I am guessing he brings in only images ready to print.

But, I agree with the request.  Once we have an image on screen (mouse over and Space) it would be cool to toggle up or down to the next/previous image with PgUp/PgDn.

Not high on my list; just for whenever you are pacing the floor at 2 A.M. looking for something to do next.

What I meant is that focused beam on the sensor.  I have seen it burn through shutters in the "old days."  Dunno.


In PJ you just have no choice.  You're even supposed to urn the camera off when changing; we just don't can't do that in a fast moving situation.  I agree about the mirror, somewhat.  Of curse the D300 has a sensor clean (some kind of oscillation) but the D3 does not.  Go figure.  I have always wondered about those cleanings though.  Where the heck can the dust go except hang around to blow back on at some point !?!?!  It's not like they have a waste tank like printers do <GGGG>.

Hi Fred-

Try this (it's how I was trained):  try viewing the scene in B&W.  Not through the camera; just with your eye.  Highlights, shadows, midtones.  Kind of the eyeball zone system.

I am confused as to how you are working the B&W.  Perhaps I am not reading this whole thread correctly.  Wouldn't be the first time.  Which QImage B&W "filter" are you referring to?  (I do most of that stuff in PS3.)

Also, are you setting the printer profile to let the printer manage it for B&W?  I use a 2400, but am guessing the 1800 has ABW also; or, doesn't it?  If it does THAT is the way to do your B&W.  The other option is try Black Only, commonly called BO printing, and check out the Clayton Jones web site.  It gives a Tri-X effect.

I really like Ilford and used to use their silver-based paper in preference over Kodak, whenever possible.  Their inkjet has given me fits from time to time.  Since I RARELY print gloss, the pigment papers are what I use. 

This new Ilford announcement has me curious.  "Improved tonal range, Higher sharpness, Greater contrast, Wider colour gamut."  Okay, Epson, Kodak and all the others say that.

If the profile is the same, where is the tonal range, contrast and gamut coming from?   I remember Epson doing this a few years back--changing the names (to confuse us?) and upping the price.  New and improved. Same profiles.

So, what's the verdict?  Has anybody here tried the new paper with pigment?  I mean a new and old test of the same image?

TIA,

Yes, thee is a difference.  Sometimes you can see it; sometimes you don't.  Certain situations tend to show it more than others--especially in polarizers.  Back lighting or an extreme side lighting angle.  To flare or not to flare, that is the question.  (Personally, I LOVE flare and try to use it to advantage.)

Multi-coated or not; on which sides (polarizers have four, not two).  The type of multi-coating. 

The glass--a critical factor.  Schott glass or "window glass?"  How plano is the glass in its grinding AND in the mount? 

I hate the thin mount (personal taste) as they tend to be very difficult to remove.

I think you get what you pay for BUT you should shop around.

The only thing missing was the downside of that technology, at least for now.

Carrying such a rig while the system is still on can really burn up some pixels as it bounces into full view of the sun, etc.  The mirror protects that until the system powers down.

The other thing on an interchangeable lens camera is dust.  Right now, although sensors get dirty, the mirror catches most of it.  I know there is a filter and/or cover over the sensor, but the extra barrier is a blessing more often than not.

Until Nikon and Canon come up with a reliable way to clean a sensor in the camera, having that mirror there when changing lenses at football, NASCAR, Indy--even some landscapes--is a blessing.

Actually, Fred, those of us that said it's less convenient have used forums before; how else would we know?

I would think most users with any computer saavy and i-net experience will be be in "rock-and-roll" mode quickly. Modify the profile and go with it.

My only hope (prayer ) is that folks learn how to edit quotes to just the relevant lines.  It is SO easy (it was on Yahoo and didn't happen) to do.