mac_kennins

<p>I use a Sandisk Ultra 16GB which I only recently bought. Give and take two to three months ago. If it's gone and get itself damaged already, I'm about ready to throw a fit. But if contacts on cards wear out or get bent after a while, then perhaps it's better to never take the card out of the camera? As in if I were to always initiate the download with the USB cable. It's a lot more tedious I find but if it's better then perhaps that's what I'll do.</p>

<p>And thank you for the thread, it's been an interesting read, although now I'm paranoid that my card could be counterfeit even though I bought it from a very reputable store.</p>

<p>Good day(or good evening for me) to everyone again,</p>

<p>I know I just posted one question not long ago but I ran into a slight issue. And I tried googling the title with several variations on the words but got no results. I'm not sure what's causing this or if this is an intended feature(perhaps a throwback to the occasional mucked-up frame on film, I'm joking of course).</p>

<p>I've found 4 images out of 200 that didn't appear to save/write. At first I thought it had to do with me turning off the camera immediately after taking a shot. But I've done this many times and no issues there. I'm not sure how to illustrate this, but in the folder when I call it up on my computer, it shows picture, picture, picture and then a file with the DNG icon on it with the appropriate file name(i.e. L1001578.DNG). When I check it's file size, it tells me there's 0kbs on disk. Naturally this file doesn't show up in LR either.</p>

<p>Anyone else encountered this before? And if so, how did you remedy it? Thank you in advance, and let me just ask very kindly that we all be nice and polite.</p>

<p>Forgive me if I'm a little off-topic. However I was in the same boat before. Ended up buying the ZM 35/2. And honestly it's a fantastic lens. Creamy and contrasty even wide open. But if you're looking to keep an all Leica kit or even a compact one. What about the 35 Summarit? I believe it's gotten some favourable reviews. Or even the 28 Elmarit ASPH? It's not 35 yes, but it's only slightly wider. The cheapest of Leica and also the most compact. I cannot believe how light it is compared to my ZM 35/2!</p>

<p>Thanks Stuart, but I tried that a couple of days ago. And the results are conclusive to yours. The camera seems to process black and white on it's own, regardless of what filter is on the lens at the time. It just doesn't work. But with regards to black and white or the vintage option, the vintage option seems to be more of a sepia which is not quite black and white. I believe I will have to shoot RAW if I want any semblance of filtered black and white.</p>

<p>Dan, thanks very much for your direct and to-the-point answer. At least now I know. About the other points, I accept your criticism on all but one. Namely why I was surprised to find this topic degenerating into a duel. Simply put, I believed I asked a very simple question. I may have used the terms RAW and JPEG a bit, but it was to outline what I wanted. No where did I say I didn't know how to make a B/W conversion, nor did I ever request for help on making the best B/W images. I thought it would have been clear that if for example I produce stellar JPEG images in no need of further post-processing but just lacking the punch shall we say, of a colour filter. This is perhaps the crux of the issue, people do not seem to get that I want to refrain from processing. I will reiterate a point I made in an earlier post. A simple answer would have sufficed. "No, it's not possible to reproduce filtered contrast with in-camera settings" or "Yes, just use the five levels of contrast settings". Now I know the answer is no, and I thank you.</p>

<p>On to Zack, about piRAWhna. I have tried it, but it wasn't quite up to par. Not to say the program is bad, rather it's just the limitations of an iPad processor. It would be ideal if one processed say 10 images a day, but even then it would take a ridiculous amount of time. Although computer tech is something I'm not in the least fluent at. I highly doubt the iPad can ever process RAW competently and without hiccups in it's lifetime, even if an app were to have itself "optimized" for the system. It's an interesting idea though, maybe when the third or fourth-generation iPad/tablet pokes it's head up, there might be a possibility.</p>

