Reading mode: Light Dark

Off topic and not, D200

Go to last post
Thanks David,

I have to admit i did a brief search regarding the Canon as I hadn't really considered it seriously (though i wouldn't dismiss any advice out of hand). However, the the extra £400 is out of the quesyion for me currently, so there isn't much point my pursuing that route at the present time. Likewise with the Nikon lenses versus Canon.
But thanks for your input.
Flick.
David Martin said:
I've got no axe to grind as to whether you should buy a 5D or the
D200 which seems an excellent caemra, eepecially at high ISO, but I
could not quite get your statements that the 5D is £1000 more.
From Park Cameras the 5D is £1800, and you can get a £200 rebate.
In fact the 5D and 24-105 is a fairly similar price to the D200 and
the 17-85.
As for your comments about the high cost of changing your glass, I
would have thought that the value of your Nikon glass is unlikely
to have depreciated significantly, and if you were prepared to shop
s/h for Canon glass the loss should not be too great, if you take
your time on the change-over.
If I was not going to shoot a lot at high ISO, I could be very
happy with the D200 also, but the cost of the 5D is perhaps not too
out of reach if you fancy staying with FF - talking of which you
might want to trade in some of your present glass anyway if you are
moving to DX to get the focal lengths you want.
--
Regards,
DaveMart

Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
 
DMillier said:
Hi Flick

Thank you.

10lbs? Ouch!
Click to expand...
No pain, no stitches, though everything got a bit stretched (perhaps that's too much info). We have a family history of easy labours. however, the last few weeks were very uncomfortable ,and people were asking me if the baby was due soon from around five months.
DavidMillier said:
It's quite possible to carry it a short distance but I wouldn't
particularly enjoy carrying it all the way to Oxford! It would fit
in a wheely suitcase if you have a large one. Or perhaps we can
organise something to co-incide with a trip somewhere and we can
drop it off. Is Oxford on the way to Scotland??
Click to expand...
I'd have to look on a map, later when my eyes are open...
 
Jono Slack said:
Absolutely - Bromley - Oxford - Scotland - it's a well known route :-)
Click to expand...
Yes, i second that, thank you Jono ;-)
Jono Slack said:
Actually, depends which bit of Scotland, but if it's the West side,
then you can easily go up that way.

Flick - I know enough about you to realise that you CAN'T carry a
1290 on the train!
Click to expand...
This would be large then...
Jono Slack said:
Go on, David, in your porsche it'll only take you an extra 10
minutes . . . . . (just don't use the satellite navigation to get
to Flick's street!).
Click to expand...
Lol, no just don't use Jono's, it took him and Quentin 6 hours to cover a route that took myself and Kate an hour and a half (and most of that was once they gor to Oxford)
Jono Slack said:
kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
Ha, so size matters after all!

If Miss 5D leaves of her own accord, i might consider Canon after all. Hey, Dave's giving me a printer so...
tashley said:
Flick said:
this thread - the longest since Tim divorced Miss Kodak and married
Miss 5D ;-)
Click to expand...
Am now worried that since yours is longer than mine, Miss 5D might
leave me for you... she's fickle that way...
Click to expand...
 
Paper choice is interesting. When I first started doing inkjet printing I used only glossy because it made the prints look like photos from the chemist.

Then later I started using matte because it was cheaper and when framed looked no different.

Then later I began to realise that I like the look of matte for its own sake - somehow more subtle.

Then I got the R800 and its glossy output was so classy I stopped using matte.

And now I've realised that the R800 is too glossy and I prefer the less upfront gloss of the r2400.

And some pictures just suit matte and some gloss and some semi gloss...

I even tried some fancy art paper from Lyson but didn't really like it. Like printing on wallpaper...

Oh, my head...

ps

Jono, I've asked you this before but you never did answer (trade secrets?)... do you make enough income from selling via your website to make it worth the effort?
Jono Slack said:
tashley said:
Jono Slack said:
but, surely not magenta - mauve, I can understand, yellow I can
subscribe to, but magenta?
Click to expand...
Magenta is, as you well know, divine.
Click to expand...
No NO NOOOO
Divinity is in a kind of pinkish blue (but then, you know that
really!)
Jono Slack said:
Jono Slack said:
Well, let's see, 2400 = £500
4000 = £700

ink for 2400 costs 4 times as much . . . . . oh hell, it's too
late, I'll leave you to work it out, but it sounds to me like a
couple of dozen prints makes up the difference!
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see, suddenly spending less money is actually saving money.
I must catch up with the New Economics!

I don't think the 4000 uses the newfangled inks though does it?
Click to expand...
It's true, it doesn't . . . . but the 4800 does, a snip at £1450!
More seriously though, I did spend more than that in ink for my
2100 in the first year.

I'm happy with the 4000 because I don't print much glossy - for
framed photos I like the Epson archival (enhanced) matte, which is
cheap and vibrant, and for cards I use cotton rag. I would only use
glossy for 6X4 prints - after all, if you're going to frame it and
put glass over it - why use glossy paper?

kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
Hi David
DMillier said:
Paper choice is interesting. When I first started doing inkjet
printing I used only glossy because it made the prints look like
photos from the chemist.

