philgeusebroek

<p>Sorry forgot the link:<br>

http://www.adobeereg.com/lp/reg_benefits/?/products/ACS4/en_US</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Which of the CS4 registration benefits would offer the most value?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Phil</p>

Hi,

If a Celebrity is giving a public speech and allows photography, would

I require the expressed permission of the Celeb to post the photo on

Photo.net or to sell it for stock?

So far I have kept my photos secret and would not publish without

permission. It seems morally correct for me to do this.

Thanks,

Phil

Is there a way to crop in Photoshop to a preset fixed aspect ratio?

I need to set one for photo stitches and panos, and then crop to a

4:5 or 4:6 aspect ratio for printing.

Given that you are shooting an EOS 20D with a 1.6x crop, choose your

ideal nature combo from the following lenses:<br><br>

Short:<br>

TS-E 24mm f/3.5L with 72mm 500D closeup, 1.4x extender, 72mm

filter<br>

EF17-40mm f/4L, 77mm filter<br>

EF24mm f/2.8, 58mm filter<br>

EF10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 77mm filter<br><br>

Long:<br>

EF100mm f/2.8 macro, 58mm filter<br>

EF135mm f2L with 72mm 500D closeup, 1.4x extender, 72mm filter<br>

EF70-200mm f4L, 67mm filter, 1.4x extender<br><br>

Please only choose from this set, no other lens suggestions pelase.

Also please explain why you chose what you did.<br><br>

Thanks!

I would get the EF17-40mm f/4L, the EF100mm f/2.8 USM macro and the EF50mm f/1.8. All are compact and sharp as hell. If you go by angle of view, the 100mm f/2.8 USM macro is smack dab in the middle of the 70-200mm range. I own both the 70-200mm f/4L and the 100mm macro. IMHO the macro is way more useful and easier to live with. Just as well-built as the white lens and likely sharper. Tack sharp for landscapes too.

The 100 is better for portraits as it's faster, and it's not so damned long and white. Also you never have to bother with closeup lenses or extension tubes to get close.

Will the 8mp EOS 20D provide enough image quality to be accepted in

most stock agencies?

Or can I submit photos of the animals to stock agencies provided

that no identifiable zoo buildings or signs etc are visible?

So it 15% more detail or 30%? It seems there is no clear answer to this.

I looked at the resolution test plots and being solid bars they don't really give an indication of how much detail would be retained in foliage.

I am thinking of retaining the 10D. It seems like the resolution is only incrementally better - nothing that would put me in a different league regarding selling photos. I've also heard lots about lockup problems even with 1.05 firmware, high-iso noise banding and flimsy battery grips. My 10D has never had any of these problems, and it has no stuck or hot pixels. Resolution is paramount to me. I hardly ever fire bursts, and the turn - on time is sometimes a pain but I can live with it.

Perhaps I will start saving and selling gear to get that EOS 1Ds MkII coming up instead. Seems like that would be all I'd need for a long time. Take off the thousand bucks I would spend in upgrading to the 20D and the body is 'only' 6K... :-P Selling some other gear would get me closer yet.

Was it worth it in the grand scheme of things, or if given the

chance to do it again would you skip and generation and hold on to

the 10D?

Please give reasoning for your rationale. I've read existing posts

but am interested in opinions now that people have owned their 20D's

for awhile.

Thanks much,

Phil

How much more detail can I expect to resolve with the 20D given a

sharp enough lens? The 20D has 30% more pixels and reportedly less

noise as well.

Can anyone comment? Thanks.

I am surprised more people haven't discovered the virtues of this lens. It's fantastic for portraits, sports and indoor events. It is sharper than every other lens I own. It works well with both of the 1.4x and 2x extenders to make a very sharp ~200mm f/2.8 and ~300mm f/4. Also works well with the Canon 500D closeup lens.

I think the TS 24mm f3.5L and the 135mm f2L with 1.4x extender and closeup lens could make a really interesting kit. The extender and the closeup lense fit the TS lens as well.

<i>This was just covered three days ago.<i>

Then perhaps you could post some links to the articles? I did a search on 'Stock' and 'resolution' and didn't come up with anything. Thanks!

Hello,

I am contemplating a new body after my EOS 10D and am wondering

whether 20D files would be generally accepted for stock submission.

Can anyone comment?

<i>I have both the 10D and 20D. After extensive testing I am not so sure the 20D is a good replacement for the 10D. Yes, the instant startup and faster reaction of the 20D is a substantial improvement over the 10D, but in terms of image quality the 20D is inferior to the 10D. I am not talking about resolution or high ISO noise here, but accuracy of the colors. With my 10D the colors are very accurate and natural looking, especially skin colors. The 20D just don't look as natural with an artificial plasticy look to skin colors. I can't imagine shooting a wedding with the 20D. I am seriously considering replacing my 20D with another 10D.</i>

I think the answer may lie in the guidebook here:

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

They mention that parameter 1 is redder than parameter 2. Have you tried parameter 2?

Get the 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. This is a wonderful lens for everything from landscape to portraiture to macros. It is tack-sharp at infinity. I have it mounted just as much or mor than my 50mm f/1.4.

Close-up lenses are a PITA. I have one for my 135mm f2L and 200 mm f/2.8L, and it is good quality but doesn't provide the convenience of the 100mm macro.

That said, a stop can be very important in low light. For sports it seems to me that you would need a longer focal length than 100mm anyhow. So I'd get the macro and just bump the ISO a stop when I needed to.

<i>It amazes me how some say this magnifies the effective focal length of their lenses. You've got to remember that all you are doing is cropping out the outer 1/3 or so of the image. You could really do the same thing with film and then tell yourself that your 300mm lens is now a 450mm. It's not. I couldn't imagine having 1/3 of my slides cropped out when I got them back from the lab, which is in effect what you get with the 1.5X crop factor (on Nikon). </i><br><br>

The thing is that you get a 1/3 crop with arguably better quality than uncropped 35mm film, and no extra work to do it. My EF300mm f/4L IS with 1.4x converter is similar to a full-frame 672mm f/5.6 IS, and I don't experience any of the loss in quality, or time and expense, incurred through scanning.

"If your main goal is 8x10's on your wall, then film is the way to go. It is tough to get a printer to match the quality of photo lab."

I did a test: Made 12x18's at the lab from a ressed up RAW 10D file converted to a 14mb JPG and the same test scene with Fuji 400 print film. I have been told over and over again how 400 speed film has the same grain size as 100 ISO, so figured this wasn't a problem. Plus I wanted to compare the film that would likely be in my EOS 3, and assumed prints would be better from print film.

The result: The 10D image blew the Fuji print out of the water in every regard. Grain was pronounced in the film version that obscured detail in the print, where the 10D print had no grain. Colours were muddy and dynamic range did not come close to what the 10D had accomplished. With the 10D enlargement I got back exactly what I did in photoshop. With the film print I got what someone else did or didn't do: Lame.

After three months with the 10D I am simply in a different reality. No scanning time means less pain. I shoot experimentally on a regular basis without worrying about the cost of pulling the trigger. I don't feel that I have to keep images because I paid for the processing. I have a feel for the my equipment that I was only beginning to achieve with the EOS 3 after a year.

***Instant review means I see my mistakes instantly and make corrections on the spot to be damn sure I got what I wanted.***

1.6x works great for me: 160mm f/2.8 macro with 100mm DOF. 216mm f/2. 320mm f/2.8 without breaking my neck or the bank. My 300mm f/4L with 1.4x extender is a 672mm f/5.6 IS machine. All of my 'new' lenses have the DOF of a lense of 1.6 times less focal length wide open. Oh yeah: I can change ISO every shot to maximize technical performance.

And don't even talk to me about high ISO performance.

You guys always talk about a camera just being a light box and that the image is what counts. So put your money where your mouth is and buy the light box that lets you take your best images! Figure out what works best for YOU. I did, and won't be using much film anymore.

I have the 135mm f2L and think that it may be your best bet as well. The 10D makes the thing even more useful.

The 100 macro would be my second choice. Seems a bit slow for what you want but it's a darling to use. Sharp in every situation from mountains to people to jelly beans.

Phil