john_wheeler6

<p>Hi Jeremey<br> I think you question has evolved form the difference of a macro lens compared to regular lenses now to why you see the same angle of view with a 105mm lens and a zoom set to 300mm.<br> QG de Bakker already mentioned the primary reason and that is the 28-300mm lens focal length is only valid when focused at infinity. Many lenses are designed to meet multiple purposes. For that zoom they want narrow angle of view when focused further away yet they also want to meet the consumers need to be able to focus at a relatively short distance. You zoom lens (I have the same one) changes focal length as you focus closer. At the minium focus distance the focal length is actually about 130mm (ref: <strong>http://tinyurl.com/2f8e2db</strong> under the effective focal length section). Note that the 105mm lens may not be constant in focal length over focus distance as well (I know my 105mm Nikon Macro is not).<br> So the above alone shows that at close focus distances, the focal length of your two lenses is not that different.<br> The other secondary issue is that the angle of view is not measure from the film plane nor from the from of the lens. In a simple single element lens it is the center of that lens. Note that such a lens moves with focus with being closest to the sensor at infinity and closest to the end of far end of the lens (away from the sensor) when focused closely.<br> Then take into account that these lenses are not that simple yet are compound lenses that are internal focus (lens stays same size with different focus point), and the focal length is changing with focus as well.<br> <br />Such a discussion is beyond the scope of my post and probably beyond your needs. Suffice it to say when focused at very closely with your zoom lens, if is close in focal length to your 105mm lens and that the measurement point from which to measure the angle of view for the effective and therefore the actual distance to your subject from this point will no doubt be different between the two lenses.<br> Note that the above information in the post is really not answering the differences to a macro lens. The macro lens will allow a higher level of in focus magnification if you are close enough to your subject. In this case the max magnification of the 105mm is 3X that of your zoom.<br> Hope the incremental information is helpful.</p>

<p>Hi Jeremy<br> The sigma lens allows a reproduction ratio of 1:1 (actual subject size can be the same size on the sensor) while the Nikon zoom maximum reproduction ration is 1:0.32 or about 1/3 the size.<br> Use you macro lens and get as close to the subject as possible while still in focus (it will be huge) and see if you can reproduce that with the Nikon zoom (you won't be able to).<br> That should clearly show the difference.<br> Hope this helps.</p>

<blockquote> <p>IF one can soft proof, one should be able to convert. And pick a Rendering Intent which I would hope you’d agree is important and plays a role in what you end up seeing AND getting. That’s not possible with a ‘<em>use the profile only for soft proof</em>’ workflow. </p> </blockquote> <p>I agree. Whitewall does allow that in their workflow. You can convert to their ICC profile with whatever rendering intent you desire. It was only mentioned in an email not to do that that raises eyebrows. I am just suggesting to try it out with a real print as one would to test out any print lab.</p> <blockquote> <p>Great, they allow one to send CMYK, the totally wrong color space for the output.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree, I almost winced including the CMYK part of the comment as copying what they had in their FAQ</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> As I said, for the price, I have no issue with a lab forcing an sRGB workflow on the files they accept. None at all.</p> </blockquote> <p>They are not forcing an sRGB workflow from anything I read. Just that they are assuming an sRGB profile when one is not embedded.</p> <blockquote> <p>What I object to is the <em>idea</em> of providing profiles that don’t do what they were designed to do, and the impression that by using ICC Profiles, these lab’s are implementing a sound color managed workflow. They are not. It’s like printing a book from Aperture or Lightroom, you send the data ‘<em>as is</em>’ and you get what you get. They are not suggesting a color managed process in terms of soft proofing and converting and send the data in a fixed RGB Working Space as these other lab’s <em>could</em> and <strong>should</strong> simply do as well.</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, I think we might be reading too much into a single email exchange from Whitewall and am suggesting testing the print lab via prints which can include printing in the supplied ICC profile for the printer/paper combination with ones choice of rendering intent. Then see if one likes the results. (multiple prints over time is a nice addition for repeatability).<br> <br />From following you for many years Andrew, I do have a pretty good feel for what print lab characteristics to avoid. However, though it may have been buried in my previous post, I am looking for the Andrew Rodney Good Printing Seal of Approval on a list of labs that I hope you could provide in different price/performance classes. Now that would be really valuable for a lot of folks to know what specific labs "to go to", not just "what characteristics to stay away from."<br> A consumer reports rating chart of print labs from you would even be better. IMHO that would be an amazing practical output from your expertise that would be used very widely (and many might pay money for). If you already have that, a link would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Are we reading too much between the lines of a communication from the company about their ICC profiles being only for soft proof.<br /> <br />For the price performance point that Whitewall offers they give pretty decent information in their FAQ about how to work with them: https://us.whitewall.com/service/Faq-image#AaiB-5<br> <br /> The link includes 19 ICC profiles for the various machine/paper combinations, they accept data from any RGB color space (and CMYK as well), they walk you through the settings for soft proofing including which rendering intent to use and black point compensation (I assume to get the best match with what they print).<br /> For this price/performance point of lab, of all those that I know using Whitewall, I have not heard a problem with quality or color matching issues.<br> <br /> In the search for practical/actionable information, are there better labs at these price/performance points that do better including online info to make working with them easy (aka at least as much info as Whitewall)? I certainly know a lot of labs at a similar price point that do a lot worse. I am sure there are higher price point Labs do better (and no doubt some higher price labs that do no better).<br> <br /> Why not follow their FAQ instructions with an image in Adobe RGB, send them a print, and evaluate it when you get it back. Though it may not speak to repeatability of results, it certainly would add some actual results to the discussion.<br> <br />All IMHO of course</p>

