felipe

<p>My 2 cents:<br>

Posting the kids' b-day photos online with copyright language was way overkill. If the images were a gift as you say, their owner is the neighbor and it's up her to decide if making them available online is a concern or not. You sound too worried about the use (or misuse) of your images to do this kind of favor to anyone. What you did is the equivalent of giving someone a photo album of a party they've been to with a legal note about copyright. Think about it. It's crazy.<br>

As for the hockey game, either you pose as a professional photographer charging for your services or as a friendly neighbor doing someone a favor. If you did it expecting to be paid for the prints, you should have stood your ground when they asked for the images b/c they were not for "fancy prints." You could have said: "Sorry, but we agreed that you would pay for prints and I spent several hours selecting the pictures and editing them." Instead you gave your neighbor the images anyway, so don't complain about it. Business is business. That's why you don't mix it with friends, family or neighbors! (You can also tell by your story how little value verbal agreements have. You remember agreeing to be paid for the prints but they don't seem to.)</p>

<p>Am I the only one who likes Vista? I use it both at home and at work, works great for me. And it's pretty.</p>

<p>But aside from personal taste, which I can't help you with, the three main reasons to get a PC are price, price and price. The one thing that I see going on for Macs is that they're less prone to virus infections.</p>

<p>Most people seem to be concerned with "quality for the buck." I think the most bang for the buck would be a lens that gives the photographer a good combination of price, focal lenght options, quality and aperture range (> than 5.6). The EF 50 f/1.8 is wonderful because it's cheap, good and goes all the way to 1.8, but it doesn't provide much on the focal lenght dept. The best bang for the buck would have to be a zoom. The 24-105 mm strikes me as a great combination of focal lenght range, aperture range and quality for a reasonable price.</p>

This is an old thread but in case someone wanders here in search of advice.

 

All suggestions are good (you can't go wrong in Brazil) but you can't see all of them. The country is bigger than the lower 48 and flights are expensive. Getting to some of the areas mentioned (Pantanal, Noronha) are costly and takes a day or two at least.

 

In any city/area be very mindful of your surroundings, especially if you're planning to do street photography. Getting robbed at gunpoint is not an unusual experience in Brazil, moreso if you are flashing photo equipment/clothes/jewelry. I'm not exagerating. Any Brazilian has had it happen to at least one member of the family.

 

Time of year matters a lot. The winter (June through Sept) is usually dry and can get cold (40s, maybe 30s) in the south (from São Paulo onwards). Summer (Nov-Mar) is hot, humid and rainy. If you're unlucky it could rain the whole time (Jan/Feb are worse). And contrary to what was said São Paulo can get VERY hot (100+) and, sorry, but it's nothing like NYC. I should know as I lived in SP for 24 years.

Personally I think it's the best general purpose lens for the 400D and I'd be curious to hear if anyone has a better suggestion for $300. As for print size, I'm pretty happy with my 16x20's though I'm sure a prime would be better (big surprise). In my experience, at the wide end vignetting and barrel distortion can be an issue (especially the former), but chromatic aberration is not a problem.

Just another quick comment: you have no tele lenses. Adding one of those would improve your arsenal more than replacing the body.

I ask myself Juergen's question every time the latest camera is released and the answer is always "no." I can get nearly all the photos I want with my Rebel XT and three lenses. (And no, I don't need a dial in the back.) Not that I love everything about it (wouldn't mind better focusing under low light), but'll keep it until it breaks. (I admit sometimes I wish it'd break down so I can satisfy my lust for a newer/better camera, but thankfully it's still working!)

I've also wondered about this. To compare the two we need to do some many assumptions about user habits that it's

not even worth it. Do you print the digital files? Do you scan your negatives? How often do you replace your

equipment? How do you store your digital photos?

 

If I had to venture a guess I'd say digital is more environmentally friendly.

 

1. The manufacturing and disposal of digital cameras have a bigger environmental footprint than that of

non-digital ones due to the extra electronics and batteries.

 

2. After you bought the camera, film seems to have a larger environmental impact. Sure those batteries use

energy, but so does the production and processing of film, which have more significant impacts than energy

consumption. So the more you use the camera, the largest the benefits from digital would be.

