glenbarrington

From what I've experienced, it seems roughly equivalent to the APS cameras (neither of which are all that impressive, I have experience with both Canon and Nikon cameras as well). But then, the difference in size between the two sizes isn't all that different. It doesn't bother me all that much since I tend to gravitate towards photos with the shorter lattitude.

 

Frankly if you want the best in lattitude, you need to go full frame. Anything less will still be a compromise. Take a look at the gallery section at:

 

http://fourthirdsphoto.com/

 

They only allow photos taken with 4/3s cameras.

 

There are some good photos and some mediochre photos there. But the good ones are very good indeed.

You have just documented one of the things I've always said about DAM/Orgainzers. They all stink in some way!

PSE is color managed and GIMP is not. Personally, I found the GIMP user interface to be VERY dfficult to use. I much prefer PSE.

 

That being said, GIMP does offer a LOT of editor for free. But I think on the whole PSE is a better fit for the beginner or causal user.

Al, if I understand what you are saying. What you need to do is right click the image after you drop it into the template. You can then click 'shrink to fit' which will present the entire photo in the template frame.

 

Also on the right click, check out the options on the 'image object properties'.

The thing is, each manufacturer makes a 'semi-standard' hot shoe. The larger center contact is standard so non proprietary flashes can be used, but the smaller contacts around it are not standard. Even if they do happen to be in the same place, they may not carry the same type of signal.

 

The auto-thyristor flashes work very well and since they use only the standard center contact, you don't need to worry about getting a special type.

 

One note though, do NOT buy a used older thyristor flash unit. Buy only new. The reason is older units use a higher voltage than modern cameras can handle. An older unit may burn out a modern camera, so don't let an attractively priced older model tempt you. (New cameras under 12 volts max, older cameras didn't matter)

 

Wein and a few other manufuacturers sell a voltage regulator so you can safely use older flash units (about $50 USD), but I have found that new units work quite well on new cameras. I use my 383 on my E500 without a voltage regulator.

It has curves and has some limited 16 bit support. I think it does color management reasonably well. It handles raw quite well since it uses a stripped down version of ACR. (ACR same quality, simpler controls). Still can't do CYMK or any pre press stuff, probably never will.

 

Is it more 'professional'? Not really, but it has kept up with the changing perception of needs for the amateur.

As cheap paper goes, it isn't that bad, what it lacks is a profile for your printer and ink. A 40 or 50 dollar investment in a profile for that paper will allow you to print happily on this paper.

 

As stated above, by trial and error, you can learn to maually adjust the printer to compensate for the differences between the default profile and the paper's needs. But that's a lot of work. (I been there and done that)

 

I also recommend a book called, "Print Like a Pro", by Jon Canfield. An excellent book for those beginners wanting to get the best prints possible. Not too hard to understand, with examples for the major printer brands. (about $40 USD)

I am a great proponent of the older flash technology that flash units like the SunPak 383 and the Vivitar 285HD represent. They are inexpensive, powerful, versatile, provide reliable service and make excellent, well exposed photos. I paid $79 USD for my Sunpack 383 from B&H about 3 months ago.

 

What a lot of people don't realize is that these Thyristor based units are semi-automatic flash units. How it works is as follows.

 

1) you set your camera to manual exposure, and set your ISO on camera.

 

2) You set the ISO on the flash unit and it will give you a choice of 3 or 4 f/stop settings(the aperture) and the distances that the flash will be effective at that f/stop.

 

3) You set the aperture (f/stop) on the camera and then set the camera's shutter to the fastest stutter speed that will synchronize with flash units. (In your camera manual).

 

4) Start taking pictures. The thyristor acts as a light meter and when it calculates that adequate light has hit the subject, it shuts the flash down. (calculations based on f/stop, distance and ISO settings).

 

On the 383, even bounce flash is well exposed because the thyristor window always points forward. So if you point the flash head to the ceiling for a more natural light, the thyristor window is still aimed at the subject.

 

True, they are not foolproof, but very little in this life IS foolproof (Including the FULL Auto Flash units). So you do need to practice a bit before shooting something important.

 

These things work great and I think the Sunpack 383 is one of the best. Many wedding and commercial photographers use them because they are reliable, powerful, cheap, and they work with ANY camera that can manually set the f/stop and shutter speed. Hope this helps.

