Messages

1

Technical Support / Re: Printing large images - help needed!!

« on: December 29, 2012, 01:21:50 PM »

You shouldn't have any trouble making those enlargements with your files, providing the quality of your files is impeccable. If they aren't tack sharp or if there are any other flaws, those flaws will only be magnified. But if you're starting with a very high quality source, you can go quite large. I once made a 400cm tall print from a Canon 1Ds file (11 megapixels) and it turned out quite well.

I would echo the advice about working closely with the printer and you can do that even if they're in another country. The printer typically knows exactly what they need to produce good results. Talk to them directly. Don't rely on your client to be the middleman.

If at all possible, help your client choose the printer. Use the internet to find a list of printers close to the area where the print will end up and call them. Even in a short phone call, you can often get a good handle on whether or not the printer knows what they're doing. Call several, but give your client a finalist or two to go visit.

I do this kind of work regularly and in every case, I've provided the printer with a file that I have enlarged myself. I go back to the original RAW file and do a new conversion, turning off all sharpening. If you don't, the enlargement may have ugly halos. I save this conversion as a 16-bit TIFF and run it through an enlargement program called SizeFixer. It's slow – even on a fast machine, the enlargement can take a few hours – but it contains profiles for specific digital cameras. Use the profile for your camera and run the enlargement at the maximum quality setting to the file size that the printer specified.

If the printer is going to apply the final sharpening, I give them the output from SizeFixer. If they're looking for more of a final file to print from, I will over enlarge through SizeFixer (if the printer asks for 240 dpi, I'll enlarge to 300 or 360 dpi), apply some sharpening, and then reduce it to 240 dpi.

But, I can't stress this enough, try to work directly with the printer to ensure you're giving them the best file for the job. You're going to be judged on the final output, so you and the printer need to work as a team to ensure the client is happy.

2

Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!

« on: December 07, 2012, 10:38:57 AM »

I would really like to win!

3

Technical Support / Re: Photoshop CS6 issue

« on: November 14, 2012, 12:03:50 PM »

I once had an identical problem with Windows and the issue was with the graphics card driver. To speed everything up, by default Photoshop transfers as much of the processing as it can from the computer's processor to the graphics card. Some graphics cards, however, need updated drivers to handle that extra work.

With Windows, you just go to the graphics card maker's website and download an updated driver. I don't know how you do that on a Mac, but that's the first thing I would try. Maybe there's a system control panel or something?

Your other option is to minimize the extra work Photoshop gives your graphics card. This is really easy to do. From the Edit menu, select Preferences, then Performance. You'll see a box for Graphics Processor Settings.

I would click Advanced Settings and experiment. Try changing the Drawing Mode from Advanced to Basic. If that doesn't work, try unchecking Use Graphics Process to Accelerate Computation.

If neither of those work, uncheck Use Graphics Processor on that main performance screen. Photopshop will run a bit slower, but the problem should vanish.

4

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Recovering data off a card from XF300...suggestions?

« on: November 13, 2012, 04:49:22 PM »

I personally use File Scavenger. It's not free, but it has worked when others have failed:
http://www.quetek.com/prod02.htm

Good luck!

5

Canon General / Re: Any recommendations for how best to use an Arctic Butterfly?

« on: September 27, 2012, 12:02:24 PM »

For routine cleaning, I do use the Arctic Butterfly, though it can take several passes.

Do spin the brush for about 10 seconds between each pass to make sure the bristles get "charged." Don't use a lot of force with the brush on the sensor. It's the end of the bristles that attract the dust, so lightly glide them over the sensor. If you use too much force, the part that attracts dust will be dragged behind and actually make less contact with the sensor.

I generally make four passes. I start twice from each end of the sensor and I lift the brush out just before I reach the other end. (If you go all the way across, I've found you just get more dust in the edges, where it's really hard to remove.)

Sometimes dust specks seem to get welded to the sensor and you will need to do a wet cleaning procedure to remove them. I use Eclipse fluid, though I don't like the Eclipse sensor swabs. Their quality control doesn't seem to be what it once was. Their swabs seem to shed fibers that require more work with a blower bulb or the brushes to remove. The Visible Dust people make V-Swabs that seem to work well.

If you do use the Eclipse sensor swabs, avoid the pre-moistened ones. I got two boxes once that were bone dry and didn't discover that until I was on assignment, well away from civilization. Maybe I'm the only one whose ever had a bad experience with them, but I figure that if you're selling products to clean sensors -- sensors that, if scratched, cost $2,000 to replace -- their quality control should be better than that.

One final note, you will not be able to remove every single speck of dust and you will drive yourself insane if you try. My goal is to get it down to a mere handful, which I can easily remove in post processing.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: tripod help for EF 600mm f4 IS USM?

« on: May 16, 2012, 10:04:58 PM »

I'm not familiar with those specific models, but if the problem is that the thread on the bottom isn't the same size as the screw on the tripod, try removing that tripod screw, turning it upside-down, and screwing it back in.

There seem to be two different standard sizes for tripod heads and in my experience, the screw on the Gitzo tripods is usually double-ended, one end for each size.

Failing that, go to your local camera store and get a replacement screw. As camera equipment goes, it's a cheap and easy fix.

7

Lenses / Re: 14mm prime vs. 16-35mm zoom

« on: February 25, 2012, 12:00:11 PM »

I have both, and I really think one is not a replacement for the other. If you've never looked through a 14mm lens, it's incredibly wide. At 14mm, it's nearly 13 percent wider than the widest end of the zoom. It may not sound like much, but it really does force you to get closer to your subject, or it could end up too small in the image. The wider view also requires you to be more careful to avoid perspective distortion.

None of this will be much of an issue for you with your crop camera, but if you are going full-frame, you may find the 16-35 more useful for those reasons.

You can also screw filters onto the zoom lenses (77mm filters for the original 16-35; 82mm for the mark II). The outer element on the 14mm is like a giant dome, so there's no way to screw a polarizer or holder for neutral density filters over it.

The 14mm is very sharp and its extreme view can help you create very dramatic images. It's also a lot of fun to use. I just find it to be a special-purpose lens. At least for me, the 16-35 is a better everyday lens.

8

Lenses / Re: Extention tube ?'s

« on: December 04, 2011, 12:05:36 PM »

The Canon tubes are definitely more rugged, though I have used the Kenko tubes for many, many years in tough conditions without any trouble. All the tubes are hollow, so there isn't a difference with the optics.

Using extension tubes can be incredibly awkward. Set up can be very slow with a lot of trial and error. A true macro lens and a focusing rail is absolutely the way to go if you want to do serious macro photography.

If you want to try to make due with the tubes, however, I think the Kenko package is the way to go. I often use mine with the 70-200 and even a few mm of extension can make a huge difference. I think if you had only one tube, you would get frustrated fast.

Kevin