 

3. You might argue that storage of digital files have a long-term environmental impact as it would require energy

and hardware. If you scan your negatives this advantage would obviously disappear.

 

For a professional photographer the biggest impacts would not be related to film vs. digital, but more with

travel, studios and lighting equipment.

 

There are clearly a lot more things to consider. Hopefully someone who really know what

they're talking about will jump in and enlighten us.

Tiny walled town on the top of a hill. Beautiful. Not sure if it's lesser known, but I had never heard about it until I went. When I visited back in January I saw some people climbing the hill on their bikes. Looked like a fun ride.

About a month ago I picked up some slides at the National Geographic

photo lab in Washington, DC, and they made me sign something saying I

had inspected the film and everything was okay. I wouldn�t be writing

to this forum had I not been stupid enough to sign it without looking

at my slides, only to realize a few days later that they cut the film

in the wrong place (all seven rolls) taking about a tenth of each

frame out.

 

I blame no one but myself for signing what I signed without looking

at it, but it hit me: in about three years of photography I have

never had to sign anything like that, including that very lab.

 

Anybody else got their photos ruined by the NGS lab in February of

2004? Is it possible that they made me sign that because they knew

they ruined my slides? Or am I just paranoid?

I just moved up from the EOS 300 to the 30 after more than two years shooting with the former. Yes, the 30/33 is a better camera, but I don't think I ever missed a shot because I didn't have it. I did miss many shots because I didn't have a telephoto. I personally (please note the "pesonally") think it's better to have a lower-end camera with two more lenses than a higher-end one with just one lens. If I had to give up my long lens to upgrade to the EOS 30 I wouldn't have done it.

I second the previous post recommending the north rim, but I would not skip the south rim altogether. If you can go in the fall instead of the summer it will not be as crowded (though still more people that you'd like, esp. at the SR) and it will be a little cooler (though still hot if you hike down). Plus the fall colors are beautiful. I suggest hiking down a few trails as it will give you a different perspective, even if you do not go all the way to the bottom. I used only ISO 100 (Sensia) and 50 (Velvia) and didn't miss anything faster. But I had a tripod. I greatly benefited from having a wide angle (20mm) and I recommend it.

Vandit -- the forest is not too thick. You can expect some visibility (although low light) inside it. Because the canopy blocks most of the sunlight there isn't much undergrowth in the forest floor, unless you're near a river or close to the forest edge. I have some literature on the Amazon if you're interested in checking it out before you go there.

 

Thanks to everyone for contributing with an answer. I realized I need to pay more attention to the macro opportunities and now I will. I can't wait. If you have more thoughts, please keep them coming.

I�m going to spend a little more that a month in a remote area in the

Amazon starting this November and I don�t want to miss out on the

wildlife. I�ve decided that this trip justifies buying a good

telephoto lens and maybe a camera with better autofocus. I also need

advice on chosing a fast film.

 

- What is a good fast film for shooting wildlife? I�ve seen some

discussions comparing Provia 100F pushed two stops with the 400F and

users tend to favor the 100F. What�s your oppinion? Would you rate it

at 320 or 400? What other fast film would you recommend? (I�ll be

taking many rolls of Velvia.)

 

- Does anybody uses a filter to enhance the green of the forest? John

Shaw recommends 81B and Green CC. Have you used this combination or

have other suggestions to make the green stand out?

 

- Should I go for the Canon 300mm f/4 + 1.4 Canon TC or the 100-

400mm? I�m leaning toward the former, but I like the convenience of

zooms. Is there any reason you would go for the 100-400mm?

 

- Finally, can the heat and humidity of the jungle make the Rebel

2000 fail? I�m considering the Elan 7 as a more dependable camera

since I�ll have no access to repair. Would the Elan be significantly

better for shooting wildlife?

 

I have a Canon EOS 2000, Bogen tripod with ball head, 20-35mm f/3.5-

4.5, 50mm f/1.8, 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and 550EX flash.

 

Many thanks for your input.

Can anyone recommend a good place in the DC area to enlarge/ make prints from slides? What is the best way to do it? I've tried having my slides scanned and then printed at Penn Camera but I wasn't very pleased with the results. To have a single slide printed on a 11X14 film will cost $30. Is there a cheaper place/way to get good enlarments? Thanks...