Then later I started using matte because it was cheaper and when
framed looked no different.

Then later I began to realise that I like the look of matte for its
own sake - somehow more subtle.

Then I got the R800 and its glossy output was so classy I stopped
using matte.

And now I've realised that the R800 is too glossy and I prefer the
less upfront gloss of the r2400.

And some pictures just suit matte and some gloss and some semi
gloss...
Click to expand...
I suppose - I must say, I really like cotton rag paper (wallpaper) but not the Lyson variety - I think we tried about 200 different sorts of paper before making a decision with the greetings cards - we now use photo-smooth from papermilldirect.com (James Cropper). The Hahnemule paper is nice, but too dusty.

As for framed photos - I haven't found anything which is really much better than Epson Enhanced matte (the old archival matte). Lovely saturated colours. It always seems to me that the 'seduction' of glossy paper is simply when you've just printed it - or for photos which you're actually going to handle - otherwise give me matte every time.
DavidMillier said:
I even tried some fancy art paper from Lyson but didn't really
like it. Like printing on wallpaper...
Click to expand...
See above, and try papermilldirect.com photo smooth (Quentin likes it too) - it is a bit like blotting paper though!
DavidMillier said:
Oh, my head...

ps

Jono, I've asked you this before but you never did answer (trade
secrets?)... do you make enough income from selling via your
website to make it worth the effort?
Click to expand...
LOL - you HAVE to be kidding! I don't sell anything from the website (well, hardly anything). BUT it's still worth the effort - for instance, I've just got a job for a BBC local radio station because the boss likes my website. Basically, it serves as advertising, and also as a proof of the seriousness of the business (relevant for tax purposes perhaps).

Kind Regards
Jono
DavidMillier said:
Jono Slack said:
tashley said:
Jono Slack said:
but, surely not magenta - mauve, I can understand, yellow I can
subscribe to, but magenta?
Click to expand...
Magenta is, as you well know, divine.
Click to expand...
No NO NOOOO
Divinity is in a kind of pinkish blue (but then, you know that
really!)
DavidMillier said:
DavidMillier said:
Well, let's see, 2400 = £500
4000 = £700

ink for 2400 costs 4 times as much . . . . . oh hell, it's too
late, I'll leave you to work it out, but it sounds to me like a
couple of dozen prints makes up the difference!
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see, suddenly spending less money is actually saving money.
I must catch up with the New Economics!

I don't think the 4000 uses the newfangled inks though does it?
Click to expand...
It's true, it doesn't . . . . but the 4800 does, a snip at £1450!
More seriously though, I did spend more than that in ink for my
2100 in the first year.

I'm happy with the 4000 because I don't print much glossy - for
framed photos I like the Epson archival (enhanced) matte, which is
cheap and vibrant, and for cards I use cotton rag. I would only use
glossy for 6X4 prints - after all, if you're going to frame it and
put glass over it - why use glossy paper?

kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Quentin (UK) said:
Well, actualy, its very simple. Add grain. I use Richard
Rosenman's free Grain Generator, but the film grain function in PS
works well too. The idea is to add just enough grain to mask the
objectionable noise, but not so much as to be obtrusive.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, of course! Didn't know others were as into grain as I am! That's a trick I learned way back when I was in electronic prepress for printing plants: a little noise will also fix any gradations that are banding.

I've been experimenting with this a lot lately. I scanned some parts of my favorite film grain (from the deliciously chunky Polapan), and created a grayscale pattern out of it in Photoshop. This way, you can just add a "pattern" layer to the photo, and control the grain pretty easily. (The only trick is making sure you don't get edges in your pattern.)

To use the grain with a color photo, just set the layer to Overlay, Soft Light, or Hard Light, and knock the opacity down until it looks good.

I also experimented with a couple other ways to make grain. Photoshop's gain is ok. Photokit Sharpener also has a decent grain tool. The best I found was Alien Skin's new plug-in called Exposure, which generates grain to match a wide range of film stocks. What makes it nice is that you can control how much grain is added to highlights, midtones and shadows, for some very subtle effects. Unfortunately, it costs around US$200, which is too much for a one-trick pony.

Dave, thanks for that link to Petterri's site. I'll have to check out his stuff.

-- Dan
 
DMillier said:
Paper choice is interesting.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It's one of the most fun parts of printing. Then again, I was trained as a graphic designer, and the feel of the paper you use is always a big consideration (before we all ended up doing webdesign.. sigh).

I exclusively print on cotton rag matte paper. Gloss is just so.... glossy. Slick. Expected. Bleh. My favorite paper is Crane Museo. Again, this is the designer in me coming out. Crane is an old paper company in Massachusetts (they actually make the paper for our dollar bills, but that's another story), who makes beautiful rich stock. Museo has a slight color to it, but the feel of the paper, and the way it shows pigment ink is beautiful.

