yves_jalbert

For me tye Spyder2PRO was the choice to make as it has multiple monitor support and also has an excellent ambient light compensation utility in the calibration process (I don't always edit my work in low light).

 

I hear the Spyder2 suite is also great but never used it as I needed more. You can compare the features of all the 3 products Colorvision offers here and see which one is better for you.

 

http://www.colorvision.com/product-whichsolution.php

Well my answer to your question was based on two things. The title of your post is that 1. you need a monitor to edit pictures, and that 2. you want a good quality one.

 

To me that rules out a -used- CRT at the beginning; so I'm really surprised you got answers pointing out 21 inch monitors at 25$. That's an incredible waste of money, even if it's only that much. You can't edit pictures with a used CRT and expect to make prints that will look close to what you see on screen; or expect other people with calibrated monitors see the same results as you on their monitors.

 

The lifespan of a CRT monitor is a bit lower than an LCD; that is true. Purchasing a good used CRT monitor (4-5 years and over) means that you probably won't be able to calibrate it (maybe close if you are really lucky). And you can definitely expect some limitations with the brightness and contrast.

 

As a real life example, it takes me about 10 minutes to go through the full automated step by step calibration process of the Colorvision SpyderPro2 software and device. That's pretty fast considering all it has to do on it's own. Calibrating my Viewsonic is a breeze because it can be adjusted to 6500K precisely, and in no time. Doing the same on another monitor (4 years old - a NEC MultiSync) takes 10 to 15 minutes more. It just ain't precise enough. With a lot of playing around I'll get it somewhat close, but it's a real pain.

 

Long story short, it depends what you do with the CRT. If you say you edit pictures, do you mean you want the shots to look like the prints you'll get back from the lab (considering they won't make corrections)?

 

I didn't experience any problems with my monitors at all (but that's just me - a friend has one as well, same thing). And you can believe me I'm fussy when it comes to photos. I don't let the lab do ANY corrections on my shots. I do the corrections at home and send them to the lab for prints. What I get is what I see on my monitor. So for me, I find the shadow to highlight excellent. When I calibrate it with the Spyder Pro it covers these portions in details and you can set it very precisely.

 

I'm not trying to sell you on the idea of a Viewsonic. There are really good brands out there I'm sure. It's being used as a very good digital darkroom monitor for me. All I'm saying is that a new CRT monitor is better than a used one, depending on what you do with it.

 

I suggest you read more, especially in the digital darkroom forum. You'll find other responses and suggestions as this question comes around regularly.

 

Good luck with your searching.

 

Yves Jalbert

I guess I'm one of the few people who still use CRT's hehehe. Well rest assured that many people still use CRTs for the quality of the image you get compared to lcd screens (most professionals in photo labs and people in the graphic design sector). It's true they take longer to warm up and that the lifetime for a precise color calibration is shorter than an lcd. But unless you pay a fortune for an lcd that can actually be used to adjust photo work for prints (professionally), getting a new CRT might do the trick for now and be much less expensive.

 

Personal choice? I just got two Viewsonic 21 inch Graphic Series CRT monitors (G225fB). A bit big? yes. Heavy too? yes. But they are wonderful to work with. The Viewsonic Graphics Design Series is intended for professionals, mostly people who work in graphic design. And since it's available from 17 to 21 inch you'll find something in your price range.

 

If you change your mind and decide to get an lcd screen then save the money and get something that can be used for photo work. Something that can actually be used for photo edition so you can work on them and send them to the lab without corrections. They are still expensive but those top of the line lcds are catching up to CRTs reallllly fast.

photos will look a bit different on every monitors. On some they may look a lot more different. Emre resumed it well. There are many solutions. My personnal favorite is the one from Colorvision (I have the Spyder2 Pro calibration device). Long story short you can't do much about other people's monitors but you can ensure yours are calibrated to get consistent results and to make sure people see what they should see. It's also a must if you do any type of digital edition, or adjustments either for the web or sending to a lab (without corrections). Otherwise the work you do on an image is not what you see until the monitor is calibrated to show you the actual colors and results.

