ant_nio_gomes

Are you serious about these 2 aspects being granted by mirrorless cameras only?

You can find the same note at page 326 of the D500 user manual and as I was told this has to do with the lens VR not with the cameras. You can find an explanation if you follow the link bellow and go down to the part titled as "VR Image Flare": All About Nikon VR | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

If you go to Nikon USA you can find that exact set: ES-2 Film Digitizing Adapter Set from Nikon Just click on the link above that is in small letters at the white area bellow the image where it says "What's in the box"

Andrew, Thanks VM for coming back and the adicional information.

Thanks VM for your info Andrew I'm aware the so called medium and small RAW comes as 12 bit (11 for data as you say) lossless compressed files but what I meant as WB flexibility was already the same as allowed by a "real" RAW file and according to your words it seems we can assume there is a limitation there, closer to a Jpeg's adjustment possibilities. Let's wait and see when examples and some other people's experiences broaden the possibility to evaluate the merits of these file variations and if they can be viable alternatives for regular usage.

Thanks VM Barry, good to know it as previous implementation of smaller RAW was said to have some limitations or not allowing to fix different WB values during conversion.

Hi, congrats for getting it so soon As you are already converting RAW files, did you try with medium and small settings and if so how do they treat WB in terms of adjustment flexibility and your opinion on results, please? Thanks VM

<p>Are you using Picture Control?<br> If you go to NX2's Camera Settings, click on to activate Picture Control section what's there as "recorded value"?<br> Goings further down to Advanced, which value you get as default?<br> And the same as default for sharpening when you activate "noise reduction"?<br> Besides you shoot only RAW, NX2 gets the settings in your menus and the converter itself will make the referred adjustment if positive values are registered as default.</p>

<p>I guess previous comments already referred the important aspects and reasons why you have no advantage using the red filter on the lens and I would only add that the most noticeable effect will be to cause a cal our cast affecting your image, therefore I guess with an impact on the three channels.<br> Converting to B&W and using the channel mixer will allow you the recreate the effect you'd expect from a red filter with B&W film.<br> Probably less effective you can shoot B&W sRGB direct from the camera and if your model allows it setting the red filter in you menu options (I guess it is a software feature after desaturating all channels to convert to and saving the B&W image).<br> If your camera didn't have the RGB color array as the Leica Monochrom you could use the red filter and get the same effect as with a film camera.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Frank,<br /> Christoph put it clearly, however you should feel grateful because Adobe is being quite generous offering you this "free upgrade"...meaning you will not be penalized because you're using PS5 and you will only pay exactly the same as someone that comes to CC with no previous use of any PS version. :-) :-)</p>

<p>As Jeff said, just have a look at the link:<br> "http://newcameranews.com/2015/04/01/shocking-nikon-canon-to-end-camera-development/"</p>

<p>Performance was not the main issue behind the OP's questions as he was asking if the lens could be used with a particular teleconverter he owns (and we know nothing else about but the brand name) and the reason why Nikon says this zoom is not compatible with teleconverters (their owns, obviously).<br /> Nikon reasons come from both lens and teleconverter designs, as the front element of the TC is at the surface and the zoom rear can damage it. However there are brands, as Tamron and Vivitar that have this element at a recessed positions, thus eventually allowing the match.<br /> You can see images of both Tamron and Nikon TCs at this page (look at Customers also viewed section): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/53249-REG/Tamron_AF20N700_2x_AF_Teleconverter_for.html<br /> Vivitar has(had) at least one TC that could be used with Nikon AF-S G lenses, it seems: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/637864-REG/Vivitar_VIV_2X4_N_VIV_2x4_N_Series_1_4.html<br /> Is the OP's TC like this one? This point is important to have an opinion besides compatibility is not granted and need to be tested at the user own risk.<br /> Note that both manufacturer, like Nikon, don't recommend the use of TCs with this zoom as they indicate them only for lenses above 90mm and opening to F:2.8 or more.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>I set out what I did so that others might try it too. My method was well received on a forum of GIMP users. Here, people said what they did in other packages</em><em>. It is like speaking mutually incomprehensible languages</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry for the insistence (that starts to seem too much even to me) but I have to make a last remark about this part of your post as it just increases my discomfort and sensation of wrong doing since I uploaded my first one.<br /> <br /> A Fórum being a "public place of open discussion" (as defined here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/forum) IMHO I hardly see that "<em>people saying what they did in other packages</em>" can be "<em>like speaking mutually incomprehensible languages</em>", unless one of the parties adopts a Magister Dixit's posture and refuses to accept any other opinion...even from people that don't refuse what he his presenting, as I think it was my case.<br /> <br /> Therefore, I have to stress again how sorry I'm for introducing an undesirable opinion in what (I realize now) was supposed to be just the offering of your method to photo.net membership.</p>

