glenbarrington

There aren't many 3rd party flash units that work with the Oly DSLRs in full TTL metering mode. I thnk Cullman makes one but it's almost as expensive as the Olympus Flashes.

 

BUT not all is lost! EXCELLENT 3rd party flashes exist that work automatically, have more power than the Oly flashes, recycle faster, and cost about a third of the Olympus Flash units. I just bought a Sunpak 383 for $79, it has variable power, a GN of 120 at ISO 100, automated flash, and tilt and swivel bounce capability.

 

I'm talking about the older technology of Thyristor flash units. Basically, you tell the flash unit what ISO you are using, and it tells you what f-stop to use. You manually set the f-stop and the shutter speed to 180/sec or slower and start shooting. The thyristor acts like a light meter and shuts the flash down when enough light hits the subject (based on the ISO/f-stop combination).

 

A lot of wedding photographer still use these things because they work with ANY camera, They put out a LOT of light, cost MUCH less than dedicated units, and they produce beautiful results with only a LITTLE extra work at the start of your shoot.

I love my Olympus E500, and I will probably buy another Oly when the time comes. But the Anti-dust features played very little role in my decision making process and will play very little in the future.

 

The E500 is a great camera in every way I could ask for. But please don't base your decision on this factor. I think how comfortable it feels in the hand is FAR more important than the anti-dust measures.

 

Look, if you buy a 'name' brand camera, you are going to get pretty good image quality and reasonable build quality at all price points. Get something that suits your hand and your shooting style above all else. That will prove far more valuable in the long run.

 

If you are new enough to photography that you don't KNOW what your shooting style is, then I'd say it probably doesn't matter. Just go with what feels right; your style will be formed by what equipment you have, your talent and interests.

I wouldn't use this flash on the Kodak. It sounds as if either the camera or flash is interpreting signals from the other imporoperly. If that is so, you run the risk of damaging either one or both.

Another good print utility is ACDSee's fotoSlate. (PC Only) You select a template, and then just drag and drop the photo onto the template. Resizing is automatically handled. It's color managed and once created, you can save the pages as a project, so if you need to reprint a week or a month later, you can get the same print as before. LOTS of built in templates, but if the templates that come with it aren't quite what you need, you can create your own templates. You can also add captions etc. cost, is about $30 US and there is a 30 day free trial available.

I suspect it depends on how you deal with your photos after you shoot them.

 

If you scan your photos as a finished product to digital and need to manipulate them as finished digital images, then clearly SOME sort of DAM product is required but your need to 'tweak' your photos will be limited.

 

I doubt you would need Lightroom if your scanned images are considered final products. The real appeal of Lightroom is the coupling of a photo organizer with a first rate raw/jpg developer. You could probably get by with a much less expensive organizer such as ACDSee V9.

 

OTOH, if you do a lot of post scanning processing, Lightroom may be as useful to you as it is to a digital shooter, in that the edits in Lightroom are non destructive and that no matter how many times you 'tweak' the digital image, you can always go back to the original image.

 

At this point, I would say download the free trial when it comes out and try to determine for yourself.

Just a follow up on my previous post. I have just taken delivery of a Sunpak 383 and I have successfully used it on my E500 without a Wein SafeSynch. It works great. I also have an Old Canon Speedlight 133A (an old compact thyristor unit) which also works quite well without a SafeSynch.

 

Myself, I like the thyristor units like the Vivitar 285HV and Sunpak 383. Lots of power, fast recycling times, and an automated flash process (You set the fixed f-stop and the thyristor measures the light output and shuts the unit down when enough light has been released). PLUS, they are about a third of the price of the dedicated flash units. A LOT of 'bang' for the buck.

I tried it, but I personally didn't care for it. maybe I'm too used to the traditional PS user interface and too enamored of the Lightroom interface, but I found it much more difficult to get the results I wanted with Lightzone than I did with Lightroom beta 4. I found it about as slow as LR.

 

It's probably worth trying though. But I wouldn't advise buying it without trying it out first.

It ain't the camera, it's you.

I've done some wedding photography and am thinking of getting more serious

about it. I have a few questions regarding the BUSINESS of wedding

photography, if you would be so kind as to answer them, I'd appreciate it.

 

1) do you do any contact management? i.e. identify bridal couples not yet

commited to a photographer and proactively put your name before them? This

works for the Database consulting business, but I'm not certain if it is a

viable approach for something as inherently personal and emotional as a

wedding. (I'm not talking advertising here, but sending targeted brochures to

specific people and doing cold call marketing, that sort of thing).

 

2) Do you use computer software to manage the non accounting side of your

business? As a database consultant, I can probably throw something together

in Microsoft Access or Visual Basic that will get me started, but I don't want

to do that if there are inexpensive options already out there that can get me

over the management learning curve more quickly than trial and error. Any

suggestions? Is it too early to be concerned about this?

 

3) Do you use an accountant? Do you use Quickbooks software, etc, or a

combination of both? Again, is it too early to be concerned about this?