<p>Hi Giovanni - a couple more thoughts.<br> In your comment:</p> <blockquote> <p>Why converting to a narrower gamut in the first place ? (AdobeRGB is slightly narrower in places compared to the paper profile of the Fuji Crystal DP II that they provide for soft proof).</p> </blockquote> <p>I pulled up the ICC profile in ColorThink Pro and Adobe RGB really covers virtually all of the ICC profile for the Fuji Crystal DP II.<br> So unless you need to know for academic reasons why they don't want you to convert to their ICC profile, just use Adobe RGB. 8 bit should be pretty good (RGB or TIFF) and if you have concerns about banding give them a 16 bit TIFF.<br> Adobe RGB is considerably wider gamut than the ICC profile for the printer of interest. I would used soft proofing in your workflow. Not all images have colors that would need to be remapped to the smaller printer gamut yet some do and always good to have a heads up on what colors would needed to be shifted to be "in gamut." If that step is needed, you have more control if you bring it in gamut in LR or PS rather than depending on the Labs conversion process.<br> All IMHO.</p>

<p>Hi Giovanni<br> They prefer JPEG or TIFF in 8 bit and yes they can do any color space if you have it embedded.<br> A couple things to consider however.<br> Printer spaces are somewhat a moving target. No doubt over time they update their own ICC profiles for ideal printing. Now that should match the ICC profile for soft-proofing yet that is only the case if they update those files on their website. They may consider the ICC profiles on their site "close enough" and may not update those as often.<br> sRGB, aRGB, and ProPhoto RGB are fixed and are not changing by comparison.<br> Note that if you use ProPhoto RGB (and some degree aRGB) and are submitting a JPEG or 8 bit TIFF (instead of 16 bit), you run the risk of having banding added to the image as the 256 colors per channel must be stretched out over a wider gamut. So that is a tradeoff as well.<br> Finally, it only matters if you image has colors that are outside of the sRGB color space. If not, submitting is sRGB is just fine. You could verify this with soft proofing.<br> Hope the incremental information is helpful.</p>

<p>The DNG converter is the way to go unless you upgrade to LR 5 or have Photoshop CS6 or higher<br> One needs LR 5.3 or higher or ACR 8.3 or higher for the Nikon D610 raw files.<br> <br />Hope that helps clarify.</p>

<p>Hi Al<br> For the films mentioned in your link, those can be covered by the best flatbed scanners already at 6000 dpi. For films that have a higher lp/mm then just realize that unless you are doing extreme cropping the prints would need to be humongous to to take advantage of that level of resolution.<br> Yes, present day sensors e.g. Nikon D810 are pretty high resolution yet are still 5207 dpi for the type of application to which you refer.<br> <br />So yes it would be technically feasible to do what you are talking about yet what would be the advantage over today's scanners or just using a macro lens with a film adapter and take it right with the camera. In addition, today's scanners can cover negatives larger than 35mm at the 6000 dpi resolution as well as scanning prints.<br> Though an interesting academic question, it does not seem like there is any significant buyer market for the product above what is already available. And in the case of the macro lens and slide/negative adapter, you get to keep the macro lens for other uses.<br> <br />Just my two cents.</p>