<p>Mukul, Sorry but it was not my intention to distort your own words and after a second reading of all topic posts I've to say that it is right that you didn't invite others to explain their methods as I wrongly thought.</p> <p>It's a pity I didn't get it at first because it would have saved me from disturbing you with unwanted stuff and to drive you to contradict me with the expression "this is not true" that may denote I could have irritated you. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Mukul, I do understand the rol of your 3 conversions but I think what you shall from them is am image that gets the shadows of the "Dark", the middle tones of the "Normal" and the highlights of the "Bright" and if you start from files with the desired values you should get what you're looking for.</p> <p>I'm not familiar with the present versions of The GIMP (used it under Linux before they changed the graphic engine, some years ago) but in Photoshop it can be done either with the program tool or "manually" using layers and masks, and I believe that unless you edit the final result (global or locally) what you get is what you had in the selected areas of the used individual files.</p> <p>When using the program tools, it may happen that you can find the result as not corresponding to your expectations and go back to editing but I consider this as new attempt and not as part of the process, but this is just a personal opinion and you are entitled to have your own and consider it as such.</p> <p>Regarding my first result, it involved no small areas editing and took only a couple of minutes to open the file, go to the shadow/highlights move the 3 cursors; open a first curves adjustment layer to a small contrast adjustment (a fast 2 point shape); open the second curves layer and make a small upwards movement of the cursor on the dark area and apply smart sharpen with the default values I usually utilize.</p> <p>I made these comments only because you invited other participants to explain other methods but, as you said before, if you're satisfied with your workflow and continue to consider it the best for you why not to go on with it?</p>

<p>To complement my previous 2 posts, please note that if necessary we could bring out even more detail and luminosity in the darker areas, using the Dodge Tool (Shadows) locally.</p>

<p>As the upload tool only accepts one file at a time, here goes the one related to the second edit</p>

<p>Mukul, I must say this topic is confusing me a bit: you titled it "HDR from a single exposure", afterwards you stated "I make what I call "fake HDR"" and "HDR does not interest me".<br /> <br /> According to your own words, your process is an Exposure Blend of 3 files obtained from a single RAW file that is an option used to an extent that editing software as GIMP or Photoshop decided to incorporate and simplify to make the life of their users easier.<br /> So far so good, but then you say " One can either use the defaults or else adjust any or all of the three layers" and this part really confuses me as you were supposed to get the different zones of your desired final tone curve fixed by the time you save the 3 Tiff files you use for the blending.<br /> <br /> Also, you come up with a second example and regarding to it you say "the idea is not to <em>extend</em> dynamic range but to <em>compress</em> it. The fact that the Shadow slider brings up much detail in shadows tells us that <em>that detail is there". </em>I fear I don't understand what you mean as the scene doesn't seem to have such a wide dynamic range and I don't see why if the detail is there you need to reduce it. Can you elaborate a bit on that please?<br /> <br /> IMHOP, we can talk about the dynamic range of a scene and the capabilities of the sensor to record it and from the moment we shoot and the image is saved to disk we can't extract more from the file than the information the sensor was able to record.<br /> I believe that to cope with scenes beyond the sensor's capabilities is the reason why people either use blending of different exposures or produce HDR from the number of shots necessary to cover the full dynamic range of the scene.<br /> OK, you can produce several conversions from the same exposure and blend them to get a better picture, for instance to reduce noise in the shadow areas treating them separately from the middle tones, but with today's sensors and programs if you expose properly you can solve most situations just with the RAW conversion and editing tools.<br /> <br /> Coming back to the image you present as "normal", I tested 2 different edition options:<br /> <br /> 1. - Image opened in PS <br /> Files -> Adjustments -> Shadows/Hihhlights -> moved 3 cursors (Amount 36%; Tonal Width 75% and Radius 8)<br /> This was the basic, but to improve Curves were used to get a slight increase in contrast and to lighten a bit the figures on the cup and a bit of sharpness using Smart Sharpen.<br> <br /> You can see the results in the annexed image.</p> <p>2. - Opened the file in Photoshop<br /> Duplication of the background layer<br /> Selection of "Screen" mixing mode<br /> Use of the Burn tool (Highlights 3%) to get a small reduction of luminosity on the documents.<br /> This was the basic, followed by a small increase in contrast using curves, sharpening with Smart Sharpen.<br> <br /> The image annexed to the following post reflect this edit.</p>

<p>Vignetting due to the use of filters occur when the filter+holder (or mount for the ones you apply directly) interfere with the light coming in to the sensor, and this increases when you use wider focal distances lenses.<br> 4.5 mm have an advantage over 7.5mm just because this interference comes at a wider lens than the last one, but with Lee filters and holders you are dealing with 105mm and for sure the manufacturer came to the conclusion of being safe down to 16mm after making their own tests.<br> But this is not the same as vignetting caused by the use of lenses when wide open as this effect will continue no matter what filter you use.<br> Coming back to Lee and as their holders are modular and allow the increase of number of filters you can stack, you shall check if they make this statement with just the polarizer or together with other filters, and if that's the case how many they are talking about down to 15mm focal distance.<br> The use of a polarizer with other filters can be justified if you use graduated ND filters, for instance, to compensate for sky luminosity, but as Eduward noticed polarized filters and wide angle lenses don't go well together and can produce inconvenient effects when you use them for their main purpose with sunlight.</p>

<p>Hi<br /> The image you posted has already a clear magenta (I think) color cast and is a Jpeg, therefore it is difficult to know if this was produced during the RAW conversion but it is likely as if we take the cast out we get an image that seems to have the correct colors and contrast.<br /> Nikon NX2 converter was probably the only one that would recognize camera settings as white balance, the others show a first conversion according to their own defaults and sometimes they need to be worked out to reach the results you're after.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Just to add something, besides it think it's obvious:<br> My suggestion implies you keep your FF body to take profit of the wider lenses.</p>

<p>For someone interested in general photography you already have a good lens collection, unless you want a wider focal what would drive you to the expensive 11-24mm zoom but would leave the longer side with no options for your interest to shoot birds.<br> Buying a longer tele would not be cheap and would add an new heavy piece of equipment and this the reason a lot of people in that kind of photography uses crop body cameras.<br> Have you ever consider buying a 7D Mk II crop body? <br> This would give your 100-400 mm a reach equivalent to 560mm and offer and useful 10 fps shooting capabilities, apart from a good AF and high ISO, for a much lower bill.</p>

<p>The X-Pro1 is already expected and it makes sense to wait for it but on the other hand there are promotions offering X-Pro1 and 35mm F:1.4 for a price not much higher than the one of the lens alone.<br> If you consider this lens, you could buy the new model and keep X-Pro1 as a backup body almost for free.</p>

<p>You say your camera is the ETRSi 6.4 Bronica it may not shoot a square format (6x6) but a landscape one (6x4.5cm), besides closer to a square than the usual 35mm film or the so called digital full format (3x2 or 24x36mm).<br /> <br />To get a 3by2 image you can either buy a film back (Ei Matte 135) and a special focusing screen (Ei Microprism/Split Image 135 (H) if you still can find these original Bronica parts or use your present film back and crop the image to print according to the dimensions you want.</p> <p>If you use your present back you can use an original focusing screen as the one I referred or try to adapt a mask showing the required framing lines over the one of your camera.</p> <p>This will help you to frame and compose the image but as you are not using a 135 film back you'll have to crop the image afterwards, or to use an appropriated mask either to digitize the negative or to enlarge it if you're using a chemical printing process.</p> <p>At page 14 of this paper you can find the Bronica parts I referred above: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Section01MediumFormat.pdf</p> <p> </p>

<p>I don't fully understand the need to open a topics to so many people announce they are leaving brand A, B or C DSLR equipment to buy X, Y or Z mirrorless hardware that proves to be "sooo good" that they will never look back.<br /> With mirrorless cameras becoming system cameras targeting the prosumer segment of the market there are not that many ways to make the move than going from DSLR equipment to the new stuff.<br /> One of the point reasons is "weight" that is a fact at a certain level of equipment but no more completely true as there are some DSLRs lighter than some mirrorless, either when it comes to bodies or lenses.<br /> Technological changes are big and tend to favor improvements of mirroless regarding aspects that were seen as handicaps a couple of years ago and this may continue, so this kind of migration is expected to continue, but at the same time as much as mirrorless systems tend be more polyvalent and go up the quality scale the weight factor is diminishing (see Fuji constant F:2.8 zooms and last Sony FF bodies, for instance).<br /> As it happened with the long lasting anagogic versus digital shouldn't it be time to look at these personal choices as they really are?</p>