beauh44

<I>In fact, by repeatedly re-formatting the disk, you're effectively read/writing that critical portion of the disk which is the

heart.</i><P>

 

But it's not a "disk". It's solid-state. (Unless you're still using something like the old IBM Microdrive) <P>

 

I see no point in multiple, in-camera, formats; one should do fine. I do think formatting - as opposed to erasing - after

copying your images, is preferable because it re-writes the FAT table on the card and helps prevent file fragmentation.<P>

Your mileage will vary using IS. I saw a post here recently comparing shooting a rifle accurately and good hand-holding

technique in photography and I think that's a good analogy. So, if you practice you can get better. Some people may get

acceptably sharp shots hand-holding long telephoto zooms (i.e. 70-200mm f/2.8L) at shutter speeds that were unthinkable

before IS (VR, etc) came along. Ideally, it's still not as good as using a tripod and it's not the same as very fast lenses but

I think it's great because I'm just not a big fan of lugging a tripod unless it's absolutely necessary.

The 180mm is supposedly a little sharper than the 150mm - but unless your subjects have perfect skin, that might not be a good thing! But I agree that either the 150mm or 180mm would be a bit better for portraits. As for film, I like Porta 160nc. If I wanted a B&W, I'd probably just scan the color neg and convert in PS myself. But others may very well do it differently.

Hi Scott, If you have access to a room with a large picture window you may not need to use any flash. If you can combine a large light source (like a picture window) and a cloudy day, you can get a nice, soft light. This shot was taken with no artificial light or even a reflector...<P>

 

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7317150-md.jpg"> </center><P>

<center>Canon 1Ds2 with 85mm f/1.8 lens</center>

Hi Richard, Just a few thoughts,<P>

 

<I> I mostly shoot really wide landscapes and want edge to edge sharpness with a lot Depth of field. I mistakenly

thought the Canon's 12mp vs. the Oly's 8 mp's. would make a big difference.</i><P>

 

Resolution will have no effect on sharpness. Sensor size can have an effect on DOF with a given lens though. (And

while I'm a Canon user, I think Oly makes fine cameras and lenses) Anyway...<P>

 

If you're comparing out-of-camera jpegs, well, in many ways you're really comparing Olympus's interpretation of the RAW

data versus Canon's since jpegs are processed in-camera and those processing algorithms are proprietary to the

manufacturer. You might see if you like your RAW files better.<P>

 

I personally wouldn't judge an entire company's lens line on the basis of a kit lens either. I suspect Oly may have - or

may have had - a clunker or two themselves.<P>

 

About the softness: It may be helpful if you could post images because it's possible there's a problem with either your

Canon lens or body. Stuff happens - UPS could've kicked your box out of the back of a truck somewhere and

something's out of alignment. I've only had to use Canon's service a few times and each time their NJ service center

was excellent when needed. Anyway, take 5 minutes to shoot a well-lit newspaper taped flat against a wall, using a

tripod, and trying several apertures and focal lengths.<P>

 

Another thing to consider: It's quite possible that Olympus simply applies more aggressive sharpening to its jpegs than

Canon does.<P>

 

One reason - maybe - to stay with Canon isn't the individual camera or lens but the entire system offered. Perhaps you'd

like to do some bird photography some day for example. Does Olympus offer the same kinds of products (really long

lenses) as Canon in that area? (I don't know - maybe they do!)<P>

 

Finally, if indeed the Oly is a better camera for you, then there's nothing wrong with that. I suspect you could get most of

your money back for the Canon on Ebay - although I certainly hope you sort out the problem and end up keeping it. Good

luck!

Hi Janiece, As Manuel pointed out, it looks like someone used layer masks to accomplish the results in the example. If

you don't know how to use them try Photoshop's "Help" feature and or Googling "how to use layer masks".

 

Basically you have 2 layers, the top one is B&W and the bottom one is color. Using the layer mask feature of

Photoshop, the top, B&W layer is partially "erased" (*not* by using the eraser tool though) in a subtle way to allow the

pink color of the hat to come through from the bottom layer.

 

In your example, it's not annoying but many people beat this technique to death and it's easy to over-do.

