b_christopher

The (blending)mode of a layer is the drop down list on the layers pallete. Normal is the default.

 

Is it possible that your font size is too small and file resolution too high to be resolved on screen in "fit on screen" view?

 

After you select the type tool, before typing anything, try increasing the font size to, say, 100pt. Then ensure that the color for the type is something other than your background color.

If the camera has a fresh set of batteries, then try another set of fresh batteries(and film.) If the problems still persist, and you still want a solution, a thorough inspection/repair should be a good suggestion. Canon's factory service is reasonably priced, if convenient for you.

Set preferences for it.

Menu>Edit>Preferences>Display & Cursors>Normal Brush Tip/Full Size Brush Tip

Ensure that the text color is not the same as the background layer and that the text layer is in normal mode.

Thank you Q.G.

Happy to know that it's back up.

The Profoto compacts do have an umbrella mount. Built into the body of the unit, in the form of a hole. Does this help you in your decision?

I've noticed similar symptoms when color correcting. On all skin images, the magenta is influenced by the yellow adjustment, some more than others. I don't know why this happens, nor do I really care to learn it today, but I have noticed that the effect is less apparent when the sample size of the color sampler tool is increased to 5 by 5 average, and not 3 by 3 average. One other technique is to move the sample point to a different position, near the original position, then making adjustments. It seems to me that with some images, especially underexposed images that have been brought up in processing, you just have to go back and forth on the yellow and magenta adjustments until you get the desired values. Much luck.

Sure looks like Fuji Velvia(50), but I guess it is possible with a sensor too. This image shows a heavy blue cast. Light leans toward blue under blue sky and subject in shadow. Notice that no specular highlight is visible on any of the surfaces. The cars are in shadow. The "look" can be enhanced with curves and filters in ps.

If you've already given up, I'll respect that. But if you're wanting to learn a little bit more, people are here with knowledge and willingness to help you. So, if you haven't yet thrown those lights out the window, and want to try again, with solid results, keep your mind open and interact. First, tell us what camera model and make you're using, whether you have a lightmeter, how you placed your lights in your first try, etc.. The more information you provide, the more we can help you.

Emma, I didn't mean to mislead you in making you believe that a 65-100mm macro zoom existed. Then again, it may, I just don't know. What I meant to say was that a prime macro lens, anywhere from 65mm to 100mmm, will allow you to get in close to your baby subjects and still allow proper focus. Many of the zooms and non-macro lenses have a minimum focusing distance that will disallow you to get close enough to get the detail shots. I understand that Nikon has a nice 65mm macro that many portrait photographers use for babies in studio. I use a Canon system and use the 100mm macro for baby bits. <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5782974">This image shows two photos shot with the 100mm macro in studio

I'm still trying to figure out why people care about ratings so much. I think rating of images should be reserved for contests and such where the essence of an image must be quantified. And for feedback, specific written critique seems to hold the only real value. So why is it that people care much about the ratings? What is the photographer looking for from it and how does he make use of it?

Emma, that 28-70 2.8 is probably going to cost (US)$1000+. If you're looking for a lens in the $400 - $500 range, a good macro, 65mm - 100mm, will also allow you to get in real close and take some nice portraits too.

Just curious, did you find the new owner?

Edsel, with all due respect, that was a rhetorical question :-)

Pnet's been cracking the whip lately... Is it tax day which is creeping up that's got Pnet worked up? :-)

That's a great picture Tom. Both warm and neutral.

Not wear white or black? What about the millions of weddings where the groom is in a black tux and the bride a white dress? How did those photographers do it? How do they get detail in both the whites and blacks, in the same scene, now with digital cameras? If your processed image is showing 255 in the whites, there's nothing. No info. None of the best programs, ps tools, or retouchers will be able to bring out what's not there. The key is for you to test the exposure index for your sensor. Perform a test. Have a subject wear a white shirt holding a black something(both with some dteail), put an 18% gray card on a stand and use your preferred method of exposure metering. Bracket up and down several stops. Take notes of exposure. Process all images so that gray card is same value. Then check for detail in both the whites and blacks. 'Tis the only way for you to know exactly how many stops over and under you can expose your sensor and still have detail in the whites and blacks.

What's the second in line in the reviews? I am happy with my 2000 ANSI lumens Canon LV-7230, but its lamp blew about 6 months ago, so I don't get to use it now. I should just fork out the $450 to replace it. Just telling you so that you know to expect such costs down the line. They all use the lamps, they're all several hundred dollars a piece.

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.bchristopherlee.com">B Christopher Lee

My bad, I'm a little dense tonight, I didn't realize you were simply looking for confirmation.

<p>

Perhaps the videographers that have approached you are the ones you should question the value of and not the videography business. I think, if you provide your clients a product that they will want, on top of your photography, then chances are, you'll make more business. Video is a very powerful medium and can be a profitable product. I think it would be a misfortune for you to discredit it. Are there other video professionals that you can talk to for a joint venture? <p>

Yes, that's a nice portrait of the mall area. It is taken from across the river in Rosslyn, Virgina. There are several office and government buildings where that view can be seen. Whether you'll be able to get to them is another story. With the security the way it is around Washington, unless you know someone or have high security clearance, it's tough to access such spaces. Just as an FYI, I think the ultimate vantage point for that shot is on the roof of 1099 Wilson Blvd, Rosslyn, Va. (Google map it :-)

 

<p>

There are <a href="http://travel.state.gov/passport/guide/setup/setup_873.html"><U>guidelines</U></a> for passport photos. They're just loose.

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.bchristopherlee.com">B Christopher Lee

If the White Lightening and Alien Bees are WAY out of your range, I say stick with natural light and shoot the hell out of it. If they're just out of your range, then I say, save a little and get no less. In photography, like many things in life, you get what you pay for. There are reasons why the cheapies and crappies exist and certainly, there are reasons why the Elinchroms and Profotos cost thousands of dollars. A good rule of thumb? Buy the best that you can afford.

You should charge somewhere in between what you're comfortable with charging for your work and what the client can afford. You should consider the true value when a client ONLY wants the digital file(less work/cost for you), but more value for the client than buying prints(they print as many as they want.)

R Togog,

The key is to UNcheck the Resample Image selection in the Image Size dialog box when changing document resolution or Width/Height. Done this way, your pixel dimensions stay as the original.