catcher

I'll there in mid July and I'm wondering what to expect from the Mosquiters. I confess--I'm a pansy. I hate

'em. OFF! is my friend, even if it gives me cancer someday.

 

Of course, long pants and sleeves are an option, but down in the valleys it will be sweltering. So, for any of

you have been there in the summer, where/when should I be most aware of biting insects, and helpful precautions?

Thanks!

Easy enough. It worked. Thanks!

I've been using CS3 for quite awhile now with no trouble, but today I was

processing several dozen images, and some of the Bridge thumbnails came out

looking like this (see below). The images themselves are just fine--the

gibberish is just the thumbnail, not the actual image. Of the several dozen I

processed maybe half came out looking like that, the others were fine. I can't

figure out any obvious pattern. Any ideas about what's going on? Or the

easiest way to fix it? Thanks!<div></div>

At some point I'd like to put a site together, but that's pretty far in the future. I suppose I'm just asking for some general feedback on what annoying sorts of thigns to avoid, especially with respect to (but not limited to) nature photography websites.

 

Good thoughts so far.

As you've looked at various websites from nature photographers on the internet,

what do you find 1)most annoying/least helpful and 2) most helpful/pleasing? Do

those translate into any specific tips on what to avoid/pursue when planning and

building a website?

 

Though I'm most curious about nature photography websites, some of these may

be common to websites in general, so feel free to reflect on that as well.

 

To get things started, I hate cluttered menues (not rocket science there). I find

most pleasing clean, simple presentations.

Thanks for the responses. This is all very helpful.

 

There is indeed good info in the archives (which I've checked). However, specific comments about what it's like in July (e.g., about the fog--thanks!) with limited time is especially helpful.

 

I'll keep checking back here if anyone has anything else to offer.

My family and I are vacationing in Pigeon Forge in the middle of July. We've

never been to Great Smoky Mountains. My family will only tolerate my

photography for so long, so I'm looking for two sets of suggestions.

 

1) I can get one day by myself. If you had only one day in the middle of July

to photograph Great Smoky Mountains, where would you shoot? The most scenic

places would obviously be great, but also any places away from the crowds (if

that's possible in July). Hiking is no problem so far as I can do it all in one

day.

 

2) I can get my family to do a couple of excursions (half day?) into the Great

Smoky Mountains for some very, very leisurely hiking/sight-seeing. We'll have

a 4 month old baby with us as well as the in-laws, so it really must be easy

access. What would be a couple of good places in the Park that are easily

accessible and fun for the family, but would still provide some nice

opportunities for photography?

 

I'd be looking mostly for landscape and macro photography. Not so much

wildlife.

 

Thanks!

Are the 24" monitors true 8 bit monitors? I just bought a Dell Ultrasharp 2007fwp, and am very happy with it. Much, much, much better than the old, inexpensive 19" CRT I had.

This might not be it, but are you viewing the prints under adequate light? I always thought my monitor consistently was too bright--prints that looked good on the monitor looked too dark in my office. But one day I noticed direct sunlight shining on a print through the window and it matched the monitor quite closely. Of course, if you never view the photos in bright sunlight it's a moot point.

In case anyone does a search for this: I received my refurbed Dell 2007WFP and am quite pleased with it. Setup was easy, no dead pixles that I can see. It calibrates well (better than my old, cheap 19" CRT). Color is good. Brightness was adjustable, and I think it's good although I'm still playing with that. If it matters to you, do a search on the net for this unit and you'll see an uproar about Dell switching from an S-IPS panel to a PVA. Both panels are true 8 bit and I suspect I would have been happy with either, althouh I ended up with one of the S-IPS versions. In any case, I'm very pleased with it.

nope, no .icc profile either.

Well, the suggestion of refubrs from Dell was a good one. I ordered a 2007WPF (yes, the wide screen version . . . we'll see I guess). It was right at $300. It'll be a couple of weeks before it gets here, but I'll post what I think about it then.

Per my previous post, I'm still not sure what I'm looking for in an LCD monitor-

-that is, what specs to be looking for when manufacturers seem to inflate

everything.