-- Dan
 
Daniel Sroka said:
DMillier said:
Paper choice is interesting.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It's one of the most fun parts of printing. Then again,
I was trained as a graphic designer, and the feel of the paper you
use is always a big consideration (before we all ended up doing
webdesign.. sigh).
Click to expand...
God yes, Dan. When i did graphics we stretched our own paper for illustration. i used to love buying different papers like Kent and Saunders. But then i loved fibre papers for photographic printing too.
 
sorry, maybe an OOT question...

is it still in production: the Sigma 10-300 ?
or the equivalents at this range?
tashley said:
I think the value of these second hand is going up - I sold my
SLR/n a month ago for £1350, privately rather than via ebay, to a
forum member here. It had about 2,200 actuations and went with a
good nikkor 24-70 and a not very good sigma 10-300. It was in
as-new condition with all original packaging, unopened manuals,
cables etc.
...
Click to expand...
 
HI Daniel

If it's going behind glass I use the epson matte (enhanced/archival), but otherwise I also use matte cotton rag - there are plenty of good ones, but we've fallen in love with the stuff from James Cropper in the Lake district (papermilldirect.com) - they've been making paper since 1845 (funny, didn't know inkjets were around then!).

My epson 4000 just arrived this afternoon, golly, it's big!

kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
The cheek of these guys, trying to lure you away from your Nikon/f-mount friends

If you go Canon, then I won't be able to borrow your lenses when we go out shooting together anymore! (so, there is your compelling reason to stay with the f-mount: so that I can borrow your kit )

;-)

Chas

ps. minor defection to Oly and 4/3 notwithstanding...
Flick said:
David Martin said:
I've got no axe to grind as to whether you should buy a 5D or the
D200 which seems an excellent caemra, eepecially at high ISO, but I
could not quite get your statements that the 5D is £1000 more.
From Park Cameras the 5D is £1800, and you can get a £200 rebate.
In fact the 5D and 24-105 is a fairly similar price to the D200 and
the 17-85.
As for your comments about the high cost of changing your glass, I
would have thought that the value of your Nikon glass is unlikely
to have depreciated significantly, and if you were prepared to shop
s/h for Canon glass the loss should not be too great, if you take
your time on the change-over.
If I was not going to shoot a lot at high ISO, I could be very
happy with the D200 also, but the cost of the 5D is perhaps not too
out of reach if you fancy staying with FF - talking of which you
might want to trade in some of your present glass anyway if you are
moving to DX to get the focal lengths you want.
--
Regards,
DaveMart

Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hey Flick and David,

I know how big the 1290 is (got a dead one sitting in the corner). How about I visit David, pick it up and then train it into Oxford one Sunday? (I might even be able to throw in an ink cartridge or two, if I've still got any lying around). This all depends of course on whether or not I can find Bromley (I am an ignorant foreigner languishing in Hammersmith, after all...)

Flick, I know our next photo-safari is due to be here in London, but perhaps if you can make an exception for this particular geek bearing gifts, we could visit the White Horse (or something ancient like that) one weekend soon? (I want to do London with you all when the sun is shining, or when there are scattered showers for brooding skies and sunlight foregrounds, not when it's perpetually gloomy like now!)

Chas
Jono Slack said:
DMillier said:
Hi Flick

Thank you.

10lbs? Ouch!

We live on the edge of South East London about a mile from Bromley.

It's quite possible to carry it a short distance but I wouldn't
particularly enjoy carrying it all the way to Oxford! It would fit
in a wheely suitcase if you have a large one. Or perhaps we can
organise something to co-incide with a trip somewhere and we can
drop it off. Is Oxford on the way to Scotland??
Click to expand...
Absolutely - Bromley - Oxford - Scotland - it's a well known route :-)

Actually, depends which bit of Scotland, but if it's the West side,
then you can easily go up that way.

Flick - I know enough about you to realise that you CAN'T carry a
1290 on the train!

Go on, David, in your porsche it'll only take you an extra 10
minutes . . . . . (just don't use the satellite navigation to get
to Flick's street!).

kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
Told you it needs its own house.
Jono Slack said:
HI Daniel
If it's going behind glass I use the epson matte
(enhanced/archival), but otherwise I also use matte cotton rag -
there are plenty of good ones, but we've fallen in love with the
stuff from James Cropper in the Lake district (papermilldirect.com)
  • they've been making paper since 1845 (funny, didn't know inkjets
were around then!).

My epson 4000 just arrived this afternoon, golly, it's big!

kind regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
What's more to the point, i can borrow your VR lenses - even if i do still get camera shake with them.

Quentin was asking about our next group shoot. How about Easter hols, when Kate will be free - unless she's going away that is. She's so busy at present that i never get a chance to ask her.
chasg said:
The cheek of these guys, trying to lure you away from your
Nikon/f-mount friends

If you go Canon, then I won't be able to borrow your lenses when we
go out shooting together anymore! (so, there is your compelling
reason to stay with the f-mount: so that I can borrow your kit )

;-)

Chas
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top