<p>Hi lea<br> <br />Not without the original artists permission.<br> Copyright laws protect the artist and that includes derivative rights or works of art that are modifications of the original. <br> There are many sources of images where permissions are quite liberal such as freeimages.com That might be worth checking out.<br> Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Hi Luis<br> This can be done with hierarchical Smart Objects.<br> <br />- Create the Smart Object of the original<br> - Apply the first desired filter with the desired filter masking<br> - Now use the same command and turn this Smart Object with the first filter into another Smart Object<br> - Apply the second filter as well as the desired masking for that filter.<br> ---------------------<br> To access the first filter you have to double click the Smart Object thumbnail in the Layer panel.<br> Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Hi Mac - I don't know that whole context of the posting by Andrew yet I think he was referring to a slightly different request/issue.<br> First, as Ellis indicated you have to have a camera that is supported by LR5.6: <a href="http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/407/kb407111.html">Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras</a><br> As long as that is covered, when there is a mismatch between the ACR engines of LR and PS (as would be the case for the OP) you are given the option to render in LR (as opposed to the ACR unit in PS) and the rendered bits go directly into Photoshop bypassing ACR in PS. Works great with no rendering issues for any feature in LR 5.6 and for any PV being used. That is my understanding in any case.<br> <br />In the case of using LR5.6 with PS CS5, there would </p>

<p>I think that would require a future functionality enhancement to ACR. Inputs to Adobe can be given here:<br> <a href="http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family">Photoshop - bug report/feature request</a></p>

<p>I believe the OPs question has been answered which is to post in sRGB color space. What I find still an interesting debate is whether to embed the sRGB profile. Matt said:</p> <blockquote> <p>Embedding a profile will only work if the device/software that will be displaying the image even <em>cares</em> about embedded profiles. Someone looking at the image with a tool that doesn't understand that profile will probably default to assuming it's sRGB. When in doubt, convert the image to sRGB and <em>don't</em> embed the profile. Pretty much everything out there will assume sRGB and display it nicely.</p> </blockquote> <p>Howard came back with a question on this topic which I do not think was answered:</p> <blockquote> <p>Matt, I'm not understanding the logic. If one embeds the profile and it's not actually needed by the computer's CMS, then no-harm/no-foul. If it is needed, it's there. The converse is the worse situation.</p> </blockquote> <p>Personally, unless I need an exact color match for non-color managed HTML or if I care about the 4K size of the sRGB ICC profile being included for performance reasons (100's of thumbnails on a page) then I do include the sRGB profile.<br> For the average Joe or Josephine this does not make any difference due to mobile screen or monitor displays already being sRGB or close to sRGB and/or if accurate color rendition is not important or necessary. However, I prefer to be inclusive of all viewers and not having an embedded profile does create issues for some. Here is just one example: One that uses the Firefox browser in the default color management mode will have the color numbers sent directly to the monitor with no assumption about that it is sRGB. For those with a wide gamut monitor this will look overly saturated. Yes, that is a small segment of the viewers yet by paying a pittance of a 4K byte ICC profile, why not be inclusive of all viewers that could benefit?<br> Quoting Howard "no harm/no foul</p>

<p>Hi Kathy - Most likely the image is being saved as ProPhotoRGB which when viewed on a monitor (most are sRGB like gamut) will look very dull and unsatruated when viewed with non-color managed applications such as the desktop and many browsers.<br> <br />Save a version in sRGB color space (File > Save for Web) for desktop and web viewing.<br> Not positive this is your issue yet this is my best guess with the information you provided.</p>

<p>Hi Carl and Peter<br> I believe it can support a second display based on their published spec in the link below and here is a snippet:</p> <h3>Video Support and Camera</h3> <ul> <li>FaceTime HD camera</li> <li>Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 3840 by 2160 pixels on an external display</li> <li>Support for extended desktop and video mirroring modes</li> </ul> <p>http://support.apple.com/kb/SP707<br> If there is information that contradicts Apples spec it would be helpful to provide a link or info that contradicts what they are telling the public. If there is a problem it would be good to know yet Apple says "yes it can."</p>

<p>Hi Shane - The specs for the late 2008 MacBook Pro were also 4G and it supports 8G.<br> Apple has very exacting specs for the memory in electrical signals and power dissipation. Rams that met those specs at the time were not available. The hardware logically supports more memory and there are better Rams that can meet the Apple specifications. <br> Turns out that if you go to the Apple store they often pull up a cheat sheet of what they support today that is different then is what is on the Apple support page. Go figure.<br> 6G won't be as big a boost yet compared to 4G I bet you see a noticeable difference.<br> Looks like it would cost you $130 to find out.</p>

<p>Hi Shane - As a side note. If you have the late 2008 MacBook Pro, even through they were speced at 4G, they can be upgraded to 8G and breath life into that machine. May save you some money to invest in your monitor.<br> You can get the Ram from MacSales.com I did that a while back and it made a big difference.<br> FYI</p>