 

If you wanted to add pink cheeks just create a new, blank layer and using the paint brush at a very low opacity (~ 3-5

percent) paint in some pink on the separate layer. Play around with changing the blend mode from "normal" to "color"

and you might even try the "airbrush" mode. Incidentally, this is also a good way to fix poorly applied makeup like blush

and lipstick on adults. Good luck!

I have a friend who's a portrait photographer and still shoots with his trusty Hassie - with its square format - and Portra film. Very few of his customers want square prints. (A few do... they're the exception though) So he crops probably 90 percent of his shots. It's not because he hasn't composed the scene properly; it's just the "shape" his customers want - a rectangular instead of square print.

 

Another thing that gets me personally - I have yet to cough up for a Canon focusing screen that has the etched, grid-lines to line up horizons. I'm just lazy and didn't want to fool with it. Anyway, I'll try to get 'em pretty close but my eyesight's terrible. Once I get them in PS, I've invariably got a slightly crooked horizon and need to crop a little to fix it.

 

So while I guess it's good to get the shot as "perfect" as one can, in-camera, it's certainly no crime to crop one's own images as he/she sees fit.

You could always take it with you on a flight. I'm sure the TSA can open it! ;-)

 

(Calling Canon's a better idea!)

I'm not sure I follow this:<P>

 

<I>ASSUMPTION that the images are OK in the camera, before we pull them out. And thats an assumptions thats untested</i><P>

 

He's posted the "good" versions along with the "bad". If the problem was in-camera, or even the card, how could there ever have been a "good" version at all?<P>

 

Conversely, I've also encountered (fortunately on rare occasions) a situation where an image looks just fine, in-camera, on the LCD screen, but once I copied it and/or looked at it elsewhere, there was obviously data-corruption.<P>

 

I still think using the good old "swaptronics" methodology - i.e. using someone else's camera, card and another card-reader, with the suspect PC, will go a long way towards isolating the problem.

Hi Mike, That's weird! The only thing I can think of is there's data corruption happening on your PC's USB bus. If the

photos download fine to your laptop, then they're being recorded properly on the card - and your camera's ok.

 

Since you've used a card-reader and still have problems, the only thing I can think of is a USB problem with your PC. I'm

not sure how you can test that except perhaps to contact the manufacturer of your PC to see if some diagnostics exist

to test out your PC's USB ports.

 

One thing you might try: If you have a friend with a different camera, card and card reader, try downloading some photos

from his or her card using his/her card-reader and your PC. (I'd avoid using the camera - it just introduces more

complexity with drivers, etc.) If no image - including yours and your friend's - will copy properly via any USB card reader,

I'd have to conclude something's messed up in your PC's USB bus and you'd want to contact your PC's manufacturer.

Good luck!

Thanks Josh!

You might try exposing for the background (shorter shutter-speed and/or smaller aperture) and use a bit of fill-flash to

illuminate the artists on stage. You might try Av mode with fill-flash dialed back a little.

My most-used zoom doesn't make me lazy; it's too heavy to do that!

You might ask the folks at Snappy Snaps if they have a printer profile you can use. If not, I'd find another lab. Mpix does a

great job but of course, it's online.

The same photographer did the shots down the left side of the page as well of other families that look a bit more spontaneous and with

similar lighting - at least on the indoor shot. I think the main shot could've been done in one take - but I could be wrong too!

http://www.onemodelplace.com I seem to see more European models there who are from the UK more than anywhere else, but it might be

worth a few clicks.

I'm not aware of a book and I'm not sure one could approach that subject, painting it

with too broad of a brush because I'm not sure that models possess some universal

mindset, let alone a unique language. They're just people like everyone else.

 

Having said that, I think you'll just find that as time goes along you'll run into ones

with whom you can communicate pretty easily and well... those that you just can't.

But any lack of communication isn't because they're a model; it's likely because

there's a communication problem that would be present no matter what they did.

 

I've worked with a few who seemed to read my mind. In my experience, that's been

the exception rather than the rule. I have a photographer friend and we discuss this

from time to time and have concluded that a good model is just born that way:

outgoing and gregarious, imaginative, and collaborates well with the photographer.

