Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »
 41 
 on: September 22, 2014, 08:04:43 PM 
Started by Onslow - Last post by Onslow
Exactly. A visual compensation within the profile.
If you can't control the lighting, with high OBA's, not much you can do. Fluorescent lighting is the worst offenders. Good news is your eyes adapt to the illuminant and where issues crop up are with areas of neutral tone (B&W if you will). Dead nuts neutral is hard!

Bugger! I occasionally sell some (large for me) 24" x 40"+ B+W prints on the Gold Mono Silk which has OBAs. I have hung some of them in a gallery with excellent lighting. They do look good, but, they will be hanging next month in a space with a mixture of flouro, tungsten and daylight. The lighting is awful.
In that particular environment then, is it worth doing an ambient light measurement? I wonder as there are three sorts of light but 2 during night time viewing. How do you perform ambient light measurements with mixed light sources? I can take the laptop and i1 in to measure but then???
The image is from a smartphone with one of the B+Ws hanging in the gallery. The pic destroys the lighting but shows the type of B+W I do.

 42 
 on: September 22, 2014, 08:04:40 PM 
Started by Chris Barrett - Last post by araucaria
Dirt is getting expensive, and most of the dirt flavours have ceased to exist. Soon there will be no dirt left. I love the dirt anyway.
Big Spit Bubbles are way to expensive.

 43 
 on: September 22, 2014, 08:00:49 PM 
Started by terrywyse - Last post by hugowolf
I'm pretty sure it is the corrugated board. I have seen this happen with several different papers when stored in non-archival boxes for long periods. Buffered tissue on both sides might help, but in the long term archival storage of some sort is what is needed.

About the only things that do well in acidic containers are cyanotypes and blueprints.

Brian A

 44 
 on: September 22, 2014, 08:00:31 PM 
Started by LesPalenik - Last post by BJL
If Olympus (Pen F) and Canon (Dial 35) didn't go and make "half frame"
Didn't Olympus call them "single frame" (harking back to the original 24x18mm frame of 35mm film when it was used mostly for movies) as opposed to "double frame", the early name for the doubled 36x24mm still format pioneered by Leica?

Anyway, people stopped using "full frame" for still film cameras back in the 1980's; that is not why it is used for 36x4mm format now. Instead, it was revived to distinguish from used lenses designed for 36x24mm but which forced a substantial crop of the images that those lenses were designed to deliver.  That need is ancient history now, so the phrase is an anachronism like "horseless carriage", and I seriously wonder why the utterly familiar "35mm" is not now the obvious description.  It is a lot more accurate than the universal use of the obscure and obsolete film format "APS-C" as a size description for digital cameras, since that film format was larger than any so-called APS-C digital sensor.

Full-frame lives on as relevant in DMF, where most lenses are still design for the 56x42mm of "645" format and so sensor sizes like 44x33mm are "wide-angle challenged".

 45 
 on: September 22, 2014, 07:57:53 PM 
Started by nemophoto - Last post by BernardLanguillier
Uhmmmm...how many 250mm Telyts do you think I need to have on hand in case of wayward vaulting poles?

I agree with you, never said the opposite.

If you are a pro sport shooter at the Olympics either you belong to a pool of photographers who can share spare pieces of critical equipment or you bring 2x1Dx and a 5DIII as second back up if you shoot alone.

This seems like the most basic common sense to me, is it not?

Lenswise nobody can carry 2 400f2.8 so you probably bring a 400f2.8 and a 200f2.0 + converter as back up, right?

Shorter lenses also, have one short prime 35mm as back up of the 24-70mm f2.8 sounds like a good idea to me, but what do I know?

In short, we need to distinguish the need in terms of support. Is this about hot spare during an event or about the repair time needed during "regular business" times?

Cheers,
Bernard

 46 
 on: September 22, 2014, 07:56:59 PM 
Started by samueljohnchia - Last post by digitaldog
I've never seen this on papers but maybe this one brand of paper is super sensitive? While it isn't great for the paper, I don't think it should affect reading of the targets.
The report of dE is two measurements made in a row? That looks fine but I don't understand when you wrote:in a very dark patch, 6,0,0

 47 
 on: September 22, 2014, 07:55:31 PM 
Started by nemophoto - Last post by melchiorpavone
These statements seem a bit contradictory as Canon1Dx costs about the same in the UK as a 16-35mm f2.8, a 35mm f1.4, a 24-70 f2.8, an 85mm f1.2 and a 70-200mm f2.8 all L glass which would cover most photographer's needs.
A 5DIII costs the same as a 16-35mm f2.8 + a 24-70mm f2.8 which will do most of my shooting.