<p>About the clothes, no I haven't tried them. But you're not the first to mention them, however with another recommendation I believe it's time to at least give them a try. Thanks for the tip. Personally I just use wrinkle-free shirts and cheap pants that can do the zip-away-to-shorts conversion. Of course I still keep a formal dinner suit with me at all times, it's about the only thing I cannot get rid off. And it also accounts for a third of my bag space since I have to pack shoes and a coat with it as well.</p>

<p>Dear Douglas, your comments did not offend me one bit. It was more the 'others', whom I refuse to name on principle. And despite how irritated I am from certain responses, I don't want to dabble in name calling either. Not that I think it's wrong, rather that since I started the post. I believe it's up to me to maintain some form of decorum and keep it on-topic despite how off-topic it's been so far.</p>

<p>Yes, I didn't think it was necessary to mention the iPad. I was hoping to get responses that were to the point rather than what transpired here(i.e. No it's not possible/Yes, just use Standard contrast for yellow etc.). Seeing as how I was being 'ragged on' as Zack so aptly put it, and knowing I wouldn't get clearer answers if I didn't specify my reasons behind my process, I had to make that lengthy post that ended up double posting too.</p>

<p>The iPad is clearly a drawback, but like I mentioned before. Mobility is of the utmost importance for me. I've finally cut out all the nonsense I don't need for a kit and change of clothes that I actually use. Granted if DNG is my only option, I will naturally find a way to make it work. Regarding the additional steps part, technically in my eyes it still does. If you refine to it's simplest process, JPEG is up and ready to go anywhere you can find an internet connection. RAW still requires me to convert the file into something viewable. It might not seem like a whole lot, but for a style as spartan as mine, one step more, is a step too many.</p>

<p>And Zack, despite how off-topic you are. You certainly have my thanks for making the naysayers see some light(if any, since none of them have replied, and hopefully never will). I was actually considering making a whole new account to ask the exact same question with a different cheaper camera. A camera that of course shared at the very least, the same sensor type. But decided against it because it would require too much research for something so trivial and would be a waste of bandwidth. What that says though, with regards to the "critical opinions", should speak volumes.</p>

<p>Any more advice would certainly be very welcome and you will have my thanks. Any other "critical opinions" can be kept to yourselves and I have but one last thing to say to that end.</p>

<p>If you have nothing better, helpful or constructive to write. Please, for the love of God, tie your fingers up.</p>

<p>Good day again everyone, now you have to forgive me for not replying to everyone individually as is my courtesy. Since there have been a lot of replies since I last checked. But I feel compelled to get some things out of the way first.</p>

<p>1. This is not a RAW vs. JPEG duel to the death. I don't understand why or how that came about, and I do not intend to broach this subject either. I understand the merits of both, and I have researched the RAW advantage to death. What I simply cannot fathom is why there are so many blind people(excuse my insult) who cannot see where I'm going with this. But who am I kidding? I have lost patience having to explain myself.<br>

To satisfy those who are intent on preaching to the choir. Fine. I agree, RAW is God's boon to digital photography.</p>

<p>2. I know exactly what colour filters do, I've been shooting black and white for a long time. And I know what I'm losing etc etc. by shooting JPEG. But because I use an iPad(more on that later). DNG is of no good use to me. I believe in getting the exposure right the first time, granted I do get it wrong some times, and on some days, quite often if the lights are crazy. Some times yes, fill light is necessary, so editing is necessary. But more often than not the image looks fine to me and my employer straight out of camera. In fact, very often it is my editor that does the cropping or even adding fill light.</p>

<p>Now my question has only ever been;<br>

Is there a way to play with the in-camera settings of the M9 to simulate or get the contrast differences(i.e. with the contrast option) you get if you shoot B/W on film with coloured filters over the lenses?</p>

<p>My intent was to get the "filtered contrast" so to speak straight out of camera with having to do anything in post processing. The variables of me getting the shot right don't matter, I just wanted to know if one could either use in-camera settings or physical filters to replicate the contrast.</p>

