 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006VisbleDust product - any detractors?
I am about to order my VisibleDust goodies. All reports I have encountered are positive. Anyone have any negative comments? R. >I am about to order my VisibleDust goodies. All reports I have encountered >are positive. Anyone have any negative comments? > > R. Took a shot of a reasonably white background, out of focus. White balance is probably wrong. Converted from raw to jpeg. Here is the result. http://www.rudybenner.com/album/Dust%20on%20sensor.jpg Do you think I need to clean? R. >>I am about to order my VisibleDust goodies. All reports I have encountered >>are positive. Anyone have any negative comments? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > R. Original NEF file here http://www.rudybenner.com/album/DSC_6845.NEF >>>I am about to order my VisibleDust goodies. All reports I have >>>encountered [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Original NEF file here > http://www.rudybenner.com/album/DSC_6845.NEF It downloads as a TIFF file for reasons I do not understand, just rename it to DSC_6845.NEF and it will open in ACR. According to Rudy Benner <bit_bucket@rudybenner.com>: [ ... ] > >> Do you think I need to clean? [ ... ] > > Original NEF file here > > http://www.rudybenner.com/album/DSC_6845.NEF > > It downloads as a TIFF file for reasons I do not understand, just rename it > to DSC_6845.NEF and it will open in ACR. It *is* named "DSC_6845.NEF" based on my download (the URL would have failed otherwise. However, NEF uses TIFF format to encapsulate the RAW data, so it is recognized as TIFF by the download software. The unix "file" program identifies it as: ====================================================================== Fuego:dnichols 23:27:24 > file DSC_6845.NEF DSC_6845.NEF: TIFF file, big-endian ====================================================================== but dcraw converts it nicely to ppm format. What xv shows when asked to view the .NEF image is the thumbnail, which appears to be encoded in normal .tiff format in the image file. The dust is not as visible as it could be, but it does show up. Looking at the exif information in the raw file, I discover (in part): ====================================================================== Shutter Speed : 1/30 Aperture : 13.0 Exposure Program : Shutter speed priority AE ISO Speed : 800 ====================================================================== And at f13 you won't see things as much as you would at whatever your lens' minimum aperture happens to be. According to the exif data you have the 18-70mm, so you should be able to at least get down to f16, and perhaps smaller, using aperture priority. I also would not have used ISO 800 for this kind of test, as it gives more noise to confuse things a bit. Crank it down to ISO 200, put the camera on a tripod, and let the exposure take as long as it needs. FWIW, the default conversion by dcraw looks a lot nicer in color balance than your conversion. Enjoy, DoN.  SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Rudy Benner <bit_bucket@rudybenner.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. Well yes, that was done right here at my computer desk, this evening. Not much light. I will do it again tomorrow, now you have my curiosity tweaked. Ok, ISO 200, small aperture, white or light grey background. Nope, I will not post the result. I think its established that the new camera needs to have the sensor cleaned. While I am at it, I will clean the rest of it. > Took a shot of a reasonably white background, out of focus. White balance > is probably wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Do you think I need to clean? First off, white balance is wrong. Second, it is all noise. We don't know if your "white background" is homogenous or not, but I assume so. It looks like there is a good chance you need to get the dust out, but with a noisy photo like that, I wouldn't make any conclusions. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Took a shot of a reasonably white background, out of focus. White balance >> is probably wrong. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > photo > like that, I wouldn't make any conclusions. I just cut a new one, same process, much smaller aperture. Very clearly dust on sensor. > I just cut a new one, same process, much smaller aperture. Very clearly dust > on sensor. I had little doubt. The dust "circles" look very much like what I am seeing in my photographs currently (with my D70). I await cleaning supplies as well. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> I just cut a new one, same process, much smaller aperture. Very clearly >> dust [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in my photographs currently (with my D70). I await cleaning supplies as > well. Happened to go by the place where I bought the camera, thought I would pop in to see if they were selling anything for sensor cleaning. They had this cheap package with what looked similar to a hurricane blower and a big old brush and some kind of liquid. Could not find out what that liquid was. $30. The functionary did not know what I was talking about. In any case, my VisbleDust goodies are enroute. >First off, white balance is wrong. Second, it is all noise. We don't know if >your "white background" is homogenous or not, but I assume so. It looks like >there is a good chance you need to get the dust out, but with a noisy photo >like that, I wouldn't make any conclusions. I don't have any problems distinguishing the noise from the dust. What *is* confusing to me is the light fall-off. I do my dust tests at ISO 1600, +1 EC, with a small aperture, and a long lens for even illumination, and I move the camera around rapidly pointing at a flat wall, to lose any potential for wall detail. I only drop below 1600 in bright light that would make the exposure too short. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>First off, white balance is wrong. Second, it is all noise. We don't >>know if [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > drop below 1600 in bright light that would make the exposure too short. > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< The light falloff is not the problem, its the dust. If it will make you happy, I can put up a new version that shows ONLY the dust. But I will not. The point has been made, my sensor is dirty. I should have the kit by July 4, next Tuesday. >The light falloff is not the problem, its the dust. If it will make you >happy, I can put up a new version that shows ONLY the dust. But I will not. >The point has been made, my sensor is dirty. I should have the kit by July >4, next Tuesday. Did you even read my post? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>The light falloff is not the problem, its the dust. If it will make you >>happy, I can put up a new version that shows ONLY the dust. But I will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did you even read my post? > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< No. >> Did you even read my post? >No. I didn't think so. Your reply has no relevance to what I wrote. