July 24, 2014, 04:33:32 AM

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.


Messages - LDS

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Realistically, those old photo negatives and slides were often made with consumer or low end cameras back when we were poor college students, and high end scanning is limited by the quality of the original.
Well, someone is old enough to have a lot of slides shoot on Kodachrome 25 or 64 using some decent FD lenses (not the L ones, but some good ones like the 24/2.8, 135/2, 200/2.8 and 300/4), and I'm interested to understand if an FF camera with a macro lens can beat a film scanner or not.
Professional services may be expensive, not available nearby, and I would be a little worried to send away some "precious" (at least for me) slides I have no backup of  :-\

2
Yes it did, here is mine.


It looks Novoflex still produces something alike, although less sophisticated (there's no bellows between the lens and the film): http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/focusing-racks/castel-cop-digi/

Anybody knows why Canon never made for the EOS those macro accessories once available, and switched to a very specialized lens only like the MP-E 65mm? It's an excellent lens, but I find it less versatile than a bellows (especially since it comes without a focusing rail). Anybody tried the Novoflex bellows?

3
Since I have the time and good equipment I thought I might try this myself?

Actually, before scanner were available, the only way to reproduce slides and negs was photographing them. There were special films as well for reproduction. Canon had a repro adapter to be mounted on its bellows, coupled with a macro lens, it also allowed for "cropping" a slide. I still have the bellows, I guess I should look for an EF-FD macro adapter and the repro accessory :) IMHO with a good setup you can obtain results far superior than most scanners, although it's a slower technique.

Beware of some low/medium range scanner offering "slide/negs adapters", they may return so-so results.

For lightning any good, homogeneous, stable source will be enough - once there were even enlarger "color heads" used to correct casts on images, but now you can easily correct whatever in post-production.

Also ensure the neg/slide is flat when you take images of it - often they are not.

4
Software & Accessories / Re: Rain protection for 5D3 and lens
« on: July 14, 2014, 04:59:25 PM »
Not the cheapest option,

Just wondering why the "small" one is the more expensive...

5
not properly educating their customers as to what their OS can do.

If you have to "educate" your customer you've already lost. I'm a software developer with over thirty years of experience in UI design, I know what I'm talking about. 8 UI design has several flaws - would you like an EOS 1 Mark 8 or EOS 5 Mark 8 with only touch controls - no dials, no buttons? I think you would find it very hard to use. And with an UI that when you modify settings wholly hides the image you're working with displaying a lot of huge, useless contents you're not interested in? Then it could be a great camera, but you would find it hard to use because it doesn't work as you expect a camera should work. And you wouldn't like if Canon or whatever else tell you "you just need to be (re)educated".
That said, I like Windows 8 on my phone and on my Surface 2 Pro tablet - but they are different devices. To take photos on a phone I can accept a touch interface, but I would never accept it on my DSLR. Different devices need a different UI.

6
Does this mean we will have to reboot the camera efter every picture we take?

AFAIK CRTL-ALT-DEL was never patented - it was left free for anybody to use, even outsisde Windows  :D

Anyway re-read the agreement - Canon didn't license MS software - say WP8 to install on some Canon cameras. Canon licensed MS patents and MS licensed Canon patents. It's a move that avoid costly litigations (like the one Apple, Samsung, Google and Oracle are fighting) and let product interoperate better. For example Canon in its DPP software can take advantage of any format, algorithm or UI element patented by MS, and MS may will be able to use some of the Canon patents in its Lumia phones, for example, with no need to attempt reverse engineering of protocols (i.e for camerta tethering) or the like - look at how for example refusing to license EF specifications from Canon forces some lens brands to risk incompatibilities through reverse engineering or renouncing to AF support wholly.

7
As awful as a lot of Microsoft software is, this is pretty much a win-win. Canon doesnt have to use any

Patent and software are two different things. You can have a very valuable patent and a dreadful implementation, or even no implementation at all. But with a patent agreement you can do your own implementation, which can be better than the original, without any risk of litigation. That means money flows to the R&D departments and not to lawyers, the latter usually improve their life but not products.

8
I've been a Windoz hater for over 20 years. The reason I did not buy a Nokia Lumia 930 was, you guessed it, Windoz Phone 8. BTW I use a 2006 LG flip-phone, so please don't call me an Apple fanboy :)

If a Canon camera comes along that I'd normally buy. But it uses MicroSoft code, I'll have to pass. Back in the day, when I did HTML coding (by hand), I learned to h8t MS, and their non-standard (and buggy) Windoz Explorer. Been there, done that and I ain't going back :( YMMV.