Van,

 

Thanks for the comment. There ain't much material left on my web site. What you see are mostly shows from last year, and these were all shot on a Canon 30D. Today I shoot with both a 30D and a 5D. What I like from the 30D is the speed in frames per seconds, especially for fast action (sports). The other thing is that some of the shows I go to can be a bit crazy in terms of working conditions :-) So in these rare situations I bring the 30D instead of the more expensive 5D. Otherwise I would use the 5D all the time for it's better low light performance.

 

I won't comment too much on shows as it would disract from the thread's subject (weddings); but yes with shows it's always under extreme low light, and there is never enough of it (even less and less these days). As if this wasn't enough, artists move, run, put instruments and mikes in front of their faces, turn their back to you. And they don't pose for you as they have a show to give first. So it's quite the challenge alright, which is a big part of the fun - delivering the goods as per a contract knowing it's going to be absolutely nuts. Starting in June I'll use the Mark III. The body is especially targeted at low light and action photographers, which is "exactly" what I need for work in my case.

<p><i>"Hmmm- ok. I guess I was wrong.</i></p>

 

<p>Well, I don't think you were wrong. Like I said composition has some basic rules but it depends very much on personnal taste as well. I think the shot is excellent for the moment captured; the face of the subject. It's original and funny. And yes you are right, the curtain is an important piece of the shot. It's needed as it helps to convey the message that he's shy a little bit but also curious about something.</p>

 

<p>The personnal opinion I was giving is that the curtain (again, in my opinion) was just too much important based on the reasons I gave. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the shot though. And I do like the colour as well. Black and white photos are nice but I like it more for serious portraits, close headshots and such. Not funny and lively material like this. So colour is the best choice here I think.</p>

 

<p>However what I did here (as a suggestion), was to crop the shot a bit to give less importance to the curtain. It also brought back the face of the subject on both vertical and horizontal lines (rule of thirds again). When I look at this shot, the first thing that immediately attracts my eye is the face of the subject and the expression he has. There is no way around it, that's what I see immediately. The curtain is still present and is an important element, but it doesn't take over the importance of the main subject.</p>

 

<p>You may like this version or not. Here's what I would have done with the shot, a simple crop adjustment. Nothing to change with the actual photo itself as I think it is a very good shot that could be used for profit.</p><div></div>

I second everything Paul Thomas said. Been following this thread and this is the best answer that I've seen so far. At first I was shocked to see recommendations for the Mark III; especially for somebody who doesn't even do this for full time work. But Paul's recommendations are excellent.

I don't know why so many people recommend to format the memory cards in the computer once in a while or even everytime (no offence intended Edward, many people will recommend the same thing that you did).

 

But -every- single memory card manufacturer will say that it's not a wise thing to do, and that it should -not- be done. The manufacturers go as far as putting it in their manuals (camera manufacturers) and on their web sites, in addition to the small manuals that come with the higher end cards.

 

Long story short, the reason is that the computer will often create an allocation table that is a little bit larger than the actual space of the card. Doesn't mean the camera won't be able to read it (sometimes it can, sometimes it can't), but filling up the cards to the max with pictures could create big surprises.

 

Again no offence intended, I know many people do it. I'm just trying to understand. You wouldn't format your computer hard drive with your camera to install the OS on it after if you could, would you? Why do the opposite? The card is the hard drive of the camera, why not format it in there?

 

I reply to so many people who say "all was going well but I have like 20 something corrupted images on my card and can't figure why". Not always the case but many many times this happens after the card was formatted with something else than the camera. It's only an opinion.