Not saying you shouldn't have a back-up body, but you're a bit off with your justification re prices of bodies Vs lenses. Particularly as you say two back up bodies, i.e. a total of 3 bodies, but I guess you mean two in total. Smiley

Having two or three of everything is a bit of overkill, don't you think? Who can afford that? 400mm 2.8 lenses can cost $10K or more...

 48 
 on: September 22, 2014, 07:54:27 PM 
Started by nemophoto - Last post by melchiorpavone
U are right that I haven't but am not sure what U are disagreeing with.

Cheers,
Bernard

Uhmmmm...how many 250mm Telyts do you think I need to have on hand in case of wayward vaulting poles?

I was positioned under the crossbar pit with a wide-angle, and had set the SL and 250mm Telyt down away from me to the side. It was a track meet. I was using the 250mm for the runners. So, the pole vaulter starts down the little path they have for this, and somehow he was unhappy with his approach, so he threw the pole to the side in disgust. It hit square on to the lens right where it mounts to the body. I just about died. The repairs were substantial, but I did have insurance.

 49 
 on: September 22, 2014, 07:53:20 PM 
Started by samueljohnchia - Last post by samueljohnchia
I've just acquired a brand new iSisXL, the REV E model, which according to the label on the base is manufactured in August 2014.

I noticed that the rollers, the orange rubber bands, are causing roller marks on paper that I feed to the iSis. I see pressure dents and also scuffing from the rollers. Please see the attached pictures.

I am now cleaning the iSis rollers after every sheet of paper I feed to it but the marks still remain. Is this normal operation for this instrument?


I also notice that the iSis status LED pollutes the insides of the measuring chamber - it is blue when the measurement is ongoing, and does not turn off. I have an i1 Pro 2 and the status LEDs turn off when the instrument is measuring patches.

This is what the glow looks like from the front slit of the iSis while it is measuring a sheet:


I shielded the LED source with some ProtoStar focking material and remeasured the sheet.

Despite the scuff marks and the LED now shielded, the biggest difference is just 0.41dE2000, in a very dark patch, 6,0,0. This seems normal to me. I'm actually surprised that the scuffing, which looks quite severe now that the chart has passed through the iSis twice, has not thrown off the measurement data by more.

Quote
--------------------------------------------------

dE Report

Number of Samples: 3042

Delta-E Formula dE2000

Overall - (3042 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.05
    Max dE:   0.41
    Min dE:   0.00
 StdDev dE:   0.03

Best 90% - (2737 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.04
    Max dE:   0.08
    Min dE:   0.00
 StdDev dE:   0.02

Worst 10% - (305 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.12
    Max dE:   0.41
    Min dE:   0.08
 StdDev dE:   0.05

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

And a short rant about build quality - the aluminium chassis is very solid, no complaints. But the plastic bits are atrocious. The front bits are two pieces, instead of one. The white backing for measurements is also two separate pieces, instead of one. I suspect this is due to some cost saving measures - since a smaller iSis model is also manufactured.


 50 
 on: September 22, 2014, 07:51:09 PM 
Started by nemophoto - Last post by jjj
I really don't understand what the difference is in terms of actual impact between 2 and 4 days TAT on bodies repair for working pros. Especially if you use Canon or Nikon whose bodies are so cheap that owning 2 back up bodies should be a no brainer for any profitable business.
It is a different story for lenses, in particular the big guns because most people cannot afford to own back ups due to their much higher prices.
These statements seem a bit contradictory as Canon1Dx costs about the same in the UK as a 16-35mm f2.8, a 35mm f1.4, a 24-70 f2.8, an 85mm f1.2 and a 70-200mm f2.8 all L glass which would cover most photographer's needs.
A 5DIII costs the same as a 16-35mm f2.8 + a 24-70mm f2.8 which will do most of my shooting.

Not saying you shouldn't have a back-up body, but you're a bit off with your justification re prices of bodies Vs lenses. Particularly as you say two back up bodies, i.e. a total of 3 bodies, but I guess you mean two in total. Smiley

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad