navarra

Sam, usually images coming out of a DSRL need to be adjusted before printing. I won't go into technical details, but usually digital images look softer than you would expect so you need to open them up in pshop and use the Unsharp Mask filter to make them look better. Compact digicams have in-camera software that sharpens the images, but if you want the best quality you don't want an automated software to mess with your images.

Canon cameras tend to give a "neutral" looking color as well. If you want your pictures to have more saturation and contrast, you need to do that in photoshop as well. Again this process can be automated in-camera, but again you don't want your camera to choose how your colors will look like.

I retouch 100% of the images I'm going to print. Be it only a minor unsharp mask or curves adjustment, but 300D images (or 10D) need to be retouched. Not to say that you might start to shoot RAW (wich I still consider useless but most people don't) wich means even more post-processing.

That's just to say that if you really don't want to spend time on the computer elaborating images you might still feel disappointed by a dslr.

Simone

What were you expecting? You bought a COMPACT camera, and you compare it to an SRL. The red eye problem comes from the position of the flash, it has nothing to do with digital, and compact film cameras have the same problem. Now I'm not saying the problems aren't there (you didn't even mention how bad the ISO400 noise is on the S45) but if you want a small camera you get some drawbacks.

Most of my pictures in my portfolio are taken with an S40. I don't say they are any good, but sure they don't have great technical problems. Hope you'll find the best camera for your needs soon!

Simone

I think the best single lens would be the 50/1.4

I got the 50/1.8 second hand for 40� (costs 130 new here) and it's the lens I use most. It's sharp, fast, small, light and cheap. The 50/1.4 is more expensive but even better. Of course a single lens will not cover all the situations, but if I really had to choose only one I wouldn't think twice.

Simone

I have a 300D. The 10D has some added capabilities, like mirror lock up, 9 pictures in burst mode against 300D's 4 pictures, second dial wheel that will help you choose settings faster in manual mode and a couple of focussing/exposure options that were removed in the 300D. In my eyes, the strongest point for the 10D is the iron body, while the 300D is pure plastic. This said, for me none of these added features is worth 500$ (in Italy you can double this value). If you need them, go for the 10D. How many times have you used those additional features in your current film camera? In my case, I don't even use some features of my AE-1 like DOF preview or the "backlight" button!

Simone

Film cameras usually give better contrasts and colors. For black and white, just shoot film and bring it to a pro-lab.

Digital cameras usually have much less grain (noise) than film. You can change ISO on the fly and you have much more control over the final result (you do the "darkroom" work for color, not the lab). For black and white, you CAN get excellent result, but you have to work on it and buy an adequate printing equipment (labs don't print good B&W yet).

Needless to say, if you want larger formats than 35mm forget digital.

Simone

Never heard of that gamma thing, I'll check it out.

Simone

That's an idea David, never tought of that! Now we need to remember our gray card for exposure, white for white balance, high contrast card for focus and black one for shutter vibration :)

I have a 300d and the shutter is much softer than that of older cameras like the AE1 I have, but I didn't try long exposures. I don't really feel the vibration, but I guess that an heavy tripod could help keeping the camera steadier.

Simone

Well, here in Italy you would pay almost twice as much for the 10d than you would for the 300D for these added benefits. I'm just telling Norman that I'd rather save on the body and spend on the lenses, since the body will be old in a couple of years while the lenses will last for decades.

By the way, the 300D has DOF preview, the second wheel is "emulated" pressing a button, the single point metering is less accurate than spot metering but it's there.

Simone

Wow, that was an useful response!

I knew that was going to be a pain... I'll take a look on the websites you pointed. I'm thinking about getting a printer anyway, so I could try the ink solution and see if it's good for me.

If somebody could point me to a printer with a good price/result ratio to use only for B&W maybe this will make things easier.

I'll see if I can live with the "dual" solution as well. A film camera for B&W + digital for the rest. The problem is that sometimes you get some digital pictures that would look so good in B&W and it's a shame not to be able to get a decent result.

Thanks a lot!

Simone

Dead pixel are always there, it just depends how many are there and how visible they are. In long exposure it's most likely that some dead pixel will start to get annoying.

See if it's really a problem for you. If it's really bad, the guarantee should cover that. They usually modify the in-camera software to "delete" those pixels, so that you no longer see blue/green/red dots.

Simone

I have a 300D, and while some people complain about the lack of functions on the camera I feel that for many this is just an excuse for their lack of ability. You don't really need 3 exposure modes but just an exposimeter and a brain. Unless you are doing studio shots where a different range of equipment is needed, the 300d will do just fine.

I use an old AE-1 as well and I use the in-camera meter to "study" the scene, manually set aperture and exposure and usually get good pictures. All the additional functions are nice if they are there, but really not something I couldn't live without.

If you are a pro (sell your pictures) buy the best you can afford. A 1Ds would be the ideal if you got the cash. If you aren't a pro, just buy the cheapest body (and the 300d is the cheapest right now) and save money for the next big thing or for some better lenses.

Simone

I feel the B&W conversions I do from color digital images (using a

300d right now) are of good quality. The problem is the quality of

the prints coming from the lab is very bad. They are all washed out,

light gray prints.

I guess they use the same color machines for B&W, and the result is

less than optimal while the color prints look fantastic.

I know that a solution is to print with a printer and different

black inks, but I don't really feel like investing money and time if

there is an easier way. I just wanted to know if there are

laboratories doing good prints from B&W digital files, or if I

should always expect the same low quality.

