jeffrey moore

<p>Dick Arnold, thank you very much for your thoughtful and in-depth reply. I've ordered the book, and look forward to diving in. Thanks to everyone who replied.</p>

<p>Thanks Jos, I'm reading Victoria Bampton's "Quick-Start Guide" as we speak.</p>

<p>I just purchased Lightroom 6. I am completely new to the software, and would like to solicit opinions here on what you think is the best way to learn Lightroom. I am open to any suggestions, video tutorials, books, anything. I have taken a look at some of the tutorials at lynda.com, and the offerings there look intriguing. Any thoughts from anyone who has been down that path? And if you are partial to learning from books (like I am), do you have recommendations for your favorite Lightroom books?</p>

<p>Thanks Stephen. Looks like just what I'm looking for.</p>

<p>A Konica manual? Not sure that's what I'm looking for.</p>

<p>So, I just gave my niece (she's in her 20s) my Nikon D200 and a 50mm lens. Her experience in photography is limited to using a point-and-shoot camera, and almost always in full auto mode. I also gave her my Thom Hogan guide for the camera. Does anyone have a book recommendation for a true beginner who's about to begin using a SLR camera for the first time? I'm thinking something really basic that will teach her the fundamentals, such as the relationship between aperture and shutter-speed, etc. Thanks.</p>

<p>I have a Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 lens. It seems the AF motor has gone kaput. The cost to repair has been quoted at $650. I am leaning toward foregoing the repair and purchasing a new AF-S 16-35 f/4G ED VR instead, which can currently be had for $999. I mainly shoot landscapes; losing a stop doesn't mean much to me. Also, I've read very good reviews on the 16-35. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Thanks for all these helpful responses. I'm now armed with more knowledge. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>I have been using an Epson 7600 for several years now. If I go more than a couple of days without printing, I get many clogged nozzles. And it always takes several cleaning cycles to rectify the problem. Nothing new here, right?<br>

I'm about to ditch the 7600, partly because it's obviously long in the tooth. Also, I rarely print larger than 16 x 20 anymore. I'm pretty sure I'm going for the Epson 4900. To users of this printer, and newer inkjet printers in general, are clogging issues improving, or is it just as bad as it ever was?</p>

<p>With the $250 rebate on the 3880 and free shipping, this printer can be had for $869. I have been leaning toward buying the 4900, but that $869 price on the 3880 looks pretty appealing to me.</p>

<p>With the ability to use 200 ml cartridges on the 4900, the ink cost over the long haul would be slightly lower. That's the most significant difference to me.</p>

<p>Any thoughts/recommendations from those who have used either or both of these printers?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Brooks, thank you, thank you, thank you!</p>

<p>Thanks again Garrison. I'm not putting together a machine; I already have one, described in my first post on this thread. I have one 750gb HD in my system; it's the main drive with the OS and all my applications. I have one open bay in the box; that's where I'm going to add a drive. My image storage is on a pair of 2TB external drives, one the primary, the other for backup. My external storage drives are set up as JBOD, not RAID.</p>

<p>Thanks, Garrison. I'm with you on the Seagate drives; the only HD failure I've ever had in my life was a Seagate 7200.11 series drive, a month ago. Can you give me an example of one of the smaller, faster and cheaper drives you have in mind. My thinking from the beginning was to use a small drive, since I was planning on using it only for scratch disk space, but I was told to go to a bigger drive because they are faster. Clearly, I'm an amateur on this. :~)</p>

<p>Thanks, John, for the response. Yes, I get it that partitioning the drive won't be any faster, and will likely be slower. The question I have is, Is using a disk of this size (750gb) strictly for Photoshop scratch disk, and nothing else, silly? Or put another way, If I partition only part of the disk for scratch disk space, and use the rest of the drive for other purposes, will I still get good performance? And, again, given that I am sometimes processing 4x5 scans, with multiple layers, resulting in 2-3gb size files, how much of this drive should I partition for scratch disk space?</p>

<p>You've convinced me to go with a faster/larger drive. I'm looking at the Western Digital Caviar Black 750gb 7200rpm 32mb cache SATA internal hard drive. Is this a good choice? Now, for my follow-up questions. Keeping in mind that Photoshop performance, not storage, is my highest priority, would you use this HD for scratch disk only? Or should I partition the drive for scratch disk and use the rest of the drive for normal HD use? And with the parameters I mentioned above (occasional processing of 2+gb files), how large of a partition should I allow for my scratch disk space, assuming you would recommend partitioning.</p>

<p>Again, thanks for your help. And sorry these questions are a little too elementary.</p>

<p>O.K., I'm running Photoshop CS4 (64-bit) on a Dell Studio Windows Vista (64-bit) machine, with a 2.4ghz quad-core chip, with 8 gigs of RAM. I mostly process images from my Nikon D700, sometimes with several layers. But, I also shoot 4x5. A 4x5 color transparency scan can be around 600mb, and with just a few layers, the file size can surpass 2 gigs.<br>

<br /> I understand that the Photoshop scratch disk performs better when assigned to a different physical drive than the OS swap file. And I have an open HD bay in my box<br>

.<br /> So, here's my question. Would it be a total waste of disk space to dedicate a new HD to the scratch disk and nothing else? New Egg has a Western Digital Caviar Blue 160gb 7200rpm SATA drive for just $40. That's not much. So, I'm thinking about getting this drive for use as my PS <em><strong>scratch disk and nothing else</strong> </em> .<br>

<br /> Also, I have plenty of storage for my images: a pair of 2TB external drives--one for the primary, the other for backup (JBOD, not RAID). Both are connected via eSATA interface. Does the fact that I store all my images on these two external drives slow down performance?<br>

<br /> I'd appreciate your thoughts and input on these two questions. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks all; the Evening book it is.</p>

<p>Thanks Ellis. I will definitely explore those two links; you're always a trusted source for reliable info. The Evening book is one that I was considering, along with the Scott Kelby book.</p>

<p>I just bought a new computer, and I am upgrading (from CS2) to Photoshop CS4. And I'm also going to give Lightroom a try for the first time.<br>

What's your favorite Lightroom 2.0 book?<br>

Thanks.</p>

What is the maximum memory CS4 can address when running on (64-bit) Windows Vista? I scan 4x5 color

transparencies and work with some very large files (> 1.5 gb).

 

I'm about to buy a new computer when I upgrade to CS4, and I've got to make some confuguration decisions.

Thanks for the help.

OK, I need some help here. I turned on my computer yesterday and my monitor

profile is no longer being linked (for lack of a better term). To the best of

my knowledge, I have not changed anything in my system. I use the OptiCal

Spyder on Windows XP. I calibrated my monitor again, saved the profile as the

same filename and in the same folder as always. After finishing the calibration

process everything is fine. But after turning off my system and then booting up

again this morning, same thing--no profile. Any assistance would be greatly

appreciated. Thanks.

Melanie, one other option you may want to check out is Really Right Stuff's L-bracket in combo with their circular flash bracket. I use this with my D200 and like it pretty good. This combo will also let you go either horizontal or vertical.

"I don't believe there's a way to get the LCD to display color photos in greyscale."

 

Yep, there is. In the "shooting" menu, and under "optimize image," select "B/W Mode." And as Carsten stated, the raw data is unaffected. I find this an effective technique in pre-visualizing a b/w image.

The diameter of the 3010 is 8.25".

Well, now that I'm back I can answer my own question. In the higher elevations around Highlands and Cashiers there was very little color left, which is not surprising at this late date. But at lower elevations and down in the valleys the color was still quite good, suprisingly good, in fact.

 

In this photo, however, there is hardly any color. :-)<div></div>