movingfinger

<p>Nikon D300, Nikkor 20mm F2.8 AF/D lens, f6.3:</p><div></div>

<p>I took this last evening. I've had the luxury this week of playing at home with a new D700 and the Nikon Close-Up speed light system that my employer purchased for the company. This shot used all that with my Nikkor 105 macro and my SB-800. It's been a lot of fun.</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon D300, 24mm F2.8 AF/D, F11, 1/30 sec, taken this past January:</p><div></div>

<p>Location: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Maryland.<br>

Equipment: Nikon D300, Nikkor 28-70 F2.8 AF/S.</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon F100, Nikkor 105mm F2.8 AF/D Macro, Fuji Velvia 50.</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon F100. Nikkor 200-400 F4 AF/S, Kodak Ektachrome VC100 film<br>

Taken about a month ago (Oct 20), of course the scene is very different now.</p><div></div>

<p>It certainly depends on what knowledge the photographer has when he is taking the photograph. For the holocaust photographs, most likely the photographer did not know what fate awaited his subjects. Very likely the shots were photojournalism, and possibly taken with a highly ethical goal, recording an atrocious event to make the world aware of what was taking place. What could be more ethical when the only weapon one has in the face of injustice is a camera than recording the event in the hopes that the situation will be remedied? That the situation was or would become much worse - that the individuals being unjustly or cruelly placed under arrest were to be subjected to the ultimate cruelty - is unknown to the photographer. The Rwandan genocide comes to mind as well in this regard, and there are many others as well (Stalin's actions in the 30's, Laos in the 70's, alas, there's so much).<br>

As others have said or implied, all living subjects of our photographs are ultimately doomed. Knowing the fate of the subjects, if it is known, can profoundly affect the viewer and how he views the photograph, at least it does me. Recently the Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article in that regard. See the following link, assess the aesthetics of the Walker Evans photograph, and then read the accompanying article. See if how you look at the photograph a second time does not change profoundly.<br>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574162690573540.html<br>

If the photographer tries to capitalize on the fate of his subjects - assuming he did not know in advance - that is unethical. I consider photographs of people with terminal disease (taken with permission) or on death row, etc, photojournalism and/or documentary and in general I see no ethical problems there. If I take a 'street photograph' of a person standing on the curb at an intersection because for some reason I find it worth taking, and then while moving on to search for the next grab I hear a screech of tires and see that the person I just photographed was struck by a car and killed, then for me to market that photograph as "Moment before death" or some other similarly abhorrent title, that would be extremely unethical.</p>

<p>Nikon F100, Nikkor 28-70 F2.8 AF/S, Velvia 50, on Hawaii (the big island):</p><div></div>

<p>I use the USB and like you, I have to struggle to get the silly rubber door closed again. What is it about Nikon that the core functionality is excellent but the user friendliness is often just terrible, e.g. the rubber door, the controls on the SB-800, the little cap that covers the cable release on the F100, etc, etc.</p>

<p>I know this isn't exactly the same as your situation but here's my tale and it may help with the 'ethics' discussion.<br>

I recently purchased a Nikkor 24mm PC-E Lens for $1995.00. Given the cost, I insured it for replacement cost. Suffice to say, I did something stupid and ended up without the lens in my possession. After a frantic search, in desperation I called the insurance company and told them the story - not sparing my lack common sense. To my very pleasant surprise, in the one phone call the adjuster said "no problem, I see you've insured it for $1995, that amount will be deposited in your bank account tomorrow morning" (she did check the web site where I purchased it, B&H, to verify the cost; she also said she had my record and could see I was a reasonably good customer/risk). I said "wow, I thought you'd at least want to hook me up to a lie detector or something, but I'll get a new lens and send you a copy of the receipt". She said, we don't need/want the receipt, and you don't need to buy a replacement lens with the money. She said the money was mine to do with as I wished.<br>

Basically, from the insurance company point of view, it costs less to just get the matter settled quickly than to conduct a big investigation. Also, from the insurance perspective, the money need not be used to replace the item, if that were the case they would buy it and give you the item because there would be some residual money they would receive as middle-man. As a minimum, they'd refer you to a preferred seller (like with auto repairs where they specify the garage). Don't over analyze this, the money is yours to take a vacation with if you want.</p>

<p>End of summer in Columbia, MD. I shot this yesterday with my D300 and using the new Nikkor 200-400 F4 AF/S lens that I borrowed from a friend (who can afford it): distance about 8 feet, f16, 1/6 sec.</p><div></div>

<p>White Sands National Monument, NM, week before last, Nikon F100 with Kodak VC100 film, 20mm Nikkor F2.8D lens at sunset.</p><div></div>

<p>No one seems to be addressing a critical point here, namely, that lens f-stops are calibrated by the manufacturer to a universal standard. The f-stop/focal length relationship means something independent of the manufacturer (at least for all well known quality lens makers like canon and mamiya). What if I am old-fashioned and use my Sekonic light meter to compute the exposure for a scene, either macro or at infinity? I set the Sekonic to the film/sensor ISO, I set the desired f-stop, say f4, and the it provides me with a the corresponding aperture setting based on the light hitting the target (or reflected off it based on mode). I should be able to set my camera ISO, shutter speed, aperture - regardless of the lens/camera - and be reasonably confident that I'll be within a stop or so of the proper exposure (and for flat white uniformy lit wall, it better be within one stop of 'correct').<br>