 

4) How often do you review/revise your pricing structure? I assume that once

you have quoted someone a price, that price is good for a set amount of time.

But in general, do your prices remain stable for an entire year? Do you feel

comfortable with raising them in the middle of the wedding season?

Sorry! I meant NIMH batteries not Lithium Ion Batteries!

My 383 arrived from B&H yesterday and I'm about to go out and buy batteries

for it so I can play! However, the instruction sheet has raised some questions.

 

The instruction sheet recommends either Alkaline or Ni Cad batteries. Well,

where I live in the Midwestern USA, you can't FIND any Ni-Cad batteries. All

the rechargeable batteries are Lithium ion batteries. Which if I understand

the reasoning is they are less dangerous to humans and the environment and

have a superior power profile.

 

My questions are these. . . .

 

 

Have you any experience with the Lion batteries in the 383 and do they work

the same as/better than/worse than Ni-Cad and or Alkaline batteries?

 

Do the comparisons found in the instruction sheet between Alkaline and Ni-Cads

remain true for a comparison between Alkaline and Lion batteries (i.e. more

shots with Alkalines, but faster recycle times with Ni-cad).

 

Any advice or comments on this issue would be welcomed.

I agree that Lightroom is the way to go, and I am switching to it as soon as the commercial version is released. With Lightroom, the point is you could skip much of the PSD conversion/editing steps by dong much of the 'tweaking' at the raw/jpg level and never going to Photoshop at all. (Though most using Lightroom will likely use raw, it works just fine with jpgs as source photos).

 

Those photos that need more editing, can be sent directly to CS2 (or your editor of choice)with a right click, (actually a copy of the RAW file is sent with edits applied as a 16 bit Tiff) which you can edit and then save in any format your editor can write. The Editor saved version is automatically cataloged in Lightroom as a separate photo, the original is never touched in LR. This new entry can be archived according to your wishes.

 

However, that being said, if Lightroom JUST ISN'T for you, consider ACDSee Pro. It's probably got the strongest set of organizer functions of any of the work flow managers. (Which it sounds like you need if you don't want to modify your work flow). It also takes a more traditional approach to cataloging, managing, and modifying photos.

 

I personally don't like it's raw development compared to Lightroom, but there are plenty of people who do. So it might be worth trying the free trial.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you'll find any. However, most Photoshop plug-ins will work with the ACDSee Editor (Editor V4 Yes, that's it's real name - I know it's an idiotic name, but no one asked me!). Editor V4 will integrate seamlessly with 'Pro' so it will FEEL like those plug-ins are working with it!

I think MANY people will discover that Lightroom combined with Photoshop Elements as the bit level editor will serve them just as well as Lightroom and CS2 as the bit level editor. Of course SOME people will need some of the tools in CS2 or CS3, but many will be able to dump the CS series editor completely.

Anna, I can only tell you that I had the same problem as you describe and it went away when I started using SRGB. Calibration has nothing to do with this issue, Adobe RGB is a larger colorspace than SRGB so there are color values in ARGB that simply don't exist in SRGB. Since the internet uses SRGB, you HAVE to convert to SRGB to post to the web and when you convert, the ARGB color values that don't exist in SRGB are converted to the nearest SRGB values. This is the source of the washed out appearance.

 

As far as you aren't seeing problems when you visit other web sites, it may be you ARE seeing problems but since you don't know what the photogrpaher intended to show you, you accept whatever you see as a fair representation of what the photographer intended. This is what other people who view your washed out photos on your web pages will assume when they look at those photos. Remember, if we don't KNOW what the photographer intended then we can't fairly judge how well the photo represents that intent.

 

My advice is based on the prevailing thought on the use of color space. Please feel free to try or ignore my advice as your best judgement dictates.

The Vivitar 285HV is designed to work at a much lower trigger voltage than the original 285 (without the HV designation). I haven't heard of anyone having problems with the HV model on modern cameras. Many people use the Wein SafeSynch (about $50 USD)on third party flash units just to play it safe. The SafeSynch is a voltage regulator that converts voltage from any flash to 6 volts.

 

To my knowledge there is no 'official' public statement from Olympus regarding trigger voltage. But Oly cameras seem to work well at 6 volts and equally well with the Vivitar 285HV which I THINK I read somewhere has a trigger voltage in the neighborhood of 12 volts. (That's still pretty low, some older flashes were well into the 200 - 300 volt range!)

If you are editing your photos in Adobe RGB and then converting to SRGB for web display, then your colors WILL have a washed out appearance. There is nothing you can do about this, it is an immutable fact of life (for the time being!), Adobe RGB is a wider color space than SRGB and it isn't an exact 1 for 1 conversion.

 

If you are using Adobe RGB, and you post to the web a lot, I suggest using the SRGB color space for all your editing. Otherwise you will need to adjust the colors after conversion to SRGB.

 

Also, none of the major Web browsers are color managed. As a result, there is no way to guarantee that user 'A' will see the same colors on her/her pc that user 'B' will see.

