peter_daalder

<p>Are you referring to <a href="../info/newsletter" target="blank">this page?</a><br>

Not quite sure what has happened there...<br>

However, I'm still receiving the monthly news letter via email, no problems.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Aperture is designed to run with Apple's OS.<br>

However, <a href="http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Apple_hardware_to_run_Mac_OS_X.3F" target="blank">there may be a way.</a> <br>

Proceed with extreme caution and you didn't read it from me...</p>

<p>Sorry to read about the loss of your 20D and lens, Jim.<br>

I've done some (family) portraiture with the 50mm f1.8 on a 20D, but it is only appropriate for full body, or upper body portraiture. As you would know, for facial portraiture, a focal length of at least 70-100mm would be better.<br>

I've got the 17-40mmL and use it mainly for landscaping in combination with my 5D. Even with a 1.6 body (50D), I don't think I would use it for shooting portraits.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>its like violating copy right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Welcome to the world wide web, Sesham.<br /> If you don't want your images to be downloaded/copied by anyone, don't post anything on the Internet!<br /> This has nothing to do with photo.net... It's all about what *you* decide to do with your images in "cyberspace".</p>

<p>Consider <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/wide-angle-lenses-2.html" target="blank">the Ukranian alternatives.</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unusual to see that much CA in dark hair tho'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex,<br /> CA did pass through my mind, but I have never seen an example of the effect, to this kind of extent...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A couple of my favorite lenses for photographing people have similar problems with CA wide open, especially the old 50/2 AI Nikkor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To open up a can of purple fringed worms...<br>

Knowing that you have shot lots and lots of B&W, CA should be a non-issue with that particular medium.<br>

Have you ever considered changing to monochrome, to overcome the shortcomings of these favourite lenses?</p>

<p>Yes, well... Too many years spent on photo.net can have that effect, occasionally.<br>

Hope someone will provide you with some suggestions. </p>

<p>Not a portraiture/lighting expert. I'll leave it open for others to respond.<br>

Did you shoot jpg, or did you arrive at this via NEF and PSE7?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIvs4j4IniA" target="blank">That reminds me...</a><br>

Funny how the mind works, sometimes.</p>

<p>Something like this?<br>

Adjusted colours in PS CS3.</p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://www.hairparlor.com/haircare-articles/hair-dye-colors.htm" target="blank">Try again?</a><br /> But seriously, Christina, can you be more specific about what you have done. Include an example, for instance.<br>

Ok, thanks. Just seen your second post...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7" target="blank">Genuine Fractals 6.</a></p>

<div></div>

<p>The only reason, other than personal preference, that I have read once, is that softening/blurring the water can make the composition less "busy". To me, this would actually suggest that the viewer can then concentrate more on the surrounding scenery...</p>

<p>1. Browsing the various "MacForums", it appears that there are quite a number of Aperture users who have now migrated to Lightroom, due to a lack of 2.<br>

2. <a href="http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/10/27/aperture-x-before-year-s-end" target="blank">Something to keep an eye on,</a> perhaps?</p>

<p>

 

<p>My choice would be the Canon 24/1.4 II, stopped down to f2.<br>

Keeping in mind that 24mm on full frame sensor/35mm, will already capture a huge swath of the sky, measuring about 73x53 degrees (diagonal FOV - 84 degrees).<br>

Mentioning the DOF factor in your question, suggests some inclusion of foreground features/horizon in your planned exposures.<br>

A range of exact measures can be obtained <a href="http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm" target="blank">here.</a><br>

The exposure times that Bob suggested are spot on for shooting near your horizon. If you are aiming higher up in the sky, near Polaris for instance, doubling the exposure time should be feasible (i.e.: 80 seconds).</p>

 

</p>

<p><a href="http://www.msjphotography.com/index.php/workshops/" target="blank">Just a thought.</a><br>

Mark S Johnson, Craig Tanner and Matt Gibson are formerly from <a href="http://www.radiantvista.com/" target="blank">The Radiant Vista.</a><br>

Their brilliant photoshop tutorials have taught me a lot. You might like to look into their upcoming workshops. </p>

<p>You may find <a href="http://shawnblanc.net/2008/02/bulletproof-backups/" target="blank">the following page</a> useful to answer your other questions.</p>

<p>No, you can't boot up from your Time Machine backups.<br>

I strongly recommend <a href="http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html" target="blank">SuperDuper</a> for that purpose.</p>

<p>Jason, have you considered keeping what you've got and experiment with <a href="http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2008/11/stacking-star-trails-tips-tech.html" target="blank">image stacking?</a></p>

<div></div>

<p>

 

<p>In your workspace click on "Manage your Portfolio"<br>

Then scroll right to the bottom and you will see the equipment heading.<br>

Not too hard at all...</p>

 

</p>

<div></div>