<p>If I was not clear before I apologise most profusely for wasting everyone's time, but if that was understood and you proceeded to lecture me on the merits of RAW. Shame on you sir!</p>

<p>Now I tried the 'WB set to daylight and shoot b/w as is with filters' and it did work, to a certain extent, but not in the way I expected. The contrast was more pronounced sans filter(i.e. sky was darker without the red filter than when it was on). Which is very strange to say the least, but then again I have absolutely no clue how digital sensors work.</p>

<p>That said, I believe my only option now is to do conversions as everyone has suggested. Which is rather odd for me but I'll have to live with it.</p>

<p>Now as a final note, just to explain why I'm insistent on the peculiar way I choose to do photography. I'm not a journalist nor am I a wedding photographer. I'm more a travel writer. That said, I travel very light and a lot of things I use are geared towards a lighter/faster way of travel. Yes you can argue that an MBA isn't that much heavier than an iPad. But there's the power cord too, along with the mouse since no one likes editing with a trackpad. As everyone is well aware, the iPad can't process DNGs, so that's why I shoot JPEG. My gear consists of an M9, two lenses, the iPad, a week's worth of clothes and miscellaneous chargers and what not. It's basically one cabin bag so everything's with me all the time and I don't have to wait for my bags at the belt or get delayed in the rare occurrence of losing something in transit. This is off-topic certainly, but I think it's necessary for me to shed some light why I insist on doing what I do. I also don't have a lot of sit down time to process everything for the day before I go to bed, uploading what I like to the iPad and sending it to my boss is perhaps the only time I spend more than a few hours in one place, other than when I'm sleeping of course(even then, it's not always guaranteed I sleep in a bed). If you can't see my reasons for wanting to shoot JPEGs, then let's just leave it at 'I have special needs'. Some people probably think I'm mentally deficient in some way anyway.</p>

<p>P.S. Thank you Stuart and Stuart for the help and the tip with the presets. I'll go have a try with it now. Ray, while I agree that image quality should be optimal. But for all intents and purposes, it is redundant to me because I hardly print, and even when I do, I am quite certain a JPEG from most cameras should hold up well enough to at least 8"x10". And thank you Cory for the post with the examples, it's a lot to digest but it's a good start for me at any rate.</p>

<p>Good day again everyone, now you have to forgive me for not replying to everyone individually as is my courtesy. Since there have been a lot of replies since I last checked. But I feel compelled to get some things out of the way first.</p>

<p>1. This is not a RAW vs. JPEG duel to the death. I don't understand why or how that came about, and I do not intend to broach this subject either. I understand the merits of both, and I have researched the RAW advantage to death. What I simply cannot fathom is why there are so many blind people(excuse my insult) who cannot see where I'm going with this. But who am I kidding? I have lost patience having to explain myself.<br>

To satisfy those who are intent on preaching to the choir. Fine. I agree, RAW is God's boon to digital photography.</p>

<p>2. I know exactly what colour filters do, I've been shooting black and white for a long time. And I know what I'm losing etc etc. by shooting JPEG. But because I use an iPad(more on that later). DNG is of no good use to me. I believe in getting the exposure right the first time, granted I do get it wrong some times, and on some days, quite often if the lights are crazy. Some times yes, fill light is necessary, so editing is necessary. But more often than not the image looks fine to me and my employer straight out of camera. In fact, very often it is my editor that does the cropping or even adding fill light.</p>

<p>Now my question has only ever been;<br>

Is there a way to play with the in-camera settings of the M9 to simulate or get the contrast differences(i.e. with the contrast option) you get if you shoot B/W on film with coloured filters over the lenses?</p>

<p>My intent was to get the "filtered contrast" so to speak straight out of camera with having to do anything in post processing. The variables of me getting the shot right don't matter, I just wanted to know if one could either use in-camera settings or physical filters to replicate the contrast.</p>