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I don't have any problems distinguishing the noise from the dust. > What *is* confusing to me is the light fall-off. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > only drop below 1600 in bright light that would make the exposure too > short. Too complicated! Just open up Notepad on your computer so that you can get a white background and point your lens right at it for your test shots. Works perfect. You can use your USB cable or wireless to have the test shot right up on your screen. ISO 100 and the smallest aperture of your lens will reveal all. Rita According to Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com>: > > I don't have any problems distinguishing the noise from the dust. > > What *is* confusing to me is the light fall-off. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > right up on your screen. ISO 100 and the smallest aperture of your lens > will reveal all. IIRC, he was using a D70, and ISO 100 is not an option there. The lowest that it goes is ISO 200. The rest seems reasonable -- assuming that he is running Windows. (I don't have Notepad, though I could create a window of all white if I needed it.) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > I am about to order my VisibleDust goodies. All reports I have encountered > are positive. Anyone have any negative comments? > > R. Never used it myself, but I have heard generally good reports of it. I prefer the Copper Hill method because it is cheaper and seems to work very well. Visible Dust essentially sells you a mascara brush with all the glue removed from it for more than $100. The bit about carefully calibrated bristles and such is probably hype; any other nylon mascara brush could claim the same. >> I am about to order my VisibleDust goodies. All reports I have >> encountered [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bristles and such is probably hype; any other nylon mascara brush could > claim the same. (2354797) Sensor Brush Wash (CDN$9.95) X 1 = CDN$9.95 (2863166) VisibleDust 1.5x - 1.6x Swabs Orange (CDN$37.95) X 1 = CDN$37.95 (2863182) Arctic ButterflyT - 724 (CDN$99.95) X 1 = CDN$99.95 (2902544) VDust Formula (CDN$14.95) X 1 = CDN$14.95 -------------- Total = CDN$162.80 Canada Only - FedEx Ground (7-12 biz days) = CDN$11.00 GST = CDN$12.17 Grand Total = CDN$185.97 >>> I am about to order my VisibleDust goodies. All reports I have >>> encountered [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > GST = CDN$12.17 > Grand Total = CDN$185.97 CJ is right, the VisibleDust brushes are nothing more than 100% nylon makeup brushes. I bought a "foundation makeup" brush from Target, gave it a good cleaning to be positive that there was no glue residue on the brush, then I used it to clean my sensor. Works great and it was less than $ 10.00 US. You give the brush a blast of compressed air in order to give the nylon a static charge and then it lifts the dust off of the sensor. > CJ is right, the VisibleDust brushes are nothing more than 100% nylon > makeup brushes. I bought a "foundation makeup" brush from Target, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > air in order to give the nylon a static charge and then it lifts the > dust off of the sensor. Hi Peter! I'm truly interested. I looked up "foundation brush" on Internet (I don't know a thing about it) and found it's round, not square as I might have expected: http://tinyurl.com/kf88u. Is there a particular kind I should look for aside the fact that it should be 100% nylon? How do you clean it so as to ensure there's no glue residue. Thanks, Marcel >> CJ is right, the VisibleDust brushes are nothing more than 100% >> nylon [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Thanks, > Marcel "Foundation" is a type of makeup that is applied before other makeup (your wife should know). The type of cosmetic brush I bought was a "foundation makeup" brush, any other type will do as long as it is nylon. I washed the brush twice in distilled water with some mild detergent. After allowing it to dry overnight, I tested to see if there was any residue by using a UV lens filter and wiping the brush across it 500hundred times (it sounds like a lot but took only a couple of minutes). If there is any residue on the brush it will show up on the filter. Mine was clean so I went ahead and used it, worked just fine. BTW, the tip of my brush was a bit rounded so I just trimmed it with a straight edge and a sharp razor knife. I got the brush at Target in the cosmetics department. You can save yourself the time of looking for a brush and cleaning it by buying it from here http://cgi.ebay.com/SENSORCLEAR-SENSOR-CLEANING-BRUSH-KIT-FOR-D-SLRs_W0QQitemZ22 0002248509QQihZ012QQcategoryZ15215QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem. I have no connection to this vendor, I just searched on ebay and found it. > >> CJ is right, the VisibleDust brushes are nothing more than 100% > >> nylon [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > the cosmetics department. You can save yourself the time of looking > for a brush and cleaning it by buying it from here http://cgi.ebay.com/SENSORCLEAR-SENSOR-CLEANING-BRUSH-KIT-FOR-D-SLRs_W0QQitemZ22 0002248509QQihZ012QQcategoryZ15215QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem. > I have no connection to this vendor, I just searched on ebay and found > it. Thanks a lot Peter. I'll look it up. I think this must be the best way to get rid of dust VS a blower which seems to spread more of it. Take care, Marcel Peter, My wife who's a painter (art) told me perhaps I could use a top of the line quality brush. It could be made of nylon or even badger hair. Some of them are square such as the one illustrated on Visible Dust: http://www.visibledust.com/products.php?PID=205 What do you think? Thanks, Marcel > Peter, > My wife who's a painter (art) told me perhaps I could use a top of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks, > Marcel I suppose it might work, but then I would not be able to impress anyone with my nifty keen high tech sensor cleaner. The reviews on VisibleDust are sufficient enough for me. I will follow the advice of those with extensive experience. > > Peter, > > My wife who's a painter (art) told me perhaps I could use a top of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The reviews on VisibleDust are sufficient enough for me. I will follow the > advice of those with extensive experience. Rudy, What's impressive is the price that's being asked ;-) Take care, Marcel > Peter, > My wife who's a painter (art) told me perhaps I could use a top of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks, > Marcel I don't know about badger hair but nylon works - it's what the VisibleDust brushes are made of. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.