I personally don't think that duct tape or any "patch" solution can benefit to the question being asked here. While I can attest to the merits or gaffer's tape, which will save the day on many occasions, I think I wouldn't be a good idea to use it on a brand new product which should perform well (in order to make it work as it should). Considering the price of those right angle viewers, if it doesn't work as it should, return it and try to see if another manufacturer makes one that does. I took down the info from Doug and I'll definitely see if I can get the Hoodman one.

Unfortunately a frequent subject on the forums. It could be the card, the camera's connection with the card, the moment you removed the card from the camera or most likely as you said, -the card reader-.

 

Chances are the files are still recoverable unless it's really the card that was defective. For that, Rescue Pro is a software that comes free with many memory cards. Chances are it can recover the files, check on the web for it.

 

For practically no problems at all (for me at least, 2 years now and I take over 10,000 shot per year guaranteed), get a good card reader (the same as your card's manufacturer) and buy a good SanDisk, Lexar or something else known to be very reliable. I use the SanDisk Extreme cards and have never had anything closely related to such symptoms.

 

I'm sorry to hear that it happened to you. Also remember not to buy a single card with a huge storing capacity but many cards with less capacity if your work is very valuable to you. That could also save the day on the job, or on a trip for example.

 

I think Rescue Pro is your next step if there is anything that can be done.

I can understand that the camera will probably no longer allow you to see the content or save new pictures on it but you mean that it clearly tells you that it doesn't see a memory card at all? Try going through the camera menu anyway and select the format option. It should work by recreating the format table.

 

If that doesn't work you might tell us which memory card it is. Sandisk offers Rescue Pro which comes which the purchase of their Extreme III cards. It's been known to save the day.

 

Other than that I wouldn't know. Maybe somebody else will offer other suggestions.

I just checked this month's issue of Professional Photographer which is from the U.K. and they also confirm the same (end of this month). Same on both sides of the Atlantic. It's coming soon everywhere. Be very happy Tony, I know I am :-)

It's been known for some time now that the Mark III will be available (in North America anyways) between the end of this month and early June. That's what's announced in the industry, in photo magazine articles and in most photo stores. Your dealer should have this information unless he doesn't want to take a chance by telling you something that might change. Since it's the echo we hear from everywhere in the industry (from my experience anyway) I can guess or assume that it is probably right. I'm waiting in line at my dealer to get one as soon as it's out and he's still confirming end of may, early june.

Can't offer much input other that I went to two suppliers with excellent reputations recently, and they both told me the same thing. "Too many problems with the Canon Angle finder C" so don't buy it, we've had to return many of them this year because of the fit being loose. And I like Canon as much as them; and they are there to sell me stuff. So I guess it says a lot about that. But I'd have to research it more because I really wanted to buy it.

I'm back on this one to say I also agree with Jeff one hundred percent. And also to mention that you can search on the web for "music loops" or "royalty free music". Many web sites offer royalty free music that you can buy and use for your web site as long as you want. Before I removed the music from my web site (at the suggestion of many visitors) I had bought 3 music tracks for less than 50$ total and I was the owner of the tracks for my business use without any problem. You can even buy cd's full of tracks for something like 30 dollars according to the style of music you are looking for.

 

Having shot many music artists I can say that ninety percent of them are dirt poor. They do it because they love their art. The ones that made it big (that you see on tv) are the few that are very lucky. And even most of them are not rich. Only a few make it big. So respect copyright and the creation effort that goes in their art.

To me it breaks it. I feel it could be left in the shot as it's interesting to see that the little kid is kind of hidding behind it. But there are two thing I don't like about it, and they both relate to the importance or weight of it's presence.

 

First it's black and white and that is a strong element, so it attracts too much attention (a distraction from the main subject which is the little kid).

 

Second, the end of the curtain is almost on the vertical line (imaginary line, rule of thirds) and located in that right area of the shot. That's an area where my eye is naturally attracted instead of the main subject which is right in the middle of the shot. So again, the first thing that really attracts my attention when i first look at the picture is that curtain instead of the kid.

 

But it's a personnal opinion only. It's very hard to debate composition and it's often is a question of personnal taste.