<p>If I was not clear before I apologise most profusely for wasting everyone's time, but if that was understood and you proceeded to lecture me on the merits of RAW. Shame on you sir!</p>

<p>Now I tried the 'WB set to daylight and shoot b/w as is with filters' and it did work, to a certain extent, but not in the way I expected. The contrast was more pronounced sans filter(i.e. sky was darker without the red filter than when it was on). Which is very strange to say the least, but then again I have absolutely no clue how digital sensors work.</p>

<p>That said, I believe my only option now is to do conversions as everyone has suggested. Which is rather odd for me but I'll have to live with it.</p>

<p>Now as a final note, just to explain why I'm insistent on the peculiar way I choose to do photography. I'm not a journalist nor am I a wedding photographer. I'm more a travel writer. That said, I travel very light and a lot of things I use are geared towards a lighter/faster way of travel. Yes you can argue that an MBA isn't that much heavier than an iPad. But there's the power cord too, along with the mouse since no one likes editing with a trackpad. As everyone is well aware, the iPad can't process DNGs, so that's why I shoot JPEG. My gear consists of an M9, two lenses, the iPad, a week's worth of clothes and miscellaneous chargers and what not. It's basically one cabin bag so everything's with me all the time and I don't have to wait for my bags at the belt or get delayed in the rare occurrence of losing something in transit. This is off-topic certainly, but I think it's necessary for me to shed some light why I insist on doing what I do. I also don't have a lot of sit down time to process everything for the day before I go to bed, uploading what I like to the iPad and sending it to my boss is perhaps the only time I spend more than a few hours in one place, other than when I'm sleeping of course(even then, it's not always guaranteed I sleep in a bed). If you can't see my reasons for wanting to shoot JPEGs, then let's just leave it at 'I have special needs'. Some people probably think I'm mentally deficient in some way anyway.</p>

<p>P.S. Thank you Stuart and Stuart for the help and the tip with the presets. I'll go have a try with it now. Ray, while I agree that image quality should be optimal. But for all intents and purposes, it is redundant to me because I hardly print, and even when I do, I am quite certain a JPEG from most cameras should hold up well enough to at least 8"x10". And thank you Cory for the post with the examples, it's a lot to digest but it's a good start for me at any rate.</p>

<p>Thank you for taking the time to reply and give informative opinions everyone, I was worried having to wake up to more "You're giving mommy a ferrari" analogies.</p>

<p>Benjamin, I would try that but I know digital sensors are a whole different ball game. They read through the filters and compensate for whatever tint they're in. Of course I wasn't sure if the M9 was the same, but it's like that on my NEX and my old DSLRs(which I gave away in due course after acquiring my M9), so I didn't think it'd be any different on the M9.</p>

<p>Stuart. Thank you, I honestly didn't think of tweaking the WB and have it set in daylight, at least when outdoors. I will try it as soon as the sun rises and the skies become a bit more clear. If it works, I'll be a happy snapper as someone before mentioned, and if it doesn't. Well I'll just suck it up and shoot RAW, but thank you again for the idea. And of course, sharing a similar viewpoint.</p>

<p>Mukul, thanks for the endorsement. More excited to find out if that works now.</p>

<p>And Rob. I'm a novice to the digital workflow. Granted I spent far more hours in my darkroom than on my computer. But call me a traditionalist snob if you will, I find working on the computer a disconnect from when I was in the darkroom. Maybe time will soothe the estrangement. Perhaps you could shed light on what I'm doing wrong.<br>

I cannot for the life of me, batch process the entire slew of images I want to use. I crop nearly all my images into a square format but some of them I don't. As for coloured filters for the b/w prints. Every print is different. As such, I have to process nearly every image individually. Granted I take about three to five minutes to process one print. But this was but a short trip, 86 in total and only 27 used. If this was one of my regular month to three month trips. I would be dealing with at least 200 images. How should I not be spending hours in front of my computer?</p>