Consider I live in Rome, so your usual lab might be very far from

where I live, but at least I'll know there is a better possibility

for B&W prints.

Thanks!

Simone

Wow, just what I was looking for!

<a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=516817" >my portfolio</a>

Thanks!

Simone

I moved the infamous picture to a new folder and deleted the whole folder. Now my friend list seems to be mad showing a long list of people I don't know in my workspace but showing only my "real" friends when I click on manage... :(

Simone

Re-sized the picture for display.

Simone

Some photo sites split nude pictures in different sub-categories. Think this would work here as well?

Simone

I tried requesting critique for this picture

http://www.photo.net/photo/1831828 (no, I don't

know how to make a link clikkable - :)

The operation failed a few times and I gave up. Returning to my

workspace I see now 5 critique requests of this same picture, and

when I click on it the page displays an error message under the

picture. I wanted to delete and re-upload the image but the deleting

option is inside the page with the error.

I think this needs to be fixed directly by an administrator by

logging in my page and deleting the overlapping critique requests.

Can anyone do this please?

By the way, once you get there could you leave a few words for

critique... lol just joking :)

Thanks in advance!

Simone

I use almost 100% digital as well, and I am interested in B&W as well. I can't give you answers for sure, so I won't even try. I only want to say that after using different methods of convertion from a color digital image to a B&W one I still have the feeling that I am missing something in the final result and that it would be better to use a film camera for the best B&W quality.

I have a lot of images converted to B&W taken with my 300d, and some of them look great, but I still wonder how would them compare if placed side to side with a Tri-x (or similar) print. Maybe it's just me, maybe they are even better because there is almost no noise if a low iso is used, but still I'm waiting for an "official" article or publication to show me that yes, digital B&W gives results at least comparable to those of film.

Simone

I've used an S40 for more than 1 year, and was really satisfied with it. I just made the jump to a 300d, but the s40 has all the manual settings so I could learn a lot of things before investing in something more expensive and harder to use. I think you won't regret buying the s45, but I don't really know the newer 4mpixel models so maybe there's better for the same price (but I doubt it).

Only thing, if your boyfriend wants to take macro pictures of small insects and things a Nikon would be better.

Simone

Simone

It's not hard Todd.

I usually prefer to use a method I read somewhere here on pnet:

Stay in RGB color. Copy the red, green and blue channels as separate layers over the original layer. All the three channels look like b&w versions of the pictures. Choose the channel you like, it becomes the first layer (lower) with 100% opacity. Second channel you like becomes second layer(middle) with 40% opacity. Third channel you (don't) like is the third layer with 10% opacity. Vary opacities as you like, merge visible and then usual curves, sharpen ecc..

I think this was explained better by some of pnet patrons (sure his name is Sven, don't remember anything else about him sorry :)

Simone

My last two pictures are with my new 300d. There is really not much to look at since the size is very small, but I can tell you the columns one is taken at 100 iso looks stunning full size and is totally noise free, while the other one is very very noisy since it was iso 1600 and I had to lighten it with a curves command as well (boosting noise even more).

I am very satisfied with the camera, if you want a personal opinion. I'm not totally convinced by the kit lens (all my other lenses are fd) but it's cheap and is 18mm while all affordable lenses start from 28mm.

Simone

Brad, you got some nice shots there. I use a compact digicam too but guess what? I'm going to get a 300d as soon as I can find one here in Rome. I don't think a dslr will take better pictures, but it will make taking good pictures easier. Not to say that my s40 doesn't allow for the large prints that the 300d will (at least I hope to).

Oh, for black and white shots I think a film srl is still superior to digital.

Simone

Maybe we could judge the content and realization (meaning technical quality) of an image instead than it' aesthetics and originality.

Content: Is the picture interesting? Is there a subject worth looking at? Does this move any feelings?

Realization: Is the picture well taken? Is it well composed, exposed, etc..? What about the colors/b&w tones?

That would make more sense (well, for me at least :)

Simone

Leanne, if you want to produce commercial work only to gain cash with it you are free to. From your words I understand that you are able to create real artistic pictures that can as well be sold on the market because your personal view of life and beauty corresponds to the commercial one. I (sort of) work with art galleries and I usually see the contrary, artists that cannot produce things that anyone would mass produce and put on the market. Guess what? They still do that because they like it and don't care about cash. Of course people's opinion will differ, I usually just aknowledge that and don't attack or judge somebody I don't even know.

I'd really like to take a look at your portfolio as well, but of course you wouldn't upload images for free, right? There is an omepage connected to your name, I'll try and take a look there.

Strange thing is that I registered for photo.net while you didn't. But that's just a minor point, isn't it?

Simone

I could use Mickey Mouse pictures on my site for commercial purpose, and that would be very different. But with all the great pictures I could find on the internet why should I use Mickey Mouse? :)

What I was trying to say is that the guy could REALLY just like playing with retouching programs and show people what he can do. I don't really think anyone could ask him more than removing the pictures from the page, since he did not earn anything from that. Of course not telling who the real photographer is is wrong with no possible excuse.

Maybe he just didn't think he was violating some laws as well. He could use his photo.net page to upload whatever he likes without realizing there are laws working on internet as well. What if he is very young? This would make things very different, wouldn't it?

Talking about copyright, I strongly believe that someone's work should always be aknowledged, in the sense that if you take a picture or write a book that's your book and nobody can put his name on it. After that, I believe that knowledge and culture belong to humanity and should be available for free.

Simone