 

I've done searching here at photo.net with lots of monitor recommendations--

several a year old, and several for expensive monitors. I'm sure expensive

montirs really are better, but the fact is that I've only got $350 MAX to spend

(actually $250 is more like it).

 

So maybe it would be helpful just to take a general poll of what LCD monitors

people are using in that price range. Do you like it? Do you find it matches

well with your prints (once calibrated, of course)? Did you find it difficult

to adjus settings to get it to calibrate? What shortcomings have you

experienced?

 

It would help me out, and perhaps others to get some experiences. YOu can

spend hours searching for reviews/opinions this or that particular monitor. So

this is a free for all.

thanks guys, any help is appreciated.

 

LJ, there have been threads about this out in cyperspace. I don't have any on hand. And yes, I realize cyberspace isn't the most reliable, but as an example, the 226BW is listed as 16.7 million colors, but it is not a true 8 bit panel.

My old, cheap 19" monitor must go. It's not stable, it's loosing sharpness and

brightness, it has low usable refresh rate which is hard on the eyes, and it's

a monster.

 

I've convinced my wife to give me 250-300 dollars for a nice LCD monitor (yes,

that's low, but that's life--this isn't my question).

 

After doing some searching on photo.net and elsewhere online, seems most are

confident that a true 8bit panel is much better for photo-editing. I had about

decided on a Samsung 226BW (I'm aware of A, C, S, controversies), but turns out

it's not a true 8bit panel either (although some on this forum have been

pleased with it, so maybe it would work fine for me).

 

In any case, to the actual question. There seems to be no reliable way to tell

which monitors are true 8bit! Manufacturers don't tell you that. Several that

say "16.7Million" colors are really 6bit with dithering. I've tried some

searching and again I just can't seem to come up with any reliable to know when

I'm looking at newegg or bestbuy that a monitor is a true 8 bit.

 

Any ideas? Am I missing something? Or am I overblowing the 8bit 6bit issue?

I'm planning on calibrating the monitor by the way.

Hi guys,

 

I just got a Hueypro. Before I'd been using an old Spyder. According to the

HueyPro instructions, after profiling it's supposed to deposite an .icm file in

my windows\system32\spool\drivers\color file. Problem: no new files show up.

I give them names in the option box (that option screen doesn't appear with the

original huey), but the files are nowhere to be found. Can't figure it out.

 

Here are a couple of possible culprits, although I can't see why. I have an

old "Default Monitor.icm" profile from before, but I whould have surely thought

the text I add in the dialogue box would have given it a different name. And

checking the properties of the "Default Monitor" shows that it's a file that

was created a long time ago.

 

I have my system set up to dual boot--2 XP's (long story). I actually use the

OS on a drive different than my C drive, but there is in fact an XP on the C

drive. However, I've checked in the Windows directly on C drive and no new

monitor profile either.

 

By the way, the Hueypro does seem to be profiling my system. I can see the

before and after, and if I have it adjust room lighting I can see the monitor

change at appropriate times.

 

Any ideas where my missing profile has gone?

Well, somehow I managed to have fixed it. I had already removed previous drivers. In the Bios, I reduced the option for shared memory from 32MB to 0. Maybe that's what did it?

 

Anyway, thanks for the help. As I said I'm not exactly sure what I did, but whatever I did it worked.

I know this isn't really a "computer tech" forum, but this was all for the

ultimate purpose of photo editing, and from previous searching I know several

of you use ATI powered graphics cards. so I figured I'd give it a shot.

 

I jusst installed a Saphire Radeon ATI 9600 Pro AGB 4x on my machine. Before I

was using the onboard graphcs (S3 drivers). I got everything installed and the

graphcs card seems to working just fine. Except for one wierd problem that

I've never had before. If I power up the computer from completely off,

everythign loads up and runs just fine. But if from windows I do a "restart"

(not a "shutdown"), then the computer hangs at the restart. I just get a black

screen with a blinking cursor in the top left corner. If I then force a

complete shutdown, and start everything from a powerdown again, then everything

works properly.

