amanda_b.

Thank you all. I am going to have them send the broken lens back without repairing it and save my money for the latest sigma wide-angle.

I appreciate all the input!

<b>Edit:</b> I do a lot of house/architecture photography and interiors. That's what I use the wide angle for mostly.

The lens I was looking at was the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM....some of you are saying there are better, less expensive, and "more wide" lenses out there?

<b>Edit:</b>

I am using a Canon Digital Rebel XT

<b>Edit:</b>

The old lens that is broken and needs to be repaired and upgraded is a Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 Ex Aspherical....thanks for asking!

I have an older Sigma wide-angle lens that I used to use for my film Digital Rebel. I switched to digital a few years

ago and have been using that wide angle lens for a while with no problems. Recently the drive gear went bad on it

and I have a quote of $200 from Sigma to repair it. Also I learned that this lens is not "compatible" with digital SLRs

like the new wide angles are, but it's only $10 to upgrade it.

I use my wide-angle A LOT....my question is, should I spend the $200 plus to repair and upgrade it or spend the

almost $600 on a new, already compatible lens? Money is an issue, but I'll spend the $600 if it's a vast difference...

Anyone ever upgrade their wide-angle like this? After doing so, is there a big difference between the ugraded lens and

a new one? Just wondering what all the upgrade really entails and if it's worth it.

Thanks in advance!

As always, thanks for the great and detailed replies.

I went ahead and decided to buy the Spyder2 Express, I hope it works out.

For printing the book I am working on, they convert to sRGB so I have read that it's best to have my photos in sRGB to start with. Other times I can change that but for this project, I am using sRGB.

A million-trillion thanks!

So once I calibrate the monitor, is that it? I shouldnt need to change anything or re-do it right? Unless something changes? Meaning it's a setting that is set by default or will I need to load/select it each time I use Photoshop?

I use a Canon Digital Rebel set to sRGB. I am editing photos in Photoshop CS3

on Windows XP.

<p>

I plan on self-publishing a full-color photobook using Blurb's Booksmart

software. They use the HP Indigo 5000 ICC Color Profile for their printers. I

have downloaded and installed this profile.

<p>

I have NOT YET calibrated my monitor. Currently I've been edting my photos in

CS3 and using that profile to proof the image.

<p>

Ok now... I should still calibrate my monitor, yes?

<p>

I have read the post here, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=003zIG">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003zIG</a>, and

am completely confused on how the monitor profile and the printer (HP

Booksmart) profile will be managed together...

<p>

In that post one poster says:

<p>

<i>You definitely should not use a printer profile for your monitor profile.

There is no connection.<b>You profile the monitor and use the profile in

Photoshop to adjust what you see on screen to accurately reflect the data. You

then use the printer profile, also in Photoshop (or other ICC compliant digtal

darkroom software), to tell the software what the output will look like via a

soft proof</b>.</i>

<p>

Granted I haven't done the monitor calibration yet but can someone just tell me

the basics of how this works? How do I have two profiles going? I mean, how do

I set up the monitor calibration prfile AND also set up the printer profile? Is

the monitor one constantly "running?" And then I manually turn on, in CS 3, the

printer profile when I want to edit for that profile (which is what I am doing

now, going to View > Proof Colors, with the Booksmart Printer Profile selected).

<p>

I may be "putting the cart before the horse" here but before I buy a monitor

calibration software (looking Spyder2 Express) I'd like to just know the basics

of how the two profiles work together...

<p>

Thanks in advance!

<p>

Oh Will Maes - I meatn to thank you too, your suggestion - "3rd try" is EXACTLY what I was wasking about achieving.

Thanks!

Thanks again for the great responses.

Yes, I do use a lab. I used TMAX 100 to shoot the picture of the angel I posted here but I have used "regular/cheapy" black and white film that I think is really color film treated as black and white.

Anyway, using Photoshop is fine but my goal is prints and I don't/won't have the proper scanner/printer to get good prints. I'll call my lab and see what they can do for me.

Scott - I really like the sepia-tone you created!

amanda

Thank you for the lightening fast responses. I will try your suggestions.

I know I loose a lot of control not being able to do my own processing.

<br>I don't know.<br>

<br>Basically, I buy a lot of photography books of thigns that I take pictures of and I feel that my pictures are just as good as far as composition, subject matter, point of view, etc., but all the pictures I've seen published have this certain coloring to them.<br>

<br>Could be the processing...if so is there anything I can ask for from the lab? Or amd I stuck unless I develop my own?<br>

<br>This is a poor scan, but it is one of the pictures I am talking about with that tinge of "brown:"<br>

<br><img src="http://www.southsideoxford.com/photographers/eudora_welty/cemetary-monument.jpg"></br>

<br>The photographer is Eudora Welty, and it was waken in the 1930s/1940s. So I would not be surprised if it is the camera in this case....but I have seen modern prints this way as well.