<p>Forgive me if I'm mistaken. But shooting RAW requires processing, if only to convert the images into files to view on any given website. I spend months abroad and travel very light, it's part of what I do. I can't be lugging around too much excess weight, even an 11" MBA is too much at times when I could do without one.</p>

<p>I believe one of the hallmarks of the Leica system is the portability. Combined with a digital process giving an instant ability to upload images anywhere. It's second to none.</p>

<p>What I simply cannot understand is why the two of you(or maybe more as time goes by) constantly harp on shooting JPEGs. If there is no alternative, I will of course shoot RAW. But I'm beginning to lose patience having to explain this. If you cannot or do not know of an alternative to shooting RAW and having to process it into b/w. Then please don't bother replying. I'm not trying to be rude, but no one has even touched on what the question is about, nor shed light on the points I brought up other than their personal opinions on what format I should use.</p>

<p>Please be on topic for the love of God.</p>

<p>Perhaps Steve, you missed the memo about the M9 being the only full frame digital rangefinder on the planet. At least on this planet I don't have a choice. Maybe where you are there is another option? All malice aside though. You seem to have missed my point entirely. </p>

<p>I bought the M9 because it is a wonderful system and is really convenient as all forms of digital capture are. That being said, I do realise a lot is lost from not shooting in RAW. But because I don't edit a lot. Or more like, I dislike editing an image heavily. I was wondering if there was an alternate option for what I want to do.</p>

<p>Sounds to me like you're a jealous sort and the way I use my M9 is too simple for your extravagant fantasies. Now I'm not saying you don't own an M9, rather you believe I under-utilize it. The truth is, I don't see how that's relevant at all. At least not with regards to my initial question.</p>

<p>Personal vision only plays apart before the 'decisive moment'. Once that's done, all you're left with is a medium to tweak or not to tweak. At least in my opinion.</p>

<p>And thanks Richard. Apologies though, it isn't really my first name. Rather it's the abbreviation of my first name and my two middles. As for Kennins, you're right, it's the anglicization of Kennen(to know in German). And again, you're quite spot on. I do use the ZM 50/1.5 and the ZM 25. I did go to Hong Kong to buy the Leica 28/2.8 ASPH and did, also found the 50 lux. Except it was terribly marked up in price, somewhere in the region of 5,200 USD. I want the lens, but not at that price.</p>

<p>Good day everyone, I have but a small question. I'm currently using a Leica M9 and have been using it for about a month now. I came back from a trip to Hong Kong a few days ago on the pretext of visiting friends but also with the goal of 1. taking the new camera for a spin and 2. buying some lenses not in stock locally.</p>

<p>I shot a combination of JPEG + DNG. With contrast and sharpening to the minimum but with colour set to B/W. And after coming home and running all the DNGs(86 of them over the course of 4 days) through Lightroom. I've realised that I really don't bother editing much. Probably a throwback to the days of using film. I also downloaded Silver Efex to have a go at b/w conversions but even then, all I do is add filter colours(yellow, orange or red). I don't see the beauty in all of those dynamic range effects or processes. As for film emulation, I think it's quite redundant since I have them readily on hand as well as an M6 and a ZI.</p>

<p>My workflow thus far seems to be: Crop -> Add a colour filter -> Save and export to JPEG. I did straighten one or two shots and add fill light to another couple, but that's about it.</p>

<p>Thus I am wondering if the contrast settings or other settings in camera work at perhaps recreating the effect of colour filters for JPEG images. Of course by shooting only JPEG, I lose the DNG, but considering how little I change to the DNG, it's quite a waste of space isn't it? One could also argue that I just stick to film Ms with my colour filters if I shoot primarily in b/w, but the point of digital to me is simply convenience. And I must say I'm spoiled by it right now.</p>

