the thorium coating that gives some of those lenses this yellowish tint that, like I said, can be fixed with UV lights or sunlight.<br>

The thing is the radiation in some cases seems to be very high, that's what bugs me more.<br>

Here's an example:<br>

<p>I'm looking at some old lenses, I'd like to buy one. Most of them come with the classic yellowish issue on the lens, due to the radiation.<br>

It seems there are a few workarounds to get rid of the yellow, like the sunlight, UV lights and so on.<br>

My biggest concern though is another one. Since the yellow tint is due to radiation, does this lens will hurt somehow? I mean, we're talking about radiation that doesn't sound much healthy...</p>

<p>Thank you all guys for all your replies. I think I saved some money ;)<br>

Thanks for the links too.</p>

<h3></h3>

<p>Ops! you're right, sorry I completely forgot to describe the Polaroid she was looking for!<br>

Actually she found two Polaroid, the SX-70 and the Polaroid 80B.<br>

The SX-70: http://www.etsy.com/listing/55039284/rare-polaroid-sx-70-fold-up-land-camera<br>

and the 80B: http://www.etsy.com/listing/40938966/vintage-50s-polaroid-land-camera-model</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>My girlfriend got charmed by vintage Polaroid and she particularly likes the fold up model.<br>

I don't know anything about these old cameras. Supposing I can find one that works fine, I'm wondering if I can find the other stuff needed to have the camera working properly and by the way I don't know what the camera needs. I guess the old Polaroid film and something to have the photo printed out.<br>

Anyone here can steer me in the right direction? What do I need to have the camera working? Is the material needed still available today and affordable?</p>

<p>Thanks for any help / info!!</p>

<p>I've found some of these steady on eBay, anyone ever used it?<br /> http://cgi.ebay.com/Lensse-MidX-Steady-Cam-Steadicam-Steadycam-Stabilizer-/180593263417?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a0c328339</p>

<p>Interesting, I've found this what do you guys think about this lens?<br>

The price is almost in that range after all...</p>

<p>http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?229264-Sigma-18-50-for-video</p>