Using a Canon Rebel Print Camera and black and white print film, is

there either a better film or a filter that I can use to give my

black and white pictures a browner tone, as in sepia prints? I don't

necessarily want a true "Sepia" tone nor am I looking to make them

look old per se....just something to give the pictures more richness

and a little bit of a brown color and warmth.<br>

<br>I've used Kodak TMAX 100 with a yellow filter and wasn't too

pleased...just that the pics look....kind of cold and flat.<br>

<br>An example (I like the picture but to me it needs some warmth,

just a hint of sepia-like tone):<br>

<br><img

src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/BlackDoll/Florida/greenwoo

d2.jpg" align="center"><br>

<br><i>Kodak TMAX 100, Yellow Filter</i><br>

<br>Thanks in advance!

Thanks to you all for your replies.

I ended up buying Kodak TMax 100. My lab also had some Ilford but I will try the Kodak first.

I may go and buy a yellow filter as well - do you recommend this?

I had a similar set of questions I asked - about EXACTLY a year ago - prior to my ski trip to CO.<br>

Maybe these will help. <br>

<br>

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0073Td">SIMPLE and BASIC metering in snow needed</a><br>

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0073wJ">Rebel 2000, metering in snow, simple instructions</a><br>

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007CmE">color negative film for snow conditions</a><br>

Thank you for all your responses.<br>

<br>I do not know why that link does not work - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.<br>

<br><a href="http://www.sandysorlien.com/fifty/fifty.html" target="_blank">Let's try this again - Fifty Houses</a><br>

<br>Remember, she's using infrared. But it was her book that inspired me.<br>

<br>In response to some of the questions, I will not unfortuantely be printing my own pictures, but taking them to a lab.<br>

<br>I know I said I wouldn't go any bigger than 5x7 but never say never - it would be a perk to be able to do so and not loose quality.<br>

<br>I'm kind of stuck between wanting to create etheral, dreamlike pictures or stark, so-honest-it-hurts pictures...<br>

<br>The homse I wish to photograph are for the most part abandonded and certianly OLD. OLD OLD OLD. They have lots of blemish, and are very weather-worn. That's something that fascinates me and I think needs to be protected (history) and I wanted my own little collection of said houses to show people and to have at the ready. I intend on adding a bit of text for each house, much like the photographer in the above book did, about the history, location, and the general sense of the homes. I have been on contact with numerous local historical societies and have taken the time to find out about the history - one house, dating to 1871, was built by a Confederate Army Captain.<br>

<br> Out of curiosity, does anybody have a scan of an Agfa print they could upload for me to see?<br>

<br>Thanks again!

I shoot negative film mainly with a Canon Rebel 2000.<br>

<br>I want to create a "portfolio" of my own, more a collection,

really, of old homes in my area. I intend on going no bigger than 5x7

for this collection.<br>

<br>I can do slide film, but I prefer print, for now.<br>

<br>I want to shoot black and white for this project....but I also

want a film that is particulary adept at capturing details and

textures...<br>

<br>I really like the below photographers style and technique. She

shoots with infrared film though, not B&W:<br>

<br><a href="http://sandysorlien.com/fifty/fifty.htm"

target="_blank">Sandy Sorlien, Fifty Houses</a><br>

<br>I know I won't get the infrared effect using BW, but that's not

what I want. I just like her style and mood.<br>

<br>Any advice for a B&W negative film and it's speed that I can try?

I do have a tripod so if there is an exceptionally good BW slide

film, I'd like to know that too. I prefer Fuji when it comes to color

film, if that matters.<br>

<br>Thanks!

Thank you!! I check every day or so to see your latest updates! Never a dissapointment!!

I would to especially see some of the old mining towns or ghost towns, if you happened to visit any.

I *love* your updates.

Truly fascinating, I can't WAIT to see the American West!

Thanks for sharing!

Sometimes I need a little "quick fix" or some basics answered before I can digest all the information that is out there.

I found the section on resolution and slide size and understand a lot more now. I will try that, to scan the slide in at 2400 to see what, if any, difference it makes.

Although scantips.com still suggests getting a film scanner instead.

Thanks!

Thanks!

At 2400dpi scanned, could I "safely" enlarge to 4x6?

And I did read the archives and scantips.com, which is where i read that flatbeds are not the best.

I am assuming, based on what I've read here and in archived posts,

that I should NOT bother trying to scan slides with a flat bed.

True?

For what it's worth, I have color slides and an HP 3970 flatbed

scanner. The printer is a Samsung Color Laser 500 or something.

I scanned a slide last night. In my HP image editor the slide was

about 4" by 5". In Photoshop, it was the same as the slide, about

1.5" by 2". When resized to 4 by 6 and printed, the image was fuzzy.

Why the different default sizes? And should I even bother with a

flatbed? I'm guessing no, I should take them to a lab.

Thanks in advance!

PLUS you will be asked to place your bags (camera or otherwise) in a locker while on certain rides. The roller coasters especially. THAT can be a pain in the rear. Plus there are several water rides that IF you go on you WILL get soaked. So will everything you have with you / on you.

Back in the day (!) when I used to go I would only have a little point and shoot and could either "hide" it in a pocket or around my neck tucked under my shirt. Can't do that with what you'll be bringing.

And I'm going to 2nd, or 3rd, the fact that you are doing WAY too much for such a short time. Now you want to see Miami, Everglades, AND palm beach? All are worthy in their own right, but really. Even if you did JUST the 5 theme parks in what, 6 days did you say, THAT will be a rushed schedule Add in wanting to take fabulous photos, and you are going to be run ragged come the afternoon.