 

Jeff's right about rapport - that usually doesn't develop instantly. If you think about it

from their perspective, it's gotta be pretty tough to show up the first time at a

stranger's studio and if not disrobe, typically wear things that are rather revealing. It

takes a lot of self-confidence to do that. Just be respectful, try a lot of (appropriate)

humor and make them feel comfortable as possible.

 

One tip: I usually ask them to bring music they like and keep some munchies and

refreshments nearby if the shoot's longer than an hour or so. In short, make them

feel at home and relaxed as possible and things just go better and they'll likely come

back to work with you again. Good luck!

"Erase all" is not the same as formatting - at least on any of my Canon cameras.

Try formatting your card(s) in-camera; don't use your PC. If the problem persists, try another card. If it persists no matter what card you use, then the problem is likely in your camera and it should be repaired.

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3603290-md.jpg">

</center>

It might be my display but she looks a bit yellow.

Hi Tammy, Looks like a few things going on and these are just guesses on my part: 1) Almost all shots taken outdoors on overcast days for soft, even light; 2) Looks like a very nice, fast lens was used because of very narrow DOF in many shots. I'm a Canon guy and the 85mm "L" lens looks similar in bokeh, but s/he could be shooting similar Nikkor glass. 3) Selective desaturation of reds may be giving that creamy skin tone. You might want to check out the book "Skin" by Lee Varis, which addresses the propensity for digital cameras to skew skin tones in a strong red direction. Good luck!

Hi Tim, A few thoughts: When you say "quality over time" I think of good glass.

Digital SLR body prices don't seem to hold their value like a good lens. That's not to

say you'd be happiest with a really expensive lens and the cheapest DSLR body

though.

 

In fact, even a relatively cheap, consumer zoom, when stopped down a little and

used by someone competent, can give excellent results. Another thing to think

about: your camera dollar buys much more camera for the money than it did 5 years

ago, for about the same price - more resolution and features with less noise at high

ISO settings, dust removal, live-view, etc. The price and features of most good

lenses has remained about the same.

 

Canon makes a pretty amazing piece of glass - the 50mm f/1.8 - for around $70,

brand new, last I looked. It won't hold much value because you didn't pay much for

it, but it's quite sharp and no one looking at the shots you take with it will know or

care, probably. And you'll have a warranty for a while.

 

So, if I was on a really limited budget and wanted something that would give me

very professional results, I might look at the 450D and as many relatively

inexpensive primes as I could afford. Most are still quite sharp and some are real

gems. Again, the resale probably won't go down on the lens(es) but it will on the

body, eventually. Good luck!

You can touch the sensor - as long as you use the proper equipment and not a

makeup brush. Besides, you're not really touching the "sensor"; you're touching (or

hopefully cleaning) a piece of glass that sits on top of it. There are many products

out there like sensor swabs (I've used 'em dozens of times without any problems)

that are meant to do precisely that: Touch the sensor and in doing so, clean the crud

off of it.

 

Sometimes you get "sticky dust" on a sensor and all the blowing and vibrating in the

world won't clean it. And imho, it's just not necessary to send it to Canon to do it any

more than it is sending them a lens. If you're at all careful, use the proper tools,

common sense and equipment, you can clean both just fine so you don't have to do

without your camera for a week or more.

 

I might go so far as to say it's more risky shipping your camera these days than it is

to clean it yourself. Good luck!

Hi Donald, Almost all DSLRs - the 40D included - have a filter over the sensor that

filters out the infrared light spectrum. However, one can have this filter removed (or

DIY) by checking out a place like: http://www.lifepixel.com

 

However, I'd encourage you to *not* use a 40D for this, but rather an older, DSLR,

like a 10D or 20D. For one thing, taking the filter off voids the warranty, so it's best

to do when the warranty has already expired anyway.

 

You can also do a "software" infrared image, which just takes a regular DSLR image

and through a bit of hocus-pocus, renders a pretty darn believable IR image.

 

This month's issue of Photo Techniques has a great article on IR digital and you can

read a lot of what's in there - by the same author - here: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Infrared/index.html

 

I have a converted 10D and have encountered many of the issues he addresses -

like front/back focus and "hot spots" with certain lenses. It's a very good place to

start anyway. Good luck!