 

I've done some searching on the net and have found some similar issues, but

nothing that specifically helps me (I know a little about computers but get

lost pretty quickly). I was just wondering if anyone else had had this sort of

problem with an ATI card.

 

My computer: XP Pro SP2 (or maybe 3, did it just update?)

2 GB DDR RAM

P4 2Ghz, Via chipset (VT8751(P4m266)

 

I've been to the ATI website and uploaded the most recent drivers.

 

Thanks

Or this is someone trying to get you to pay more for what is the same camera?

I'm only interested in 1680-1050, which is resolution of 20-22" monitors. 30" is WAY out of my budget.

Thanks guys. LJ, I found a Saphire ATI 9600 PRO on Newegg for $45, so I'll probably just go that route. Sorry if this is overly paranoid, but just to confirm you are running yoru Viewsonic on the card through the DVI and NOT the VGA, right?

Hi folks,

 

I just posted a question about cheap graphics cards, and in some further

resesarch another issue comes up.

 

All the cheap graphics cards seem to suggest that they can do 2048 x 1536. But

the problem is that lots of people have posted in forums that they can't get

their DVI connections to work at higher resolutions. In other words, that high

resolution is only for VGA. DVI tops out at something like 1300 by 950, or

whatever it is.

 

It looks like what's required for higher DVI connections is a dual link DVI.

And from what I can gather, those are the relatively more expensive cards. For

instance, in a post sometime ago a feller linked to an NVIDA page that listed

which NVIDIA sets would work with high res DVI (link:

http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_extreme_hd_gpu.html )

 

So for instance, a cheap NVIDA FX5500 says it maxes out at 2048x1536, but this

is ONLY with a VGA connection. with the DVI connection it's something like 1300

x 950 (again, going by other online forum posts).

 

I'm in over my head here. In short, can anybody tell me what the least

expensive card would be that supports 1680x1050 DVI connection--NOT merely VGA

connection? And what is dual link DVI anyway?

 

Aaron

Thanks guys. However, there might be a wrinkle in my plan. I just started a new post since it's a related, but different question about dual link dvi.

Hi there,

 

In the very near future I'll be getting a new monitor. I've done my searching

on that end and will get a widescreen LCD (best for my purposes).

 

However, as I do absolutely no gaming and no movie watching, I've just been

using my built in graphics processor for an old 19" CRT. It's a pretty old

mother board though, and so it doesn't support the newer widescreen

resolutions, and the drivers are no longer supported or updated. If it

matters, I'm using M925LR mainboard with integrated S3 Savag4. (and no, I don't

want to get a whole new computer--again for my purposes what I have does just

fine).

 

So, since my onboard doesn't support the higher resolutions, I need a new

card. My mainboard will accept 4xAGP. From searching here on the forums the

general consensus seems to be that for photoshop digital editing where there's

no complex 3d stuff, a standard cheapo graphics card will do just fine (some

seem really concerned about absolute color fidelity whch might requre a more

expensve card, but I've been happy with my built in graphcs accelerator

up 'till now so I don't forsee any complaints there).

 

So I went to newegg and the cheapest cards are under $30. For instance,

GIGABYTE GV-N52128DS-RH GeForce FX 5200 128MB 64-bit DDR AGP 4X/8X Video Card.

I can't find anything conclusive on newegg and a google search didn't help me,

but it lists the max resolution as 2048 x 1536, so I'm assuming there should be

no trouble running a monitor with native resolution of 1440x900, or even 1680-

1050, right? It also has the DVI connection which from what I read seems a

necessity to get a good picture out of an LCD monitor. Anything I'm missing?

 

By the way, I do calibrate my monitor.

I use an FD autobellows (there's also an FL bellows). With a cheap EOS-FD adapter (you can remove the glass part of the adaptor--you don't need it for macro) and a Vivitar 90mm 2.5 MAcro lens in FD mount. Works like a charm. As another poster said, you loose ability to control aperture with EF lenses unless you have some way to connect the electrical contacts. With FD lenses it's all manual (though some of the "newer" ones do require a simple adapter).