I am actually doing that too: burning DNG to DVDs and keeping selected ACRs on my HD.

I haven't used DNGs until now. but I think that they always kept the edits although earlier versions may not have kept the original RAW files intact with the side-car edits pre-loaded?

5.2 was a major update far more than its dot update might imply.

Check out the new local adjustment tools and, particularly, the TAT!

You need to open the file in ACR to access the tools.

ACR 5.2 / Bridge in 2009 = Lightroom 2.0 in 2008. :p

Lawrence,
What camera? D90?
Q

yes, I know that ACR 5.2 is part of CS4, but DNG 5.2 is not. I thought we were referencing the DNG.

The camera is the D90, and folks, please spare me any bluster like "What? you didn't buy a D....?:D

I'm also evauating new lenses, and my basic guide is SLRGear testing. It tracks extremely well with my own findings. And yes, using is not the same as testing.

First things first, however. And that is a really fast, stable platform that will run Vista 64 and install CS4 like it was an ordinary app. :-)

Sounds a bit idealistic, but I have been testing software on my choice for over 6 months now. I'm into $600 for mobo and cpu and I haven't even the OS.

The stable part is key. With all the grief CS4 has for many, I refuse to run a system that hasn't solid proof of stability. That proof I have seen and tested for myself.

Agreed. After careful testing, I find the D90 to run a I would expect from the DXO site data. I still have to check out the dynamic range capabilities. However, I noticed immediately that my defaults for the Shadow/Highlight tool are too aggressive for this body, and in many cases where it is called for with the D80, none is necessary with the D90. What I do want to accomplish is a check on the dynamic range change with ISO changes.

I also added two lenses, one prime, Nikon 50mm f 1.8 another a shorter zoom range Tamron 28 to 75mm f2.8, which I chose because of the results indicated in SLRGear. My objective here is excellent sharpness, CA, vignetting and distortion figures over the focal length range. The downside of the Tamron seems to be that the combination here tends to go on a hunting expedition when auto focusing. I set up a test, and at f8, I could not see any sharpness differences, but at f2.8 I could. I tried different lenses at the store, they all do it.

For critical work, I can see to focus with the F90, but it is a drag. OTOH, setting the focal point with respect to desired DOF has always been the job of the photographer, and depending on autofocus to do that has been a negative for me, no matter the camera's capability. Why I can't have a screen like a split image is beyond me. The manual focus indicator does help, though.

From a qualitative pov, I am finding less need to go the stitched route to excellence in images, but at the same time, the stitched images are smoother due to the low values in distortion and a more consistent exposure from frame to frame when shooting.

I still expect to do the stitched version for the big landscapes, but everything else seems just fine as a single shot.

I probably will add a macro sometime down the line, perhaps the Nikon 85mm prime.I am less sure here because i don't do macros, so I don't know where to land so far as the basic F/L is concerned. The longer versions seem the better route as one can be physically further from the object, but DOF is to be considered as well. So, any suggestions here?

The cinematography capabilities are the most novel part of the D90, and boy, am I bad at that! :D

It's the closing parenthesis following the 8 that gives you the smiley.

Well, if you look at the 8 and parenthesis sideways, it resembles a smile. I guess the forum software is programmed to turn it into a smiley.

This is a test. This is only a Test. If there were an actual.....

8-)
:)

So, there is more than one way to get a specific smiley. That I didn't know.

back to lenses for a moment. I'm getting nervous about the Tamron. I started the camera this morning, it didn't focus. Ooops! The lens is on manual. Set it to AF. Damn. Still didn't focus. Camera's is on Auto, Check. Flip from AF to MF and back again on the D90 and it runs.

The rest of the system is home so I can't tey different lenses or the D80 with this lens, but if this continues, it goes back and I wait until I can spring for a different zoom. Or go all prime.

Ann, that is a consideration after I cover the range this one does. It's important because the vast majority of my stitching focal lengths fall there.

Certainly tamron is a mixed bag. I am aware of the problem with the flex circuit cable they have had in the past. But the optical performance is of the best in it's range, so for $400, I can tolerate an occasional replacement! The shot I did in the fog a couple of days ago rivals a contact print from an 8x10 neg!

I have been running back and forth this morning on the AF/MF problem, and I cannot replicate it, so it may have been an operator problem.

I do agree that, if the problem results in reducing my output because of such fussiness, the lens goes. I can cover that range with the 18 to 135, albiet with barrel distortion, CA and vignetting to have to compensate.

No way. Why should a new body be any different than an old? Errors in connections are as possible with lenses of the same brand as third party, and would instantly be apparent the first time you use it.

In fact, the only problem I ever had with connectivity between the body and lens was a Nikon lens. It had some sort of crud on a contact. A bit of cleaning and all is well.

The fact that any number of Nikon lenses will work on a given Nikon body must mean that the mount and pin arrangement is pretty standardized.

I am aware of that also, and the Tamron runs just fine witrh either body to date.

At $400 vs $1400, I can run a replacement when needed.

What seems to be evolving is that, with two different bodies, 4 lenses, 2 nikon, 2 third party, I have some interesting image profiles with which to work.

I don't mean that kind of profile, Ramon. You are correct about that. Profile in this instance does not involve ACR or PS.

The profile to which I am referring is probably better termed a transfer function, that is, the kind of function which is what you get with film. As you know, each film has it's particular look. But in digital, these values are much more closely matched; nevertheless, when taking the entire system in perspective, you will find more subtle (no Velvia unless you drag the Vibrance slider way over!) variations, and these are fixed. So, I can decide that a particular combination of camera and lens will deliver the look I want. One is crisp and rather wide in tonal range, the other delivers a more dense look, richer, in my view anyway.

These differences are not great, but they start the process rolling in a particular direction.

I got the idea from the way the multiple camera profiles I can get from the D80 in ACR: Vivid, Standard camera etc.

So< I took a second look at what each body can deliver, and I believe that the D80 will still have a role to play.

I called it a profile, but really, it isn't a profile existing as software modifying data, but rather, a look which I memorize and use when shooting by simple selection of hardware.

Hope this all makes sense! :-)

Some differences are far enough apart that one is considered inferior in some way. I would rather try to make use of those differences.

I love it when Larry isn't trying to blend-in with the obnoxious kids (or geezers : )

Cutting to the chase, think of it as similar to changing film types, except here you also see that type of difference changing lens brands as well, and, I'll bet, from one class of lenses to another in the same brand.

It's similar to having extra backs on the Hasselblad, but with more complexity. Changing backs is far simpler than changing cameras! It may turn out to be more trouble than it's worth, and if my SO and I are out together, she will be using one or the other anyway.

It's somewhat a justification for keeping the D80, but with some clarity as to what and why.

I haven't checked b&w differences yet, and that would be another consideration.

Sometimes, things get more complex before they get simpler again.

>haven't checked b&w differences yet

Black and white in raw images? There's no such thing. The in-camera setting for b&w is just a flag that tells the raw converter to demosaic the raw file and immediately desaturate the colors upon conversion.

I give up.