gegjr

<p>I know this is an old post but if anyone else is looking for information on the topic of what image size to give to clients my answer is to give them whatever you took out of your camera unless you intend to prevent them from making their own prints. If that is the case then just give them thumbnails to review that way they have to come to you for prints.<br>

On the subject of saving Raw files; I would suggest you convert whatever raw files your camera shoots to dng files. Proprietary raw files are going to constantly change however dng will remain the defacto file compatible across all platforms and are just as good if not better than raw files. Primarily because the metadata can be embedded or left as side files whichever you prefer and they be compressed, too. Ever heard of Jared Platt? He also subscribes to that method of data management for photographers.<br>

As for hard drives going bad setting on shelfs, that is true. Everything will eventually go bad, including DVDs and CDs. So, what one has to do is have a backup strategy that includes swapping out old media for new media. It's cost of doing business and your prices should reflect this cost.<br>

Jpegs are like prints, they will eventually go corrupt from moving from one place to another and sooner or later your clients will even lose the metadata, that is assuming you even put it in the file to begin with.</p>

<p>Peter,<br>

None of that was the point of my post. I have been taking pictures for many, many years and certainly know what ppi means as well as dpi. The digital frame in question was a gift and i was simply trying to understand what the little 4 page user manual was trying to say by stating the resolution as 480x234. I was just wanted someone to confirm that the author did in fact mean a size and not a resolution. Unfortunately what was meant to be a very simple question turned into a tutorial on what ppi and dpi meant. Yes, Yes, Yes I already know what ppi and dpi means.</p>

<p>Ditto to everthing Phil DeRosier said and then some. I am now trying to decide if I want to get an A900 or A77 which by most accounts is an excellent camera.</p>

<p>Peter,<br>

I do understand the if I specify the width the lenght will automatically set and vice-versa. It just confused me because the stated resolution in the specs is 480x234 which is size not resolution.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>George, if you were printing this to a specific size, instead of displaying it on a screen where all you need are the pixel dimensions, then you would need to set a ppi value. You now have length in the equation, and it does not matter whether you use the height or the width of the image in your calculations, you will get the same answer: ppi=(pixels wide)/width=(pixels high)/length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>Patrick, you didn't have to respond if it annoys you so much. But you are wrong. PPI does not matter for displaying on a monitor or a screen and 480x234 is not a resolution but a size. But in order to know how big it is you have to know what resolution, for example 72 or 96, the screen or monitor is set for to know how big the image will be. Therefore I disagree with you.</p>

<p>I have a digital photo frame. The specifications state "Resolution 480 x 234". The frame is a 7" active matrix LCD and the viewing area measures 6" x 3.4" (wxh). How am I supposed to intrepret the resolution spec, as ppi or dpi? I would guess it to be ppi since it is for on screen viewing and not for printing. So if I am correct I am left with a decision. In Lightroom for example, I can export an image to 480 x 234 but I need to specify the ppi. So how do I determine what ppi to use? 480/6=80 and 234/3.4=68.8. Obviously I cannot size an image with 2 different ppi measurements. Does anyone care to give me their thoughts? I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 'sky properly exposed' was taken at<br /> ISO 400, Exposure 1/500, f/11.0 focal length 28mm<br /> The 'sky isn't blue' shot was taken at<br /> ISO 400, Exposure 1/250, f/5.0 focal length 28mm<br /> From 1/250 to 1/500 is 1 stop. From f/5 to f/11 is 2 and 1/3rds stops away. This means that the exposures are 3 and 1/3rd stops different. As others have noted, you can't easily 'darken' the sky on this shot, but you can brighten the child with the fill flash. Unfortunately, when doing that, you get capped to a 1/250 maximum sync speed.<br /> The easiest way that I know of to bring these two together would be to use a 3-stop ND filter, which brings the background down 3 stops, and the flash gets set to 1/2 or 1/1 or so, depending on the strength of the flash and its distance to the subject. That brings the foreground exposure up. The exact settings would depend greatly on the flash to ambient ratio that you want, and so on.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all if your maximum sync speed is 1/250s there is no way your flash would have fired at 1/500s, at least in time to have illuminated the foreground.<br>

As long as the sun was not at your back, which I assume it wasn't since your subject was in shadow, a polarized filter would have helped to darken the sky. The polarizer would cause you to loose about 1.5 to 2 stops of lights. This would have allowed you to shoot at 1/125s (which is what I presume is your maximum flash sync speed) and open your aperture to between f/5 and f/5.6 thus allowing your flash to work in program mode.<br>

There is a caveat with using the polarized lens. It has been noted by some that using a polarizer with a wide angle lens causing one or both corners of the sky to become darker than the rest of the sky. However, this is generally been noted with lenses of 24mm or more.<br>

The other option would be to use full manual set your camera to coincide with ambient reading of the sky and assuming you have some means of adjusting your flash experiment to find what level of flash output would give you the desired result on the subject.<br>

Best Regards and Happy New Year to All,<br>

George</p>

I don't understand the issue. You either want to give the images or you don't. If you want to be reimbursed for your time and the cost of what ever product you provide then just charge upfront for the cost of the prints and whatever you think your time is worth in post processing. For example, what do you make on your current job per hour? If you make a salary then figure out what the hourly rate would be and use that as your post processing rate. Your time is worth at least that much don't you think. So for example if you spend 5 hours on post processing and you make $25/hr on your current job than charge her $125 for labor plus whatever the prints and a dvd of viewable, copyrighted images will cost you to produce. I say copyrighted because at least then your cousin can't take them to a local lab and get 3x5s printed and if your cousin shows them around you will get credit as the photographer. Then if someone else wants prints you can a make profit from them. In my opinion since you were a guest at the wedding and reception you can't really charge for the time spent taking the images because I presume your cousin didn't ask you to the wedding as a backup photographer. Or forget everything and just give it all to your cousin as a gift.

