Hello there, My name is Lynn Frieda and I'm new to the list. I've been shooting with a Canon 1DS for just about a year now and have definitely had dust problems. I was told by Canon when I started using the 1DS to have the sensor cleaned/serviced at least 1/yr and maybe more if using it a lot. Fixations in Vauxhall is an authorized Canon service centre and they were able to clean the sensor on the spot. In addition, they sell little containers of CO2, which supposedly Canon has authorized (or at least that was what I was told). You still have to be careful, but this seems to do the trick (much better than a blower brush). Cheers, Lynn Frieda
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 March 2004 01:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: prodig-digest V1 #2027 prodig-digest Sunday, March 14 2004 Volume 01 : Number 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:37:30 +0000 From: Andrew Lopez-Calvete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] dust on sensor There was a new 'air in a can' blower advertised earlier in the year that was safe to use on digital sensors, which a colleague swears by, he shoots a 1d and has never had the sensor cleaned as a result of regular use and has never had a problem as a result. I'll get the details and re-post. Calvers On Friday, Mar 12, 2004, at 17:23 Europe/London, Michael Wilkinson wrote: > Perhaps teaching granny to suck eggs is appropriate but its worth > holding the camera face > down when changing lenses. > It helps with the dust problem. > =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:25:59 +0000 From: "Lodge, Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re[2]: [PRODIG] dust on sensor Hello Andrew, Friday, March 12, 2004, 11:37:30 PM, you wrote: > There was a new 'air in a can' blower advertised earlier in the year > that was safe to use on digital sensors, which a colleague swears by, > he shoots a 1d and has never had the sensor cleaned as a result of > regular use and has never had a problem as a result. I'll get the > details and re-post. I have a can of PC World PC-Line Air Duster. It's not "air" though - says it contains Propane and Butane. I would hesitate to use it on a camera.... says it is ideal for "printers, CD rom drives,copiers &c". Is this safe for cameras?? Don Lodge Bejazzled =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:32:00 +0100 From: David Arraez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PRODIG] Corel photopaint compared to Photoshop ? Hello, Has anyone used Corel Photopaint on Mac? and if so, how does it compare to PS. Best regards David Arraez =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:28:50 -0000 From: "Stefanie Kappel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PRODIG] dust on sensor My original message: Hello everybody- I want to buy myself a digital slr (have a Fuji 7000 and use sometime a Nikon in the studio) but I have read various articles where people complain about dustproblems. Obviously if you try to clean it yourself you might get warranty problems. ... you asked: Which author/article are you talking about? Alex, the author and article was in 'Digital Camera Magazine' and written by the hotline network editor Aidan O'Rourke. I quote: As for the problem of dust on the sensor, I've discovered this is an inherent flaw of digital SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses. ... With nearly all DSLR's, the minute you take oo the lens, dust, fluff, droplets and anything else flying around in the air at the time will enter the camera and stick to the sensor- or more exactly the low pass filter, which protects the actual CCD. Unlike film the sensor is permanently fixed and the dust stays there.... There's no way tostop dust sticking to the sensor apart from using one lens and never removing it. It only takes a few seconds to remove the dust and specks in PS. Then he gives an explanation how to clean your sensor 'but be aware that carrying out this procedure may affect your warranty' So this doesn't sound very good? Does it mean I have to clean the sensor on a daily/ weekly basis- I would find it very annoying if I had to live with specks and dust on my images all the time. I can then as well just scan slides...I always found the dust problem very annoying when scaning slides even with ICE. Stefanie Kappel ARPS Photography & Digital Imaging www.stefaniekappel.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:49:51 +0000 From: Mike Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] dust on sensor At 12:28 PM +0000 13:03:04, Stefanie Kappel wrote: > Does it mean I have to clean the sensor on >a daily/ weekly basis I've used a FujiS2 for eighteen months and only needed to clean the chip once. I do however clean the rear of the lenses (glass and mounts) on a regular basis. Mike Russell - -- Mouse in the House, London t: 020 8740 4634 www.mouseinthehouse.co.uk =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:09:22 -0600 From: "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] dust on sensor Hi Mike, I have used my S2 for about a year and it could stand a little cleaning, which method did you use? TIA. John > I've used a FujiS2 for eighteen months and only needed to clean the > chip once. I do however clean the rear of the lenses (glass and > mounts) on a regular basis. > > Mike Russell =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 11:25:53 -0500 From: Benjamin Ehrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] dust on sensor Greetings, On 3/13/04 John wrote: >I have used my S2 for about a year and it could stand a little cleaning, >which method did you >use? I have been using Eclipse Optical Cleaning Fluid and SensorSwabs to clean my digital cameras for a couple of years now. SensorSwab makes these in several different sizes to match Kodak, Nikon, Fuji and Canon cameras. They're expensive but work quite well. Plus, I've found that you don't need to clean these all too often. For some reason, though, our Fuji cameras seem to attract more dust than my Canon 10D. I don't know if that's purely coincidence or if Fuji's chips creates more of a static charge that sucks in dust. Each camera has a procedure for opening the shutter for cleaning. For example, with the Canon 10D you select "sensor clean" from the menu and press "OK." The shutter opens and the mirror locks up. The Fuji S2 is more complicated. I have to look at the manual every time I do it. I put a drop or two of the solution on the swab and then *very carefully and gently* wipe the SensorSwab over the sensor (I guess it's actually the glass sensor cover) one time and only in one direction. Then throw the swab away. This procedure has worked very well for me. Regards, Ben Senior Medical Photographer Medical Photography & Media Design Services Sinai Hospital of Baltimore / LifeBridge Health System Baltimore, Maryland USA =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 12:16:57 -0500 From: "Rick Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [PRODIG] dust on sensor >>The Fuji S2 is more complicated. I have to look at the manual every time I do it.<< Here's a tip. It used to be that I had to look in the manual every time. This got really tiresome, so I put a tiny scratch mark next to each of the two obscure buttons you push along with turning the camera on... and now I never need to look in the manual. When in a hurry on location, this is a godsend. BTW... I got one of those little pen-like doohickeys with the sticky substance on the end to grab specks quickly on location. This is great for those times when a big glob suddenly shows up. You don't need to get out the sensor-swabs and go through all of that time-consuming process to to get one annoying glob. Rick Lee - -------------------------------------------- http://www.rickleephoto.com - -------------------------------------------- =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:19:26 -0000 From: "Amanda D'Arcy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PRODIG] Camera Raw vs Capture 1 Pro version Hi list I am thinking about updgrading from Capture 1 LE to the pro version, total cost $499 (not possible to upgrade from LE which is a bit annoying) but also wondering about going for Adobe Camera Raw instead. I currently run PS7 on a PC so could updgrade to Adobe CS for $169 which I believe will include Camera Raw as well as all the new features of CS. Seems like a no-brainer to me on the cost front but I have no experience of Camera Raw, whereas I love Capture 1, so the question is - is Camera Raw as good as Capture 1 in your humble opinions, and what, if any, are the differences between the two? Thanks in advance for any views Amanda =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:14:33 +0000 From: "p-s-p.freeserve.co.uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] dust on sensor On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 12:18 PM, Stefanie Kappel wrote: > > How are you dealing with dust problems and do you have them often? I > do not > like the author's advice just to get used to the fact that you have to > clean > up the spots in PS. > It might be an old wives tale but turning off the camera when changing lenses appears to work (Dunno if this is due to the chip not been charged...therefore attracts less dust???) paul sav =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:17:38 +0000 From: "p-s-p.freeserve.co.uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [PRODIG] dust on sensor On Saturday, March 13, 2004, at 08:25 AM, Lodge, Phillips wrote: > I have a can of PC World PC-Line Air Duster. It's not "air" though - > says it contains Propane and Butane. I would hesitate to use it on a > camera.... says it is ideal for "printers, CD rom drives,copiers &c". > > Is this safe for