February 27, 2015, 09:20:52 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - m

Pages: [1]
Software & Accessories / If CC ends, LR 5.5 still partly works.
« on: July 11, 2014, 08:55:18 AM »
Looks like Adobe tries to address the "fallen angels" problem (people jumping off the cloud, unable to use content they produced in the cloud, say images of parachutes or wings, for example).

If your subscription ends, you can still use LR to view and export your work.
See here:

I say this is a step in the right direction.

PS: I hope this is still "news".

Technical Support / monitor calibration and lightroom
« on: April 08, 2014, 01:24:15 PM »
hello there,

I just got started today with the whole calibration thing and tried to calibrate my displays.
One is a laptop screen and the other is an external one (LP2475W).

I created a profile for each one and changed the display settings to use each profile.

Now I'm in doubt about the results.
Just looking at the windows desktop:
The external display is still a lot more saturated and vibrant.
Aren't the two monitors supposed to look the same?

Then I opened LR and looked at some photographs on the laptop screen.
I zoomed into some portion of sky in one image.
On the laptop display, it has a slight purple tint.

When I drag LR to the external display (without dropping it) the whole thing (including LR itself) becomes more saturated. The sky is very purple.
As soon as it's dropped, it desaturates to a relatively normal degree and the purple tint in the sky is gone.

It's less purple than it was on the laptop screen at the beginning.

I wonder now:
What causes the difference?
Is it the laptop screen that simply can't keep up with the external display?
Did I screw up the measurement?

The calibration seems to be applied to the entire application.
LR is color corrected for the display it's mostly on.
Even if the window spans multiple displays.
How can I prevent that?
Did I screw up the settings of the profiles?

thanks for your help

Lenses / Replacement for EF-S 17-85mm/ 4,0-5,6/ IS USM
« on: February 03, 2014, 01:24:07 PM »

I got this lens with my camera as a kit about 5 years ago.

The aperture failed. Pictures could only be taken wide open.
A local shop estimated 200 to 300€ for repair. No way.

I got the spare part for 30€ and managed to replace the aperture unit myself and the lens seems to be working fine again. *phew*
All it takes is a steady hand and the right tools, as you can see in the attached image  ;D
However, I had to realize that these kit lenses are not built to last.  :(

Even though I got this thing working again, I don't know when it will fail again and if I can fix it.
So what other lens could replace this one?

The Sigma 18-35mm F1,8 DC HSM looks really nice.
-> The focal lengths don't match, I lose a lot on the tele end of the lens.
I opened  LR and created a chart to see which focal lengths I use the most.
The diagram shows number of images over focal length
The majority is taken at 17 mm, not the tele end.

This makes sense as a lot of the images are taken with (on camera) flash and it does not have the reach to illuminate longer focal lengths properly.
Most of the images at longer lengths are not really good.

I could swap lenses to a 50mm for a little more reach.

One mm of difference in focal length makes quite a difference for a wide angle.
Will I miss the 17mm, being limited to 18mm?
But the numbers suggest that I just go "as wide as possible".

Who owns this lens and could share some experience?

What other alternatives do you suggest?
The lens is mostly used for events and landscape.

Thanks for your ideas!

Technical Support / How to get all images and 16bit with Canoscan 9000F
« on: January 29, 2014, 06:22:57 PM »

I tried to scan some black & white film today.
I used a Canon CanoScan 9000F.

It's really nice as the scanner finds the images and inverts them automatically.

But I had 2 problems:
1) It did not find all images. Some of them are really dark, being just some dots on the negative.
How can I get around the automatic image detection while scanning film?

2) The scanner is advertised to scan 48bit and being able to scan 16bit greyscale.
I saved the scans as tiff files. The settings for export were only available when exporting jpg, so I assumed the tiffs have said 16bit.
Sadly, the files are 8 bit.
I read the manual and it suggests doing what I did  ???

How do I get the 16bit depth?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / BP511(a) vs. AA in a grip
« on: November 05, 2013, 06:13:32 PM »

I have an original Canon battery and 2 third party ones.
Canon provides 1.39Ah and the others reach 1.5Ah.

One of the cheap batteries seems to be broken.
The charger states it's loaded, but the camera doesn't display a fully charged battery.

I was wondering if AA batteries in a grip are a good alternative.

6 AAs provide about as much Energy as two original BPs, so I don't think there's too much of a difference.

If you use a grip, which batteries do you use?

I think a grip is useful anyway.
If it enables me to use AAs in both flash and camera, I'd be happy to buy one.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / What equipment to bring to get the stars
« on: May 15, 2013, 08:40:55 AM »

I'm about to visit an area that has rather low light pollution, so I thought I give star photography a go.
But what's equipment gives the best results?

I found this website with some helpful information:

I still have a few questions though and I hope you guys can help me figure them out.

1.) I have a digital crop body and film body + 3 rolls of ilford delta 3200.
-> 3200 iso on the 40D sure is noisy but it's in color + general digital advantages
-> I guess the film body should handle extreme long exposures better (very low power consumption) + being full frame

I'll probably pack both, but which one would be better suited?

2.) lens
I don't think the kit lens will cut it at its wide end with 17mm and f4.0, so the samyang/rokinon/bower 14mm looks tempting.
But then there's this crazy distortion it produces. How well can I take care of this in post?
Are there other wide angle lenses you would recommend? (am on a budget)

3.) iso settings
The website suggest starting at 3200.
I cannot go any further with my setup.
The question is whether the iso is necessary to capture the light of the stars at all or if it's to keep the exposure time low to prevent star trails.

Say I wanted to try a trail, could I go with a lower iso because I want a longer exposure?
Or would that reduce the visibility of the stars too much?

Tripod + head + remote are not a problem.

Thanks guys!

Pages: [1]