I think the video was marginally interesting and then only from an aesthetic point of view. The pentaprism looks huge like the one on my very old Argus-Cosina STL and the rear LCD looked huge no doubt for Live-View which I personally don't really care about. I think a lot of people have talked themselves into needing live-view. In my opinion if you want live view get a video camera capable of shooting still images. I do find it interesting that there appears to be a top LCD window, hmmm?

More Video and images:

 

http://crackle.com/c/Blogs_and_Podcasts/Part_2_DSLR_Alpha_Flagship_Model/2170367/

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/cmsdata/news/12467/Sony-DSLRr-04.jpg

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/cmsdata/news/12467/Sony-DSLRr-03.jpg

 

I am not a full-time professional shooter but I would like a full frame sensor at a reasonable price with a reasonable number of MP. I don't think 25 MP is necessary. I would rather see Sony put their efforts into super image quality and equipment reliability than into # of MPs. I think 16 or 18 would be great if the image quality is superb. Steve C in an earlier post bought up the storage issue and I agree where will it stop. I don't want to spend $3K to $5K on a camera than turn around and spend spend almost the same thing on hard drives and redundant backup systems. If I ever need something with 24 or 25 MP detail I'd rather shoot large format film and have it scanned. Just my 2 cents.

 

Regards,

GEGJr

So how many of you all are engineers? Do you any of you work for Sony, Nikon, or Canon? Just wondering.

My reasons for choosing the M9 over the M7, the KM7D over the KM5D, are the same as would be for choosing the A700 over the A100. The physical attributes and functional capabilities of a professional or so called semi-professional camera as opposed to a normal consumer level camera rather than for practically non-existent image resolution or nit picky image sensor capabilities. Most photographers who sell photographs don't sell photographs to other pro photographers. Most people I sell photographs to wouldn't know the difference between a mega pixel and a nano pixel or between 8x10 and 4x6 image ratios. They don't carry a loupe or even know what a lightbox is.

 

Steve C,

Sounds like you would have been happier with a 7D.

Why in P mode with 5600HD(D) attached does the camera aperature stay at 2.8

irregardless of subject or distance to subject? I am not using a KM D series

lens but I using a SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). When I put the

camera in A mode (or of course M mode) I can change the aperature but in order

to match the results of the pop-up flash I have to increase the flash

compensation by +1.5 ev this is with or without using the Stofen Omni-bounce.

Can anyone shed any light othis situation? By the way in A mode I do get a

distance readout that changes with the aperature setting, that is as long as

the the flash head is not in a bounce position.

Hi everybody,

Sorry I'm just now getting back to you. the lens is a cosina 70-210 f/2.8-4. I know the lens is inexspensive but I like it because it's fairly fast and sharp and before the gear or whatever broke it focused fast.

Hmmm, I wonder what photographers did before there were things like ADI, pre-flash TTL, and TTL?

 

I never, never, never use my 5600HS(D) at 0 degrees. I almost always have my Omni-bounce on the flash and the flash head at a 45 or 60 degree angle. ADI, who needs it?

 

If I'm shooting wildlife or in a backlit situation with a distant subject I am typically in spot metering mode and manually adjusting my output with my choice of apertures. In cases like I just described ADI is a mute point.

 

The way I see it ADI is for beginners or people that rely on Program mode to get good exposures and who take snapshots with their subjects in a position they shouldn't be in the first place.

 

Don't get me wrong, I shoot in P mode too but only when I know my camera can handle the scene and my intervention is not needed. And sometimes in those cases I bracket, bracket, bracket.

Hi Mike, yes it is a Minolta lens.

I have a lens that grinds when I put it on a camera with the camera

in AF mode. What is happening is that the camera is moving the lens

immediately to infinity, which is appropiate for this camera.

However, apparently the gear in the lens is not stopping the lenses

internal focusing mechanism from turning. There is a standard screw

head in the lens mount that when turned with a screw driver just

keeps turning and never stops. Does anyone know if I can fix it

myself?

Pate 118 in your manual it states "The 5400Hs, 5400xi, and 5200i can be used with this camera with manual flash control only." It also states the following flash units are compatible with this camera:

2500(D), 3600HS(D), 5600HS(D), Macro Ring Flash 1200 and Macro Twin Flash 2400 with Macro Flash Controller.

 

Also in the product brochure in the accessories only the D flashes are listed along with 2 Macro flashes.

 

You will need to learn to use the 5400hs in manual mode. Here is excelent site that teaches you how to do just that http://www.shortcourses.com/how/guidenumbers/guidenumbers.htm.

Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks all, you guys are super! $150 bucks each! I've had my 9 for quite some time now and haven't missed the upgrades so I think I can save myself $450. As for the extra custom settings I can't think of anything that I need that's not already there. As someone stated, there are so darn many that you have a cheat sheet to remember them all. As for the ADI and SSM compatibility, I just bought a 7D so I don't need to upgrade the 9.

 

I've been a loyal Minolta user and waited a long time for the 7D. I think it work the wait just for the built-in AS. However, the thing that gripes me is that Minolta wants to charge top dollar and every little thing is an add-on. For example, I purchased a VC-7D when I purchased the 7D. I assumed the holding strap would come with it just like it did for the 9. But Nooooo, now I have to buy one for $22.

Can anyone tell me where I can find a list of upgrades for the Maxxum

9?

Please give me your feed back on this lens Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6

LD/IF.