cameras?? > Well, it won't do the sensitive bits any good!!! A better approach is a large 'blower' bulb (like a blower brush without the brush). The other prob with the cans of 'air' is that if not held upright they can spray propellant all over the place.....like over the sensor etc... paul sav =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:43:19 +0000 From: Richard Earney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] Camera Raw vs Capture 1 Pro version Amanda Well there is a topic!!!!! You might find people have some strong views on this one. All I can say, is that Photoshop is obviously more than just Camera RAW and you get InDesign and Illustrator in the Creative Suite. Many people including experts like Jeff Schewe will say PS every time. Personally I found C1's workflow too fiddly for my liking and the results while impressive, are for me not as good as Camera RAW. Your mileage may vary!!! regards Richard Earney - -- http://www.method-photo.co.uk On 13 Mar 2004, at 17:19, Amanda D'Arcy wrote: > Seems like a no-brainer to me on the cost front but I have no > experience of > Camera Raw, whereas I love Capture 1, so the question is - is Camera > Raw as > good as Capture 1 in your humble opinions, and what, if any, are the > differences between the two? =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:38:38 -0400 From: Jorge Parra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] dust on sensor > I have been using Eclipse Optical Cleaning Fluid and SensorSwabs to clean my > digital > cameras for a couple of years now. > > SensorSwab makes these in several different sizes to match Kodak, Nikon, Fuji > and Canon > cameras. There are numerous success reports on these chemical cleaning methods, but all should know and be aware of the potential consequences if it does not work out fine. Canon has never endorsed the use of any chemicals for their chips and will not honor any warranty if the sensor has been cleaned that way. Simple.I might guess Nikon would say the same thing. After testing myself different options, I have come the most ordinary yet effective method so far : A small yet potent, battery operated car vacuum cleaner. I just proceed to clean with a moist piece of cloth the table where I will do the cleaning ( in a closed room) as to avoid any potential air currents and dust moving around the atmosphere by the time I open the cameras. I then proceed to open the camera and make the chip visible and ,having everything previously well disposed of, I instantly proceed to apply the vacuum as close as possible to the chip. Vacuum provokes the opposite of blowing so you have to make sure no dust is moving around you, (hence the wet cleaning of the working area) . Last position before removing the vacuum tool from the camera is looking down, so any possible piece of dust is less likely to"fall" on the chip ( just as everyone should be changing lenses in normal work). Last time I had to clean a chip was over a year ago. But it is well known that CMOS Canon chips have a smaller static charge when in cleaning mode than CCD chips , so it makes them easier to clean with this mechanical methods. I have not found any of those pieces of sticky, adhesive junk described by many , that stick to their chip so hard they need manual removal with chemicals. I just can't figure out how in hell that can be there in the first place ,except for a very poor mishandling during lenses changes( under extremely humid conditions) or just using VERY dirty lenses. So, Make sure your lenses are perfectly clean and dust free before loading them on your bodies, I am positive this is one of the most common reason chips get dirty. A simple test to check the status of your chip is to aim the camera, set in a tripod, at a clean blue sky, and adjusting the exposure as to have the f- Stop set at 22 or 32. THis will easily show you all the spots your chip is having. THis image can also be used to remove those spots in other exiting images. While running the chip's cleaning cycles in a clean and closed enviroment, you can also look at the viewfinder without a lens attached and you will be able to see the spots in the ground glass and make as many cycles as necesary of the vacuum cleaning until you have your thing clean and dust free. All of this has to be run in compliance with the specific methods described by each camera manual to open and expose the chip without harming the system, so please be careful with your own equipment. Jorge Parra =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:46:06 +0000 From: Simon Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [PRODIG] Camera Raw vs Capture 1 Pro version At 17:43 13/03/04 +0000, Richard Earney wrote: >Well there is a topic!!!!! You might find people have some strong views on >this one. >Many people including experts like Jeff Schewe will say PS every time. >Personally I found C1's workflow