I strongly agree with Matt that the strobe is probably getting overheated as well which is definitely not good for the unit. Make sure you check your flash's manual for the limit you can push it to. I had an SB-28 a couple of years ago (different model but powerful as well) and there was something to that effect. Now I have a 580EX (different brand entirely but still a powerful flash) and there are some written warnings as well. For example when shooting in stroboscopic mode (multi flash bursts) you have to stop after 10 of them and let it cool down for 10 minutes as it's pretty heavy on the unit. I once saw a wedding photographer shoot non-stop in flash bursts for everything and every time he could without stopping. Man oh man, I could feel the pain - of the flash unit that is :-) He was cutting down the duration life of that flash in five I'm sure.

 

Other than that I'm suspecting either the wrong type of batteries, or a hardware problem with the circuits in the unit. Your manual should also specify to put all new batteries when replacing them so they are on the same charge level. And don't mix battery types (using Ni-MH and Lithium at the same time).

 

I can't say I ever experienced that situation with my SB-28 but never shot it continously repetitively for long durations in completely dark situations (that could be an example as well).

 

Hopefully somebody else can add more suggestions.

The answer for me is yes. I have a portfolio with large photos that don't have watermarks but I carry that one with me all the time and it's for a presentation only. The potential client doesn't keep them. If they want to see an on-line version of it, an access is given to them to a portion of my web site and the shots are no more than small images at 72dpi. If I had to send in large prints as proofs there would be some kind of watermark on it, unless they are a current client and we are working together on a project which has an estalbished contract.

 

 

Now for suggestions you could sign the back of your photographs with a sharpie marker with your name just as a painter would for the front of his painting in addition to adding the copyright logo next to the name. And maybe even add the words - DO NOT COPY - as well. I doubt the client would still copy your shots with such warnings. And as mentionned by Matt adding at least a copyright on the front into a border reminds the client that your material cannot be used without permission.

This is a repeat from an answer I gave to somebody else in 2006.

 

Important about them is is they don't charge you a thing unless they are actually able to recover the data (most other companies don't). It was about memory cards but they provide the service for hard drives. From there it all depends on how much that data is worth to you. Most companies will send you a list of what can be retreived so you can choose instead of paying a fortune for all it......

 

From Sept 21. 2006.

 

I'm telling you in advance it's not cheap (see below), but maybe the product on the card is worth the expense.

 

These guys are a Seagate company and they go through amazing high tech operations when it comes to recovery. Believe me, they will open the card if needed and they will physically read each storage unit one by one if it can restore the content.

 

http://www.actionfront.com/

 

The typical recovery price for photo cards is about 250$ (physical intervention on the product), but it could go higher. I was told they won't do the work without informing you first, and getting your approval if it's more.

 

http://www.actionfront.com/os_removeable.aspx#r_pri

 

It's worth contacting them to see if they can help you out.

 

Good luck,

 

Yves

Hehehe, thanks for that post, it brought a smile to my face. It reminded me of the first time I had one of my shots posted in a newspaper and how excited and proud I was about it. Good times.

 

Cheers,

 

Yves Jalbert

Hi Rosalind,

 

Having owned Bowens equipment myself in the past (two 750W monolights) I can tell you that they manufacture top notch professional equipment . Bowens has been around for decades and you still find it in many professional studios across North America and the UK today.

 

That being said, there is something that caught my eye in your question. "on a very limited budget" and "people for fashion". Usually these two don't go together, meaning that if fashion is a strong interest of yours you will eventually need a lot more light. So keep in mind that your choice is very good (again a personnal opinion) but with time you'll want to add more to it (perhaps a 1000W head and a 750W or another 1000W). With fashion there is often movement involved, such as with hair or clothing, to make your shots dynamic. And if you talk about adding more people in the shot that's when you really need the extra light. The other thing about fashion is fast recycling times are expected. You don't want the model to wait for you or the flashes and you don't want to loose the perfect shot that happens during a fraction of a second.