<p>Thanks Michael, but for question number 2. I was really wondering which telephoto out of my telephoto lens collection I should be using. Either the 85 or the 80-200.</p>

<p>Good day to all of you,</p>

<p>I recently inherited, by way of an uncle, an old set of Nikon equipment. The full list is as follows;<br>

Nikon F3<br>

Nikon F100<br>

Nikon 20mm f/4 MF<br>

Nikon 24mm f/2.8 MF<br>

Nikon 28mm f/2.8 MF<br>

Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 AF<br>

Nikon 35mm f/2.8 MF<br>

Nikon 55mm f/3.5 Micro MF<br>

Nikon 85mm f/1.8 MF<br>

Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5 MF<br>

An old Gossen light meter<br>

3 external flash units that don't seem to work<br>

2 tripods<br>

2 18% gray cards I think <br>

And a whole dastardly assortment of filters, teleconverters and other things that make no sense to me whatsoever.</p>

<p>I've never been much of a photographer, my only experience with SLRs or similar types of cameras was with my father's old Leica M3. Which he sold as off 1980-something to make some money as he rarely took it out to use. Some of those lenses have some fungus on them I think or cleaning marks, the Micro lens even has a rich 'glowy' effect to it which I'm certain has nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with bad maintenance(uncle was a mighty big hoarder, and typical of the rich, eccentric as well). </p>

<p>After doing some hefty research on these lenses and cameras, I've surmised that they're all pre-AI lenses save the 85mm f/1.8 which I believe is AI-converted. The 20mm and 55mm have a decent amount of fungus on them and I was wondering how much it usually costs to have them cleaned, and whether it's even worth the trouble. The 35mm has an odd halo of 'fog' about the lens but is clear in the centre. I don't know how or when or why my uncle acquired this set of equipment. But he was not a photographer, he just had fleeting interests in a lot of things over the years.</p>

<p>So without having to bore all of you kind folk further. I've decided(or more like my wife decided) to bring the F100 and a set of lenses for our next holiday in southeast Asia, namely Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and with a brief stopover in Australia on the way back. But as circumstance has it, I do not know what to bring. I've narrowed down what I want to what everyone should have.<br>

A wide-angle, normal and telephoto. With the state some of the lenses are in, I've chosen the 24(but wonder if the 20 would be a better lens, at least from a beginner's(me) point of view), I've shot a few test rolls on the 20 and it doesn't seem like the fungus takes away much, though it could probably just be me and my lack of experience. Between the 85 and 80-200, I'm not quite certain what to bring, I will most likely bring a tripod because the wife feels that there will be many great opportunities to take glamourous photos of her and me. And with regards to a normal, both the "normal" lenses I have are utterly gutted optically so I have to buy a new or used lens.</p>

<p>Before I go further, I'd just like to say that although I could afford most lenses, barring one's that cost thousands of pounds. I don't want to spend a lot of money on something I might give up when I come back. And because all the lenses I mentioned are manual, I would prefer a big aperture(is the term fast?) normal autofocus lens(the wife has been adamant about how I am terribly slow at focusing manually). </p>

<p>So I believe my choices are either;<br>

Nikon 35mm f/2<br>

Nikon 50mm f/1.4<br>

Nikon 50mm f/1.8<br>

No I don't want a G lens, as if I were to sell off this whole set, I'd want all the lenses to be compatible with both the bodies and as far as I know, the G lenses are not compatible with the F3.<br>

I also do not want a zoom lens, if I'm going to take the 80-200, it's heavy enough. And fixed lenses are smaller and lighter and make for better travel companions I feel.</p>

<p>With all that said and done, I have 3 questions which I hope you will help me answer. I'll say it in advance that I appreciate any and all help.<br>

1. With regards to the wide-angle, is the 20 preferable over the 24 in spite of my novice ability?<br>

2. Which telephoto should I be using? <br>

3. What focal length would better serve as my normal-always-on-the-camera if you take my choices of lenses into account?</p>