OOPPS! Sorry! Glad you worked it out though!

Maybe Jacob, but it's been two years that I've owned my E500 and I haven't had to do any dust removal yet. (nor any spot removal from my photos). I guess, it all boils down to how often you want to do it. Me? I want to do it as little as possible.

Steve Dunn is almost correct. When you tell PSE to open a RAW file, it lets ACR know, and then sends it to ACR for development. ACR can only save a file as a DNG.

 

After development, don't press the 'Save' button, instead, click the 'Open' button. This tells PSE your are done with ACR and opens the photo in PSE proper.

 

At that point, you make any changes that you want in PSE and you either 'Save' the image as a PSD file, or 'EXPORT' the file as a Tiff, jpg, whatever.

Let's not split imaginary hairs, guys!

 

While the OP asked for the fastest viewing, he did not specifically rule out products with other features. In fact, the products he mentioned as having already been tried WERE products with other features.

 

My vote is for ACDSee Still very fast, maybe still the fastest, but once you get the speed to a certain point, speed becomes irrelevant. So I'm reasonably certain it will be fast enough!

 

Plus it does a heck of a lot of other stuff as well.

Don't overlook the mid range Olympus brand lenses. They aren't necessarily any more expensive than the 3rd party lenses Two months ago, I bought the highly regarded Olympus 14 - 54 mm f/3.5 for just $279 USD.

 

Worth every cent! A wonderful lens that has significantly improved the low light handling of my E500.

The save for web feature of Photoshop elements is a really useful way to get started. Though, in time, you might want to move on to something else.

 

It calculates filesize and download time and allows you to preview the image in your favorite internet browser. With trial and error, you learn which methods of resizing work best for your photos.

 

In general though make sure your compression is around 50 - 80% Plenty good enough for web viewing. also, if you can, limit the width to 500 or 600 pixels. This will usually result in a 3 or 4 inch wide photo, pretty big on a display screen. (I suspect you are setting the 72 dpi, but leaving the actual image size alone, so if it is still a 7 or 8 inch photo, thats a LOT of dots.

Ronald Moravec wrote, "CS3 has the same raw converter as Lightroom and an improved Bridge. Why do you need both programs?"

 

If you consider Lightroom as merely a raw converter, you don't need both, since Adobe seems intent on keeping LR and ACR in sync.

 

However, Bridge and the Lightroom Library module are not 1 for 1 equivalents. A lot of people use ACDSee or equivalent as their organizer as well with some flavor of PS. LR gives them a viable all Adobe alternative that integrates with thier version of PS. Indeed, the importance of the Library module to Lightroom is supported by the fact that Library is the one module you can't get rid of. It is the heart of LR.

 

The printing, slideshow, and Web modules, while convenient, and do add some product diffentiation to the mix, are not as important to LR's uniqueness (IMO)

 

I guess the only rational answer to your question is, "it depends on what your needs are, and how you see LR fitting into your workflow."

If you haven't seen this review of the E410 by a current Canon user, I'd like to suggest you read it before making your decision. I think it is a very even handed review and a nice counterpoint to the tech oriented reviews of the hardware sites.

 

http://scaredofthedark.typepad.com/blog/2007/05/olympus_e410_re_6.html

I've come to the conclusion that Lightroom stumbles on the offload regardless of whether it is from the camera or from a card reader. I've taken to doing the offload with ACDSee V8.1 for speed and then importing the photos from the HD.

 

I hope the new Lightroom V1.1 that is due out soon will provide some serious improvements, because there is no way I can get rid of ACDSee just yet!

"I've played with the 330 and 500 and find it dramatically smaller and dimmer than a good pentsprism finder, even something like the old Canon 10D."

 

"All DSLRs are compromises, some better bargains or better compromises than others. It's simplistic to say that a 330 is equally a "very good camera" compared, say, to a D40."

 

Clearly, your experiences are different from mine. Have you posted any photos so we can evaluate?

I've been shooting with SLR's since 1967. I'm a middle-aged guy with typical middle-aged eyesight. I recognize that my E500 viewfinder is somewhat dimmer than the Nikon. However it is only a bit dimmer, and well within the limits of usability, even for a guy like me. Viewfinder brightness is a red herring argument.