 

But again, as I said. Just taking in account that it's Bowens and that your starting, is in my opinion a good choice if you can afford it. I'm guessing you'll have recommendations for Profoto as well, an extremely popular choice for fasion but that will cost you a fortune. If you need more light and can't afford more, maybe Alien Bees could be something to look into but I've never tried them.

I just say let the images do the talking. I had music on my site and I removed it. Why? Even if you find some song that the majority of people like, you'll always annoy some other people. You can't find something that everybody will like. Some people will say that it adds to the experience; I just reply that a web site should be a reflection of the portfolio you carry with you to client sites. You want as less distractions as possible. Your art is visual media. Try to mesmerize them with visual media instead of music. Personnal opinion only, but based on a lot of feedback from people that I got when I decided to do a little survey about that and the music on my site.

<p>

I agree with Bill that the cheapest way is to use a sharpie marker and sign the back, as a painter would do in the front of his/her painting. Add the copyright logo next to your name to remind people this is material to which you own the copyright. That method is effective and still looks professional.</p>

<p>

If you're willing to invest a bit of money and want a more consistent and professional look, you can do what I did.</p>

<p>

I use two custom made stamps that I ordered in an office supplies store. Some places offer this service, some don't, but it can be found locally in the yellow pages.</p>

<p>

Both are 1 3/4 by 3 3/4 which is ok for any photo size.</p>

 

<p>

The first one has this on it: Top line centered "- DO NOT COPY -" / Next line, left side "Photographer:" (rest is blank for a signature with a sharpie) / Third line, left side "Date:" (rest is blank again - sharpie) / and final bottom line, centered "copyright - © yvesjalbert.com". Having the web site is definitely not standard, but that's because it's also my name. You definitely want your name to show with the copyright logo or word.</p>

 

<p>

The second stamp is identical except the second and third line have been replaced with: (centered lower case, smaller font) "not for commercial use" and the third line is the very same right under it but in french.</p>

<p>

Both stamps are for different use depending on the client, job, material</p>

 

<p>And as for the ink used, it's basically the same as the one you find in the sharpie marker but in a bottle that you use to fill a stamp pad. That ink has many names but usually you refer to it as "ultra-dye permanent ink" or "ultra permanent ink" (few stores use the "black #555 perm" reference term). Long story short, the back of photographs doesn't absorb ink. So you want to order an ink that is pretty much identical as your sharpie's.</p>

 

<p>You should be able to get it, with your custom stamp. The stamp is rarely made at the office supply store. They have a provider they use for that service (Trodat being a very popular one). Tell the store you need to order that ink and need a pad without ink already in it for your stamp. They will tell you they don't know about that, or don't have it. Ask them to request it from the provider. They should have it and the store will sell it to you. Most the time they don't know because it's not something people ask about frequently.</p>

 

<p>

How much? Canadian dollars, I paid 45$ for a stamp (it's a large one, with a bottle of ink (14.oz if I remember correctly - good for thousands of stamps), and a pad. It should cost you less in the United States.</p>

</p>

 

<p>There are other ways to do it and as for the words on my stamps I didn't follow any legal directions. It's short, to the point, and the copyright part is standard. Requirements may be different for other countries or regions.</p>

Mainly as a backup camera? I'd choose the XTi for the 10MP instead of 8.2MP. Weddings often require you to provide large prints and second, it's small. If your main camera is a higher end body and you have a couple of L lenses the XTi will be appreciated for being small and light. But it still could save the day if a problem happens with your main body.

Same here. I use my 30D with my other cameras regularly and eventually you have no choice to clean it (or have somebody do it for you). Spending hours in Photoshop fixing spots would be insane. I waited almost a year after I got my 30D before cleaning it (some spots started to show after 10 months). I used the wet solution from VisibleDust and wondered why I waited so long. All gone. Image perfect. Love it.