charlie_novice

<p>I read pixel RGB values at random in the background of the black and white you posted. They were (1, 1, 1) to (4, 4, 4) along the diagonal. On a scale of 0..255 that is effectively black, no?</p>

<p>The ratio of the brightest area to the darkest area in a scene often exceeds the dynamic range that any current sensor can capture. You can expose for the subject (the water in this instance?) and live with the result. Also, you can record the raw images. They allow more post processing than camera JPG files; you often can brighten a significant part of the shadows to show detail.</p>

<p>The previous owner probably took the free copy of Capture One. Don't think you can get a free copy from the Web.<br /> <br />Most raw converter programs read the DNG file format. Raw Therapee is a free program. I use Picture Window Pro, < US$100, which is both a raw converter and a marvelous alternative to Photoshop.<br /><br />Some programs may choke on the M8 version of DNG files. In that case you can get the free Adobe DNG Converter and run Leica DNGs through it, creating "standard" DNG files.</p>

<p>I bought a used Canon EF 75-300 4-5.6 III USM. It's not very sharp on the XS. For telephoto work, a prime lens might produce better images. Don't know Canon stuff well, don't know whether such a thing exists on a budget.</p>

 

<p>Let's assume a print from a file of 300 pixels per inch. You posted 2000 by 3008, so 4800 by 7219 would be 16 inches by 24 inches. I used the free Fast Stone viewer to enlarge the shot to those dimensions. Looking at the result at 100 percent on a monitor, from about 20 inches away, it looks great. The flowers get a little raggedy. You might download Fast Stone and decide whether to show her the enlargement on a monitor. She or you might want touchup on the right cheek and right side of the neck. A wonderful picture.</p>

 

<p>If you want blur, the other posts have many good suggestions.<br /> <br />Or do you want to emphasize part of the scene by one means or another? You can brighten the part you want to emphasize and darken background, especially through a gradient. You can sharpen or add local contrast to the subject. You can desaturate background. A combination of these techniques, with care not to do too much of any one of them, works well.</p>

<p>"replace the now very old Sony A700."<br /> <br />Did not Sony stop sale of A700 some time ago?<br /> <br />The A77 has a sensor of the same dimensions as the A700, but many specifications are different, and the entire philosophy of the camera is different. "Replace" is a stretch.</p>

<p>Load film. If the film rewind shaft on the top left rotates while you use the film advance lever, then all is okay. If the shaft does not rotate, the film did not load properly and is not moving to the take-up spool.</p>

 

<p><br /><br />I guess the green is at the lower part of the building while the center of the photo is the top of the building. With the colored glass and perhaps the external source(s) of the light, the lighting varies. That probably causes the green.<br /> <br />If your artistic decision is that you will remove the green, here is an approach using the Picture Window Pro program for post-processing. A <a href="http://g1.img-dpreview.com/BC7FCA6359FE41F5BBDF5A3494D37D0E.jpg">screen shot</a> is posted.<br>

1. Mask the area to be changed. PWP has an easy rectangle mask tool among other choices. Blur the mask. The mask is shown at the bottom left.<br /><br />2. Reduce the green highlight in the unmasked area (the white portion). That's a simple move, shown at the bottom right. Done! Or play around with reducing green midtones and shadows, too, by adding vectors with a click of the mouse.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>007 is beautiful, and I learned something (well, something to aim for, not how to get there).<br /> <br />006 is a bit of a novelty, still attractive. That scene would make a good moire test for digital Leicas and other cameras.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Try applying a broad S-curve. To my eye, a boost to overall contrast diminishes the prominence of the child.</p>

 

<p>"Summaron is a nice lens, but watch the condition and price accordingly."<br /> <br />Yes. Just assume you will do a CLA, for example with Gus Lazzari here on photo.net.<br>

This shot gives an example of the lens in the hands of a novice.<br>

<a href=" by lake</a><br>

While this shot displays the "character" of the lens although not as sharply focused.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/5235745513/sizes/l/in/photostream/">The photographer</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Any experience reported will help me, too. The service bureau that develops my film also scans the negatives with a drum scanner. I'd like to know whether a home Plustek scanner, which is designed for 35mm negatives and slide film, does about as well - before sinking hundreds of dollars into one.</p>

 

<p>My apologies. Here is Stuart's digital shot blended with a digital image emulating the grain of TMax 400:</p>

<p><img src="http://g4.img-dpreview.com/E3A6CB92E66A46188BBA8AEF09976178.jpg" alt="" width="344" height="480" /></p>

 

<p>Here is Stuart's digital shot blended with a digital image emulating the grain of TMax 400:<br>

<a href="http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1128464.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1305868451&Signature=cbDTFzAsllkavF0ZHg4HLImPTIM%3d">Blend with TMax 400 emulation</a><br>

Improves it, no?</p>

<p>Thanks for the manual focus procedure! The Luminous Landscape blogger criticized the manual focus to the point of saying forget it.<br /> <br />I've purchased cameras without trying them, except to be sure they can take a photo, and had good luck so far, but will not do that with the X100.</p>

 

<p>Gimp scripts emulating Provia, Velvia, and Portra films are at http://silicosaur.hu/photofx/ . You can read them and get a good idea of the equivalent action in PS or whatever.</p>

 

<p>Not a rangefinder. With a rangefinder you focus by aligning two superimposed views of the scene as you rotate the focus ring of the lens. The Fuji X100 is a viewfinder camera with both automatic and manual focus methods. If you have used the latter, please tell us how it goes.</p>

 

<p>Although a US$4000 digital Leica is more affordable than a US$7000 one and by standard economic rules should sell more units, I bet plenty of people simply don't want to carry around a small device at either price.</p>

 

<p><br>

<br>

</p>

 

<p>I have suffered no problem with a cheap (around US$20-25) adapter to put 35mm and 85mm LTM lenses on an R3A.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If the ad is on Craigslist or something similar, you are in trouble unless the transaction is conducted by meeting in person and paying cash after you sit there and examine the camera. But with such an expensive item, you are in trouble by going to a meeting carrying lots of cash. It can be done, for example in the lobby of a busy bank, if you do not make any trusting assumption. Deeds not words.</p>

<p><br /><br />I've had good results putting M-mount lenses on an Olympus E-P1. (Here's yet another <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/5645204340/in/photostream">yellow rose</a> with the Elmar 135/4.) Not as good as an M8, but your point in that regard is certainly valid.<br /><br />I use cheap adapters (about US$20-25). The distance markings on the lens are usually off, and different for each lens, but with live view focusing that is not a great problem.<br /><br />Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape recently gave a very favorable review to the Panasonic GH2 with special emphasis on image quality.<br /><br /></p>

<p>The biggest weakness of the X100 that Luminous Landscape reports is the near unusability of manual focus. A version that takes M-mount lenses, perhaps with an adapter, would be a serious competitor with used M8s. The M8 has a larger sensor, so the difference in image quality would be a question.</p>

 

<p>Several scans by North Coast Photo Services (they have a website) over several months have all been done cleanly.</p>