So I would ask, does the mamiya lens manual say there needs to be a signficant "exposure compensation" at 1-1? Also, what about focus? I assume you did not focus on the image, you focused at infinity and then went to 1-1. Perhaps the "out of focus" light loss becomes significantly different in the two cases. I would conjecture that's a component of the explanation. If you didn't account for focus, I'd suggest trying the experiment again but moving the camera so the lens can be focused on the target image and seeing what happens.</p>

<p>Duh, because if I matte and frame a 35mm or 120 neg or slide and hang that on the wall it looks pretty stupid. It certainly does not look like the scene I was pointing the camera at and that I wish to display, at least not without backlighting and squinting.</p>

<p>I like Matt L's posting. I got some great vintage 2010 photographs earlier this month. My vintage 2008 photographs have a tart, fruity appearance with a pleasing oak barrel aroma. </p>

<p>I haven't read all the responses, but I agree with Andrew - most respondents seem to be taking this a bit to seriously. Once posted on the web those bits that encode your photographs are out there - like the words I'm typing now. What if the NYT blogger uses the images he finds here, or on your photo web site, for his screen saver, is that OK? What if he freezes his screen saver on a single image so it's fixed there on his computer screen, is that OK? If not, for how many seconds can he look before you deem him in criminal violation? What if he hangs his flat screen on the wall with the on-line image displayed on it? Where do you folks draw the line with an image you've posted on the internet asking (dare I say 'hoping', 'wishing') that someone will actually look at it and like it? The only well defined line to draw is the one the original NYT blogger made, his "own personal private use". I don't want police coming into my house asking for receipts for all the stuff hanging on my walls. To everyone that's so irate, I say, don't take yourself - or your photographs - so seriously. If someone wants to print out something from my photo.net portfolio for their own personal, private use, I say, have at it. Send me an email telling me of it and I'll be flattered. The posted stuff is low res jpeg so won't look very good, and if you want a high res enlarged, matted and/or framed, I'm happy to sell that to you.</p>

I see a customer review of the 3800 on B&H and he describes "gear marks" which are noticeable on glossy and luster papers. Have any other 3800 owners seen this? Did this customer get a bad one or are they all like that?

When you say "printer dialogue box" do you mean the Epson dialog box or the Adobe PS dialog box. In the Adobe Photoshop Elements "Print preview" dialog box there is a "Position" field. I'm sure PS has the same thing with possibly more options. One box in this field says "Center Image" and when checked, that's it, the image is printed centered on the paper (as per dimensions specified in the Epson dialog box for paper size). If this box is unchecked then one can specify "Top" and "Left" values for how far the image should print from the top left corner of the paper. This should do it.

CompUSA used to give a rebate of $2.00 for each empty Epson 2200 ink

cartridge. When I went most recently with 6 empties I was told they no

longer do that for Epson cartridges. Does anyone know of anyone else

out there who is giving money for empty cartridges?

Yes, I have used the glossy in my Epson 2200. I like it very much and I recommend it! I obtained the proper profiles from the Kodak web site.

I recently upgraded my Vuescan to 7.6.74 (no particular reason, just

that it was newer and so presumably better). My previous version was

a 7.6.something as well and the download is just titled vuesca76 so,

unfortunately, the download overwrote my previous version. I

say 'unfortunately' because this newer version does not behave as I

expect, and like all my earlier versions behaved, and now I cannot go

back. Specifically, 'preview' and 'scan' images are dramatically

different. My 'preview' scans in this new verion are basically junk

(and these are slides which I scanned already with earlier versions

and which looked great in 'preview' mode). Brightness, color,

everything is just wierd in 'preview'. Fortunately when I 'scan' the

capture is much improved but this has messed up my workflow which

consisted of (1) 'preview' (2) do minor adjustments of brightness/etc

and then (3) high res 'scan' for saving and photo editor processing.

 

a. Have others experienced this strange behavior in the new Vuescan

release?

 

b. Is there some Vuescan software setting which, in pre 7.6.74

releases was automatically set, but which now needs to be manually

set and which will make 'preview' and 'scan' align?

 

Any advice/suggestions/sympathy will be appreciated.

I just recently downloaded Picture Window Pro and then purchased it. I recommend it heartily! A nice feature of PWP is you can download and try for 30 days before you commit to purchase. I was - and still am - using Photoshop Elements V2 but I wanted 48 bit editing capability. After downloading PWP and using for 5 days, I called up and purchased it. Now my work flow includes major processing and editing in PWP at 48 bits, downconverting to 24 bits, and then printing in PSE. I got this expanded capability for less than $100!

How often do you really need to go above 8x10 with 35mm scans?

No one has answered this part yet. Since we live in a free country and the printer will be yours to own and operate exactly as you wish, you can go above 8x10 as often or as little as you desire.

I have the 4000DPI Nikon SuperCoolscan and I have run into the same problem with NPH. So, a good portion of the fault is probably not with you or your equipment. I think the medium, NPH, is the primary problem.

I have observed this on both Provia100 and Velvia50, most often in clear blue sky. I always faulted the developer and just recently I switched to a different business to do my processing, a professional photo lab geared for business and industry (which also takes walk-in customers) and with very strict process/quality controls. Since the change I have not noticed it. I reiterate, it was only recently that I made the change so I don't have lots of comparison output from the new processing. Still, I have taken about a dozen shots with lots of blue sky since changing and no "pepper." Thus, everyone who has this problem should perhaps consider where they get their film processed and see if switching, especially to a less consumer and speed oriented business, to one which prides itself on strict quality control, may not make the difference.