DDoug

deleted

$11 PU sale of an archival photo:

Who needs charges when you have a bogus exchange rate?

One for $105 gross plus DACS ($42 via Alamy)

Ditto the verticals, a holdover from when clients used to say "shoot more verticals" along with reminding me to have more shots with people in them. I don't carry the vertical battery grip much because of weight, but do like the vertical controls on occasion. On the other subject, I figure I'll finally start to become a European when I come to understand why a country the size of Sacramento County needs its own language. Till then I'll stick to the opinion that Lëtzebuergesch is more of a secret code than a language, something the Luxemburgers speak among themselves when they don't want to

I also used a Fuji 645. A photographer I knew referred to it as my "point and shoot Hasselblad." I also used mostly 220 in that and a Pentax 645 I once had. Given that 35mm had the emulsion spread out over sprocket holes, leader and tail, with all of it packaged in a can within a can, it was quite wasteful. Using 220, which has a paper leader and tail and is packaged in foil, the cost worked about the same per frame as mounted 35mm for around 3X the film area.

Not only for surfers (photo of Ansel Adams by Beaumont Newhall).

This is a somewhat worrying question. Assuming the OP knows what he's looking at and doesn't see watermarks, it brings up the question whether that might be the case for others, i.e., many others. And yes, Nervous Nellie is something I've heard before.

I check often and it's like the old saw about insanity being repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So I checked yet again and — surprise, surprise — there was a sale! First one since early August, but it was for low $$$. Good old Alamy.

150lpi, or lines per inch, is the standard for sheet-fed lithographic printing. The pixels/dots per inch of a photograph should be twice the lines per inch on the press, hence 300dpi. Prepress technicians will often use a higher resolution for raster images of typography, but the 2-1 ratio holds for photos.

I used to use one of those when I shot with a Pentax 645 and was able to shoot in winter, regardless of outside temps, by keeping it tucked inside my coat.

Hi Regis, I'm just a couple hours up the road from Fuji's facility in Germany, but still it would be a real bother to have to send the camera to them to get the sensor cleaned. Perhaps it's worth it to hold out for the X100V. One of the things that appeals to me about the X100 series is the unlimited synch speeds, making fill flash in bright daylight a snap.

Good point. Probably a good used X100F would be the most bang for the buck and the earlier models wouldn't work for me. As to pockets, I usually have a vest in summer and jacket with large pockets in winter, so my idea of "pocketable" is fairly lax.

I've also been considering getting a small, inconspicuous camera at some point. My main kit consists of Fuji XT bodies, generally at least two since I don't change lenses in the field. One thing I don't want is to pack along a different charger and set of batteries that would largely defeat the “small and light” benefit. I have an X-A5 I could use for the purpose if I could stand arm's-length photography, squinting at an LCD in bright daylight. For a pocketable camera with an EVF, I think something in the X100 series would be ideal.

Desaturating magenta gets rid of the purple look without changing the red leaf much. Sometimes in resurrecting old images, one of the channels, often red, will be very muddy. Replacing it with one of the other channels will clear up the image, but the colors will be off. If they are selectively corrected (such as for skin tones), then an unusable image becomes at least passable.

As some contributors are East Asian, it's probably a good policy to skip from three to five.

Five. I have a low CTR, so-so sales and don't upload as much as I should, so it's probably just the absence of QC fails.

To solve a problem such as Steve described, or to change the overall appearance of an image, I sometimes use channel substitution. For example: select and copy the green channel; convert to LAB color; select Lightness channel and paste the green channel; convert back to RGB color. This yields an image which has the same colors as before, but with the tones such as they would be on a black and white photo shot with a green filter. Similarly, a sky can be made more dramatic by using the red channel. Sometimes this works well and sometimes it's awful. Fun to experiment wit

I'm in much the same situation, glad to have something to keep me busy while sequestered but somewhat daunted by the scope of the project. As well as the time to digitize the images, there is the fact that a lot of them are in cardboard mounts with rounded corners and, upon examination, raggedy edges. So I'm removing those and snapping the film into plastic mounts, marking the dates with indelible pens. Such fiddly hand work was never my thing. Anyway, in the process it's being handed off to my son and between us we decided that the best solution for us is to put them on the Web se

Two P.U. sales netting almost enough to pay my monthly Photoshop bill.

I tried again and it sort of worked. I have a K&F Concept adapter for Minolta and it isn't bad. Not able to find one at the time I was looking for Nikon, I settled for a cheapie which goes by the brand name "Massa". It's wobbly and the f/stops come out on the bottom of the lens instead of the top for some reason. However, I can focus on the slide it takes up most of the frame so I'd have to say it works.

I have a cheap, generic Nikon AI TO Fuji FX adapter that's on the short side, so it focuses beyond infinity (a term that makes sense only to photographers and Buzz Lightyear). To that I added the shortest of my several Nikon extension tubes. Shown side-by-side with the Kipon NIK-FX M at its maximum extension, it looks like it's about 5mm taller and thus focuses closer than the Kipon. There is probably something equally inexpensive that would work better than what I have. But basically, I'm sure you're right. If the purpose is only slide duplication, something a lot less expensive than the Kipo

There's definitely more than one way to accomplish the task. I used to have an old, bordering on ancient, Novoflex bellows with a Fuji X mount adapter, slide copy attachment and an APO-Rodagon lens. It did a good job of copying slides. I would still have it, except that I also wanted a macro lens for general close-up photography and got the Micro-Nikkor. Then I figured, “Why have both?” The current kit does double duty. I tried a combination of extensions, but, unlike you, I couldn't get it right so I got the Kipon. If I were starting from scratch today and didn't have the Micro-Nikkor, I

After some trial and error, I settled on this set to get the full 35mm frame focused on the Fuji APS-C chip: