Posts for: gchapell
Mar 19, 2022 16:38:50 #
If that pic is your subject lens, It looks like it might be a canon fd mount which won't fit on your nikon unless it is an Adaptall series where the mount can be changed out, just saying.
Mar 8, 2022 18:24:29 #
therwol wrote:
In a lot of ways yours is a more pleasing picture,... (show quote)
I am by no means a master and am not trying to be. I am curious to use the automation tools that are in PSE22. I often don't like the "smart" color/fix/light tools but have found the colorize tool pretty good and then you can refine it. One can spend hours of labor and still chase colors. This colorize tool gets you in the ballpark with the two samples given today. In the case of the river, I would call this extreme deterioration/color issues which it brought in pretty well.
Mar 8, 2022 17:43:10 #
PSE22 Colorize. Just a few clicks. Not perfection but a good base to tweek to your liking. Just a matter of cost/time benefit.
-g
-g
Mar 8, 2022 15:28:07 #
One click PSE22 colorize, choose the preview you like the best. FWIW
-george
-george
Nov 30, 2021 20:11:34 #
tripsy76 wrote:
That’s really too bad! They’ve replaced her with a bunch of people who all respond to you about the same topic with contradicting answers that now of which are helpful or even try to remedy the situation.
I even had an email come in saying they are waiting on the report from the shipper, just to be followed up with another email saying that they weren’t going to bother going to the shipper.
So to me, that’s obviously 1 of MANY red flags.
I even had an email come in saying they are waiting on the report from the shipper, just to be followed up with another email saying that they weren’t going to bother going to the shipper.
So to me, that’s obviously 1 of MANY red flags.
Shipping is much more exact and accountable. They know the exact weight of the box as it went to the shipper. Should be pretty easy to determine what the weight was supposed to be as compared to what it actually was. The discrepancy of the weight of a camera body should show up pretty easily. Press on.
Nov 26, 2021 13:41:35 #
Might they have changed to sourcing of the hood so people have different versions? Just asking. C'mon people.
Aug 1, 2021 15:51:23 #
Going to be on the heavy and large side with all that gear. Maybe consider a backpack style?
Just an opinion from a sling bag user with much less equipment.
-g
Just an opinion from a sling bag user with much less equipment.
-g
May 23, 2021 15:40:00 #
Charles 46277 wrote:
gchapell, did that work well--that is, did Polaroid respond to light the same as the film you used? If you still use a Hasselblad, you could test with digital, then switch to film back (if the sensor and the film consistently respond the same way)...
I myself did not use the back but it was used to check out lighting setups. As above mentioned, users would calibrate their eye to what they saw in the polaroid to their results in the film much like we do today translating what we see on the screen to what we see in the final print. Just as today with calibration tools and profiles we can achieve a tighter screen to print result.
May 23, 2021 14:13:34 #
Check out Conde Sytems @ https://dyetrans.com/ Unfortunately it is an investment in ink and equipment so not generally a one project and done. I believe they have a service to print out your images and send them to you to do the pressing. It requires specially coated media, you can't just use any mug you find. Conde will steer you right.
May 23, 2021 14:07:45 #
User ID wrote:
Wowzuh !!! I would NEVVUH assemble anything that looked that sketchy. I’m just more conservative, as per example below .....
.
.
The wide front glass in most mirror lenses are a magnet for accepting all sorts of extraneous light which totally kills any contrast in the picture. They need lens hoods. Once upon a time Celestron sold a rubber push on lens hood, actually looked like a plumbing fitting but it worked pretty well.
May 23, 2021 13:54:30 #
Once upon a time there was a Polaroid back for Hasselblad. Used the 667/669 pack film. Only issue I had was that it only gave a "contact" print-the same image size as the negative, it did not fill the full print. Good for lighting checks and all.
Apr 18, 2021 23:21:42 #
I think you mean Tamron. I am sure you will still get responses.
Apr 13, 2021 00:48:06 #
maxlieberman wrote:
Sounds like a lens problem. I once had a lens that had a sticky whatever it is that sets the apertiure, and all the pic were over exposed. I had it repaired, and it has been fine ever since.
I cautiously second the lens as the source of the problem. Especially if it is a non Nikon lens. I have a Tamron lens that appears to work fine with a D200 but get over exposure in many situations(depending on the brightness of the moment). Upon digging into specs, the version of the lens(newer) is incompatible with the generation of the camera(older). Good luck nailing down the problem.
Mar 28, 2021 15:08:21 #
Yes and no. Check out Ken Rockwell site: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/8mm.htm
"The 8mm fisheye oddly isn't really compatible with the FE, FE2 or EM. Since the sides of the image are black, you can't see the meter in these cameras! To test your own camera, put on the lens cap and see if you can still see the meter. On most cameras you can. "
"The 8mm fisheye oddly isn't really compatible with the FE, FE2 or EM. Since the sides of the image are black, you can't see the meter in these cameras! To test your own camera, put on the lens cap and see if you can still see the meter. On most cameras you can. "
Mar 17, 2021 14:06:01 #
This is VPS120 roll film, "medium format", and this is a 6x6(cm) or 2-1/4" x 2-1/4" negative. Used extensively by the pro community prior to digital. Do a search for medium format scanning services and you should get quite a selection.