The Vivitar 285HV is a fine Thyristor flash unit, but the HV model has been re-engineered for low trigger voltage. The Vivitar 285 (without the HV designation) is the original produced without regard to trigger voltage.

 

For old flashes with unregulated trigger voltages, you probably ought to buy a Wein Safe-synch (about $50 USD) just to play it safe. Considering you can buy a new Vivitar 285HV or a Sunpak 383 for about $80 USD, that may seem a false economy, though the Wein has features in addition to voltage regulation, so it may appeal to you anyway.

 

One way to use that old flash is as a slave unit. Buy one of those tiny slave triggers (between $20 - $100 depending on features/quality) and trigger it with your built in flash.

For a do it ALL program, Photoshop Elements 5 (PSE) is probably the closest thing you will find short of Photoshop proper. You don't even need DPP to process raw, since PSE comes with ACR, the same raw converter that Photoshop uses. PSE 5 provides just about everything you NEED to do quality photography. Organizer, raw developer, editor, printing, slideshows, scrapbooking, Web page creation, you name it, PSE pretty much does it.

 

However, that being said, many of the tools in PSE are somewhat limited. At some point, many people will want their post processing tools to do some things that PSE just doesn't do as well as other dedicated programs. Lightroom and Photoshop are two of Adobe's responses to that need.

 

Lightroom is an Organizer, Raw/jpg developer, Slide show and web page generator aimed at the working pro. It is as a developer that Lightroom (LR) particularly shines. when you make changes to your photos, it doesn't change the photo. Instead it stores the change instructions in the database and whenever you display or print your photos the changes are applied at display/print time. This 'non-destructive' editing allows the photographer to go back to the unedited original at any time. LR is also aimed at optimizing the flow of work photographer has to go through to get finished product 'out the door'. Many advanced amateurs are attracted to it as well as pros for many of the same reasons. The thing LR does NOT do is bit level editing like PSE or Photoshop CS2 (CS2). There are also 3rd party programs that do the same thing (imatch, iView, ACDSee, Bibble, CaptureOne, etc)

 

Photoshop CS2 (and soon, CS3) is an advanced Bit level editor. That means, like PSE, it can manipulate each little dot (pixel) that makes up a digital photo. Once you save an edited photo to the same file name, that photo is changed forever. Again, CS2 is the professional level editor. Aimed at the pro who needs to concern himself with the needs of Art directors and other buyers of commercial photography, its toolset provide MUCH more power, flexibility, and fine control than PSE offers. (While there are 3rd party editors that provide more editing power than PSE, none of them come even close to the power and flexibility of CS2)

 

While CS2 doesn't have a true photo organizer, it does have the Bridge program. Bridge is actually a viewer program with some organizing features built into it. Some people feel it is enough for their needs; others do not, and buy a true organizer like Lightroom or a 3rd party organizer like Imatch or ACDSee.

 

My advice is don't let yourself get 'stampeded' into buying a bunch of graphics programs until you definitely feel that PSE isn't doing the job for you. By then, you'll have a better idea of what tools you will need and which you WON'T need. Your buying decision will be based more on knowledge and not guessing.

Yes, (This is based on my knowledge of the Beta 4 version) you can right click an image in Develop and send it to Photoshop or to another editor. You will be asked if you want to send it with Lightroom edits applied or with no LR edits applied. After you answer, a 16 bit Tiff file will be created and sent to the editor of your choice. I assume this feature has not changed in V1.0 since Adobe has stated that LR is intended to work with Photoshop.

MS just bought the company out. It's available for both Mac and PC. It has a good reputation. It is assumed by many that Microsoft will be positioning iView as a competitor to Aperture and Lightroom.

Have you considered Adobe Lightroom? The Beta 4 is free for download, though it expires Feb 28, when the first commercial version is to be released. I think most people consider it a direct competitor to Aperture. I really like it. Now, Beta 4 isn't as good an organizer as, say, ACDSee, but most people who use both say it is superior to Bridge.

 

My understanding is that they have made some serious changes to the organizer portion of LR in V1.0. for instance, the 'shoot's' concept is gone, and they have moved to a hierarchical folders concept.

 

At this point, you may want to wait until the V1.0 trial version is released to try it. But if you are serious about photography, you probably ought to at least consider Lightroom, most people feel it is gong to be a major player in the Organizer/Raw developer market.

I really like the beta 4 Version. After I test the Vi trial, if there are no major problems I will probably buy it and use it in conjunction with PSE3.

 

In my opinion, $199 USD is a very fair price. Based on what I know today,I'm not as 'sold' on it at the $300 price. However, if I buy, it will be at the $199 price. Besides, the changes for V1 may be worth it, I don't know at this pint.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

 

Introductory Price of $199 USD till April 2007 After that $299

I think you are gong to find that opinions on the SpyderExpress2 just as mixed. These 'cheapie' calibration methods work for many people, but just as many are dissatisfied.

 

I have a SpyderExpress 2 and I don't think the results are any more accurate than using Adobe Gamma.

 

I would save my money unless I was really dissatisfied with my results and desparate enough to try anything.