| Inchiquin |
| Newbie |
|
| Devon, UK |
|
|
| Male |
|
| Wednesday, July 23, 2008 |
| Monday, November 23, 2009 11:46:21 PM |
1,066
[1.42% of all post / 2.18 posts per day] |
|
I know the feeling...
Here is not only what I would do, but what I have done. After many hours of deliberation and sleepless nights I bought a 5DII plus 24-105 lens. I chose that over the 24-70 because of a) lower price, b) significantly lower weight, and c) greater zoom range. The latter is particularly important because I don't take many long telephoto shots so with 105 available I can do without a telephoto zoom for the moment until I make a further decision on where to go in that direction.
I will sell my 10-22 and 17-55. At the moment I'm thinking about keeping my 40D and 55-250 as a dedicated telephoto combo. Until not very long ago I always used to carry around 2 bodies to avoid having to keep changing lenses, but there's no way I can afford to get a second 5DII body. The 55-250 is my sharpest lens so I can probably get Alamyworthy pics at 10MP for some time to come.
At the wide end, like you I'm sorry to see the 10-22 go but I didn't use it as much as I thought I would, and at least 24mm gives me a little bit more width than the 17mm did on APS-C. If the new kit pays for itself I'll consider getting a FF wide zoom later.
Having finally made the decision I'm pleased with it (the decision that is - although I've had the camera nearly 2 weeks I haven't found time to try it out yet).
Alan
|
I don't know offhand, but if your concern is purely to pass QC, a 5100x3400 image will not fail on size.
Alan
|
Guests usually outnumber members by a considerable margin.
Perhaps the Alamy forum got some publicity that day and loads of people went to take a look.
Alan
|
Assuming you're using 3:2 images, just export from Lightroom with the longest side set to 5100 pixels.
Alan
|
spacecadet wrote:I've had views returned on a term which simply wasn't in any of my keywords or captions
Whenever this topic has come up in the past, it's always been found that the search was correct and the term was lurking somewhere.
Quote:as well as some which stemmed a keyword (the 'mark' from 'landmark')
Your name is Mark, right?
Alan
|
When I bought my 5000 I was surprised to find that the FH-3 wasn't included. Luckily I have one that came wiith my old, now dead, 4000. I won't be selling mine, but you might find someone else with a redundant 4000 who would sell the FH-3 separately.
It does seem to be rather flimsy, as Wim says.
Alan
|
Shlloyd wrote:Klinger wrote:lightscapes wrote:At my age most people are kids. See you had the answer the whole time. Must have been hidden in the "kids" section of the paper 
LOL
Alan
|
Kumar wrote:Inchiquin wrote:Kumar wrote:72 dpi doesn't make an image a 'lower resolution' one in any manner whatsoever It certainly does. An image at 72dpi has a lower spatial resolution than one of the same size at 300dpi. Nope. Not true for the overall image as long as the pixel dimensions remain the same ! Producing a native file at 72 dpi certainly doesn't imply that it must be printed at the same dpi ... big image, lower resolution and small(er) image, higher resolution are both produced from the same image of a definite L x B pixel count ... so no irrversible resolution changes are caused ... it sure is misleading to say that 72 dpi makes an image a 'lower resolution one'. In case it apparently does, just put the dpi back to 300. Spatial resolution here is nothing more than a mere term, and it loses its meaning just with a mouse-click of the dpi-slider !! The image remains the same, and dpi changes mere output-print modalities. Probably this dpi issue is taking much more of an academic slant, than a prime requisite that would help a newbie with QC issues.
If I knew what the hell you were talking about I would continue the debate, but I don't so I give up.
Alan
|
Kumar wrote:72 dpi doesn't make an image a 'lower resolution' one in any manner whatsoever
It certainly does. An image at 72dpi has a lower spatial resolution than one of the same size at 300dpi.
Alan
|
I use VueScan with Coolscan 5000.
The vast majority of my scans are either Ektachrome or Kodachrome. I haven't bothered with a target for the Ektachrome because they seem to come out of the scanner looking pretty good and the colour may just need some minor tweaking in Photoshop. I bought a Kodachrome target because Kodachrome colours come out seriously screwed, but I haven't been able to schedule much time for serious photography for the last couple of months so apart from one test scan (which looked promising) I haven't used it yet.
I scan to 16-bit TIFF. I don't remove the mounts (though I may start doing so for Kodachrome if I try cleaning them first). I set dust removal to Light for Ektachrome and None for Kodachrome. I switch grain removal off for everything. I don't usually find multi-pass scanning makes much difference but I do use up to 8x on heavily-saturated slides just in case. I find the contrast and brightness sliders in VueScan quite useful for pre-processing the image a little before it gets into Photoshop. Since most of my slides don't need straightening I find it easier to set a fixed crop area of 5175x3450 in VueScan, which is big enough for Alamy but small enough to fit within the frame of all mounts I've ever used, rather than mess around later cropping in Photoshop.
Alan
|
|
RSS feeds