<p>Hi Dave<br> I am on a Mac yet not for performance of display technology.<br> I am sure it is a nice display yet here are a few things to check out.<br> 1) Past displays of Apple on the iMac have all been sRGB color gamut. I have not hear that the new iMac 5K is wide gamut so if that is what you want, better be sure it is.<br> 2) 24 bit vs 30 bit color depth. If you want 10 bit per channel (possible on Win 7 and Win 8 if your entire graphics display path is alos 30 bit yet it is my understanding you can only hav 24 bit on Mac OS independent of what display you hook up.<br> 3) You should always check the dispalys in person to make sure that it meets your needs. In particular the screen glossiness. The iMacs are pretty good yet they are not matte if that is what you want.<br> Personally I would not jump OSes lightly just because there are transitions costs involved (not all software transfers to the Mac without cost even though it is not an issue with the Adobe subscription plan<br> Hope the information is helpful.</p>

<p>Hi Eletrherios<br> The perceived DOF depends on more than the Aperture. It also depends on the focal length of the lens being used, distance to subject in focus as well as the size of the print and viewing distance.<br> I suspect one of two issues is going on for you so use the case where you have a single item 1,5 meters in front of you and focus on that item first<br> 1) you may be using too low of a focal lenght so everything will look in focus even for Aperture set to 5.6. Zoom to the 200mm and focus on the single object and then try different Apertures<br> 2) If the above does not change anything then I think you might be no seeing a difference because you are judging the DOF from the viewfinder. The aperture in of the lens is left at its maximum value until you take the picture. If you want to preview the DOF with the viewfinder, you need to press the DOF preview button on the camera (the lower button near the lens mount). The image will get darker for smaller when the button is pressed (less light getting in with smaller aperture) yet you should be able to see the DOF change with that approach.<br> -------------<br> That's my best guess at what is going on for you. Hope this helps.<br> PS - Note that the DX on the lens just means this lens is made for DX sensor type cameras. The closer in ring on the Nikon 80-200mm lens is for changing focus point manually.</p>

<p>Hi Jon<br> You may be in luck. The late white unibody MacBook can be upgraded in memory and disk size much larger than the original specs. I have used MacSales for upgrades of both memory and disks form my Macs and had great results. Here is the link: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/Macbook_selector<br> I think your model is in the upper right on this web page (yet others are shown if I am wrong).<br> If you have any concerns about selecting the correct memory, just call the sales department and they walk you through it (you want the exact correct memory). I suggest at least 8G and it is cheap enough I would just go for 16G as it indicates your model should support that much. You can also upgrade your disk to a much larger HD or SSD.<br> Note that this site also provides videos on the exact steps for installing both the memory and HD/SSD<br> You still won't get the speed of more recent models of course yet this would help.<br> A key factor. You should make sure that your system will meet the system requirements for CS6 in the following link when you are all said and done with the graphics card and OS version that you have or you could have other issues:<br> http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/system-requirements.html<br> http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cs6-gpu-faq.html<br> <br />Hope the above information helps.</p>

<p>Hi Andreas<br> Have you upgraded your OS since the last time you used the unit? Always possible you need a driver upgrade. Here is the link to the driver page for the 4870. Note that I did not see Windows 8 supported while on the Mac side the drivers are supported up to OSX 10.9<br />:<br> http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=28461&prodoid=40524123&infoType=Downloads&detected=yes&platform=OSF_M_X8<br> This may or may not be your issue yet thought it was worth mentioning.</p>

<p>Hi Millen<br> If this is happending on all of your images I would check page 130 of the user manual for the D800 on exposure compensation. The D800 can compensate/alter/change what you auto-exposure by +/- 5 EV which would easily make the image brighter or darker.<br> Not sure this is your issue yet thought it was worth mentioning.</p>

<p>Hi Gene<br> To help debug your problem having the exact error message is helpful as well as the exact way you are attempting to do the transfer, from camera? from card reader and which card reader? etc.<br> <br />Note that newer cards SDHC and SDXC cards to not work on SD only card readers. Here is a link that describes the compatibility: http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2520/~/sd%2Fsdhc%2Fsdxc-specifications-and-compatibility<br> Not sure the above is your issue yet hope it helps and if not please provide more details so forum members can better target suggestions. Just a thought.</p>

<p>Thanks for correcting my oversight Andrew.</p>

<p>Hi Emil - That's a good one. Here area couple thoughts to consider.<br> - When you did soft proofing did you set the same settings as you did for hard proofing including Relative Colorimetric, Simulate Paper Color, and Black Point compensation? That might make a difference.<br> <br />- One way to check and see if he print module is broken is to make a copy of your image and use the Convert to Profile command for the Coated Fogra 39 with the same options as you used in the print module.<br /> Then just print it out to the 3880 yet don't use Hardproof.<br> <br />Not sure the above are your issue yet thought they were worth mentioning.</p>