too fiddly for my liking and the results >while impressive, are for me not as good as Camera RAW. I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on this one on the ProDIG list (or did I miss it??). I was very impressed with Camera Raw on PS7 and paid for several licenses. I was then even more pleased with CS and the fact that it would open Canon, Kodak and other formats straight off. I haven't played with the batch processing facilities in it to any great depth. I had a major project last year with hundreds of images which were shot on a Canon 1Ds and I purchased a license for C1 having used the trial for a few days. I found the workflow options really good, but it was limited in several ways. (1) You only had the facility for three output versions of a file and all to the same folder; this was useless, as I wanted a 16-bit TIF in one folder, a max-quality RGB JPG in another folder, a PowerPoint-sized JPG in another folder and then a thumbnail in a fourth folder. It therefore took me several go's to get the output files that I needed. On the latest PC version [1.3.1] this is still limited to three outputs in one folder although apparently they have now allowed more options for Mac users. Why? I'm not sure. (2) There was no 180-degree rotation on an image; again this has now been fixed, but there is no fractional rotate-and-crop as there is in Photoshop. Apparently this is due in either the May or October 2004 release. Hmmm... However, the results were just superb. I'm running a dual Xeon processor machine and can go through the images, cropping (with limitations), neutralising the colour, setting levels and then clicking to output and then proceeding straight to the next image while it batch-processes in the background. It is extremely quick and powerful. I end up with excellent 16-bit TIFs in a folder which I can then fine-tune (i.e. tweak the rotation) in Photoshop if necessary. The colour management is fine; C1 uses your monitor profile and can import to Adobe 1998 or whatever else you specify. You set your output profiles. It works. Using Camera Raw in Photoshop CS would presumbly give a slightly different workflow - you would be able to batch-import to 16-bit, all images with the same settings. If cropping and fractional rotation were needed, you'd have to do that in PS itself. To me, that's slightly more long-winded; I can do the vast majority of what's needed in C1 and then do final touch-ups in PS, but only on the few that need it. It really is swings and roundabouts... my feeling is that for large batch processing, C1 would win, but you'd need to go back to PS for fine-tuning of images. Camera Raw is very flexible but doesn't seem to be set up for the speed of workflow of C1; then again, it's part of PS so why pay extra...? That's my mileage; I'd be interested in others' experiences. Simon ============================== Simon Brown Director, Media Resources, UCL +44 (0)20 7679 9257 (ext.09257) =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:41:52 -0000 From: "Alex Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [PRODIG] dust on sensor Hi Stefanie I think the author is suggesting that dust is an inevitable part of the digital capture process - no more, no less. I've always been cautious about using compressed air around bodies (film+dig) because I've always been worried about the pressure of the jet forcing dust into places that it couldn't normally reach and then not being able to remove it with anything less than mechanical surgery. The sensor swabs are a good option and unless you're working in adverse conditions, you'll find that dust build up isn't that bad with regular maintenance. Couple this with an annual service at an authorised service centre and you'll be fine I reckon. I know that I personally can't afford �50 odd every time I feel there is too much dust. I should add that the reason I mentioned the Olympus in my previous message was that the filter protecting the sensor vibrates to shake settled dust off. None of the other filters on the other makes do this to my knowledge but I may stand corrected. Alex =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 12:15:10 +1100 From: "Tim Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PRODIG] PS document window size On opening an image in Photoshop, the document window is within the program window, with its own title bar. When batch processing, I want the document's window to be maximised within the program window. (This allows easier use of the Crop bounding box) Running menu items like "Fit on Screen" or "Actual Pixels" changes the window size, but does not maximise the document window. Is it possible? Tim Wheeler www.wheelerstudios.com.au =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE ------------------------------ End of prodig-digest V1 #2027 ***************************** =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