Never understood why non Windows keyboard input is usually so full of childish mistakes...

9
Its not native in Windows, you must install the Microsoft or other codec, and it does not automatically update.  I'd like native support that updated automatically when new codecs were available.
"Native" and "preinstalled" are two different things. Those codecs are not pre-installed, but they are fully native codecs for the Windows Imaging Component (WIC) which is the image management framework in Windows. I do not know wny they are not offered as optional components in Windows Update, or automatically updated, it may also depends on your Windows Update settings and if you have Windows Live installed or not.

10
Beyond resolution (which may make easier to work with photos and related software), I'd check about screen color rendering and graphic card quality between the two models - and how important are for you to justify the price.

11
There are three major reasons to make backups, and you need to cover all of them: (1)accidental deletion;(2) hardware failure of your primary storage;(3)major damage (e.g. house fire).

There is a fourth, and it is data corruption. It may be hardware related, but also software related. The latter may go unnoticed in many RAID setups, because it's the software writing the bad data.
To protect from HW data corruption, beside using good HW, also ensuring clean power helps (it means a good UPS).
Software corruptions requires that both the file system and software used to make copies stores enough reduntant data to check for and repair - whenever possibile - corrupted data. File systems like ZFS does, and also good backup software. Just copying data out to a NAS or extenal drive may not.

12
Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 30, 2014, 11:30:40 AM »
Cocoa has been around for quite a while, and given the quality of Adobe's code-base they had to do some serious rewritings for 64bit anyhow. I also do not understand the Objective-C and vendor-lock-in argument; it's the technology they inherited with NextStep, and they've been as much hostage to that language and run-time as everybody else!
If you force developers to use a language nobody else uses (and outside Apple nobody uses Objective-C, and now Apple would like to replace it with the new Swift too), porting applications to other operating systems becomes harder. Windows applications are mostly C/C++, and Adobe has also to work on its Windows ones and ensure compatibility. AFAIK Carbon->Cocoa migration was an issue with Photoshop, Lightroom came later and probably used Cocoa/Objective-C from the start. Next was another idea of Jobs, and Apple could have rewritten it to use C++ instead of Objective-C. It preferred the latter, and I'm sure it was a marketing decision, not a technical one. Probably it came too late - Windows machines no longer lagged behind Apples in hw features (but design, maybe) and companies like Adobe have no reason to write Apple-only software and renounce to the other 90% of the market.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 30, 2014, 07:07:28 AM »
I recommend one of Kelby's books for learning you way around LR. He not only goes over the development

IMHO the best book about Lightroom is "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers" by Martin Evening. It covers everything about Lightroom - probably this is the manual that should be sold together it. Just, it may be more formal and with less images than Kelby's - but if really need to understand how Lightroom works, this is a very good book. Also Schewe's "The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop" is a very interesting reading on how managing the photo workflow from capture to processing the final image for output using Lightroom and Photoshop.

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 30, 2014, 06:59:57 AM »
Does anyone use Corel's AfterShot Pro 2?

I've been a very long time user of Paint Shop and after it was bought by Corel it became worse and worse, very aimed at the beginner/casual user - after X3 I stopped updating and looked for something else. I never used AfterShot, but being Corel and priced more or less at the same price of Lightroom, I'd buy the latter without esitation. It has become the de-facto standard for photo workflow management for professionals also, and it will be far easier to find tutorials, books, tips, etc. etc.

15
Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 30, 2014, 06:41:41 AM »
How is Lightroom on the Mac anyhow? From some years back I remember Adobe software being really crappy Carbon-based legacy-ware, many bugs, slow, unintuitive. Is Adobe software from today state-of-the-art 64-bit Cocoa? With good usability?
As long as Apple keeps on changing development languages to lock-in application developers it will cause this kind of problems to large, complex applications like Adobe's. Carbon was a C/C++ interface, while Cocoa is Objective-C, and porting from one to the other required a whole rewrite of the user interface code in a very different language.
Slow - this kind of applications usually require enough powerful and fast hardware is you're going to work on large images - CPU, memory and disk.
There are trial versions of Adobe software you can try it yourself. Lightroom user interface is far more intuitive than Photoshop, being designed for the photographic workflow, but as any powerful applications it requires some knowledge of how it is designed and works to really take advantage of it. Don't believe to start it, move some sliders and get great photos...
Anyway if there was software that keep Apple alive before the iPhone it was Adobe software. Without it, Apple would have gone years ago, only the media/graphics market keep it alive thanks to Adobe applications. It's funny how many Apple users complain about Adobe... :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5