 

The E500 and the upcoming E510 represent an incredible bargain in DSLR cameras. With Excellent image quality, great ergonomics,and unique features coupled with an extremely competitive price. But that doesn't make it right for YOU.

 

The simple truth is, ANY DSLR from one of the major manufacturers will be a VERY good camera. You could walk into a camera store blindfolded, be led to the DSLR section, and buy the first camera you came across and likely be quite happy with your purchase when it comes to the kind of stuff people post about.

 

Your choice of a camera is going to be a very personal thing, and will involve decisions that none of US can understand. We can't tell you why you should buy an Olympus. Only YOU can tell you why. If you have to ask us, than maybe it isn't right for you.

As much as I like Lightroom, I think for 'precise tonal work', I'd play it safe and go with CS3. CS3 would be the safe choice for sure.

 

Lightroom is still too, 'not ready for prime time'. It's a great product, with great potential, but it has a lot of growing pain to get thru, and us users will be the ones to feel that pain. If it were more mature, I would feel much more comfortable in recommending it. At this point, LR is more for the adventurous who have room for non critical production.

yes, but of course, you can't USE the photos. Why don't you download the free trial and try it out for yourself?

Clarification, my lens purchase was a 14 - 54 mm lens not a 12 - 54. Sorry about that! I got the 14-54 lens confused with the newly announced 12-60mm lens (which is expected to cost quite a bit more)

I have the same 2 lens kit as you. My first lens purchase was the Oly 12 - 54mm F/2.8 - F3.5 zoom lens. Even though it somewhat duplicates the 14-45 in "reach" it is a full f/stop faster and a bit sharper when wide open.

 

I use this lens a lot. Primarily because it mkes the E500 handle a WHOLE lot better in low light and it focuses closer, so close up photos are much easier (though true macros can't be done with this lens) The extra f/stop makes it focus faster and lets you shoot in lower levels of light. I paid less than $400 for this lens, which is very inexpensive for a lens of this quality.

 

I've found the kit telephoto to be pretty good. Especially considering it is a kit lens. I think it is an excellent general purpose tele-zoom. You'd need a longer lens for birding or other wildlife photos though, say something in the 200 - 600 mm range.

 

To tell the truth, I don't think I'd buy any additional lenses until I ran into the limits of the lenses I have. I say save your lens money until you start losing shots because the lenses you have can't cut it anymore. And at that point, you will know which kind of lenses you need. You won't be buying blind.

 

I'd buy a good tripod or an external flash unit first. Those will likely be needed before a new lens.

To answer your original question; The easy answer is, yes, you will not likely notice any difference in an image converted from raw. It should look like the retouched raw image.

 

However, that isn't the whole story. And the actual answer is likely to vary depending on the particular raw developer and the particular editors you use.

 

Each file format has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses, and any weakness of the new file format will be inherent in that new format from that point on.

 

For instance, jpg throws a little data away every time an open jpg gets saved. Not a lot, mind you, but a tiny bit, so over time, you COULD detect some image deterioration if you frequently re-edit and save.

 

And none of the non-raw formats have ALL the data that is contained in the raw image. They all represent the raw image as you have retouched it (i.e. how you have chosen to display that raw image), so any data in the raw image that isn't used in the final retouched version is thrown away at conversion time and the converted image can no longer access that discarded data.

 

That is why you either need a non destructive raw converter like Lightroom, or make sure you save a master copy version (i.e. unretouched) of the raw file, so if you want to go back and change the retouching, you have all the data that was originally available.

To expand on what Ellis has contributed. . .

 

It has been my experience/understanding, that when you send a raw file (or any OTHER file format for that matter) to an editor, that it gets automatically converted to that editor's native format anyway. And that converted image is what you edit. For non raw files, many editors are smart enough to auto convert the image back to the intake file format, others require an export to save as a non-native file.

 

And the reason Lightroom will create a non raw copy and send IT to the editor is to incorporate the changes to the image that you made in LR. Remember, Lightroom is non destructive to the original image, so the changes are saved separately and applied every time Lightroom pulls up that photo. So to make the changes 'permanent', LR needs to create a new, discreet image in a new file format.