larry w

I have a 5D and am seriously considering picking up a 40D as a second body (though I'm not in a big hurry).

I primarily shoot landscapes and portraits and have recently begun shooting more and more wildlife. The 5D is great for both landscapes and portraits and I'm sure will continue to be the one I use primarily for those types of shots, but the 40D (I expect) will end up being the one I use primarily for wildlife and macro photography.

Ultimately? I think the type of photography you plan on doing most, rather than your current collection of lenses (I know I'm always adding lenses anyway :-D ), should drive the decision.

Obviously you want to talk to a tax professional about it, but I have owned a few businesses in my day and if you collect sales tax in a state (any state), then you will have to have a Tax ID in that state.

If you do business (earn income) in Chicago and in Iowa, then you will need two Tax IDs and most likely will have to file State income tax returns in the two states as well (assuming they have State Income Tax, I live in Idaho and Texas and Texas has no income tax ... Yet I have two Tax IDs because I have to submit sales tax in both states).

I know ... Clear as mud.

Hence the reason you need to talk to a tax professional to be sure.

Bill ... You're absolutely correct about my rating history. I generally only rate photographs which strike me positively (though I have provided constructive feedback as well).

You'll also notice that I've only rated 103 photographs in a little over a year, given exactly one 7/7, and my average is 5.74/5.73.

It's my opinion that as a relatively new memeber (I've just renewed my subscription for the second time, so I've been here just over a year), who isn't as accomplished as others (yet, though I'm working on it :-D ), and who hasn't been terribly active here (yet, though I plan to be at some point in time ;-) ) ... It wouldn't be right for me to rate every photo I come across. So I've tended to stay in the shallow end (as it were) and try to stick to providing (mostly) positive feedback and anytime I've rated something with a 4 I have provided feedback to the memeber as to why I felt it was average.

Look ... I'm not oblivious to the problem. I understand that people do get petty in their ratings based on how they were rated and not on what they are rating.

But I feel the anonymous ratings are equally detrimental to a person's learning process ... Especially when they vary from the non-anonymous ratings as much as they usually do.

Maybe a possible solution is that when someone gives a 3/3 (anonymously or not), they are required to provide a comment as to why (the comment could be anonymous as well). If they don't provide something meaningful, then the photographer can properly take the feedback for what it's worth (not much) ... But if they provided some meaningful feedback (even something as simple as OOF - Out of focus) then something can be learned.

Ultimately ... An anonymous 3/3 only communicates "It Sucks" ... I'm perfectly willing to have people tell me my photographs suck ... But I'd like to know what would make it not suck so much.

Like I said ... It's simply my preference. That anonymous ratings are allowed here, will not deter me from being here and learning as much as I can from the site ... It just makes me much more careful about what I will submit for critique.

You'll notice I haven't submitted anything in quite a while, not because I haven't produced anything, but because I'm waiting till I feel a little more confident about my work.

The egos here go in both directions.

<b><i>"I know this has come up about a zillion times ... But it's my opinion that that ratings should not be anonymous."</i><br>

<br>

Then you, no doubt, have read the answer that I give every time as to why ratings are not totally public. When ratings are public, people cannot act like adults. They harass, revenge rate, and send awful emails to those who "wronged" them by rating lower than they thought was deserved. </b><br>

<br>

Yeah ... That's why I mentioned that in the next line :-D <br>

<br>

And like I also said ... Neither solution would make everyone happy, but it would be MY preference that people could not rate anonymously. It's the evil I'd prefer as seeing people toss out anonymous 3/3's in the first minute photographs come up, is what generally keeps me from posting photos for critique.<br>

<br>

Not that I think my work is all that special (after all I'm not a professional, yet), but as someone who is still learning (and comes here specifically TO learn), I'd be interested in knowing WHY something I submit is a 3/3 when I can't see your name, and a 5/6 or 6/6 when I can.<br>

<br>

Maybe there's a happy medium where the overall rating can somehow be calculated differently where the ratings are weighted somehow (maybe anonymous ratings should have less impact). I recently saw a photograph that had two 3/3's and not another single rating under 6/6 in 15+ ratings. The two 3/3's were of course anonymous. Maybe the highest and lowest ratings should be thrown out. I don't know. But I do know that it <b>appears</b> that there are people tossing anonymous 3/3's just for giggles.<br>

<br>

Again ... I understand how it is and I accept it. Just giving you a little feedback. Oh and for the record ... This site is most definitely worth $25 a year, just for the learning potential alone.

I know this has come up about a zillion times ... But it's my opinion that that ratings should not be anonymous.

I think that people should stand by their ratings.

The argument that people would revenge/buddy rate and therefore undermine the integrity of the rating system ... Is undone by anonymous 3/3s.

I understand there are no good solutions and that either way, some people are simply not going to be happy ...

But in my opinion, if the goal of the site is to be a learning site (which it most certainly is), then anonymous 3/3s aren't helping anyone learn anything.

I have a 5D and the 50mm 1.4 USM. It's the lens I use most often for general shooting (walk around lens).

I love the 50mm 1.4 ... But can't compare it to the 1.8 as I've never used one.

I do have a couple zooms and another couple primes for specific kinds of shooting. A 17-40mm 4.0L USM and a 100-400mm 4.6/5.6L IS USM ... And the 100mm 2 USM and the 100mm 2.8 USM Macro.

But I started initially with the 5D, with just the 50mm 1.4 USM.

I'm a "Horses for courses" kinda guy and the 50mm 1.4 fits my "non-specific general purpose" course.

Far be it from me to deny the realities of the market place.

I don't think I've ever read anyone to say it was easy, or even that there was a decent chance to succeed ...

However ...

One has to chase their dreams (even if all they can manage are baby steps), or their life will be full of regret.

And lets not discount that lightning does strike ... And if you don't ever buy a lottery ticket, you certain are not going to win.

My advice to people, in general in life (not specifically about photography, as I'm not a professional myself ... YET ;-) ), is to never give up the dream, make sure you take care of business (and your responsibilities) ...

But don't take your eye off the ball either.

I kind of don't get your question Billy. I mean you've covered it all pretty much.

You can get yourself an assistant job, which just takes a combination of being in the right place at the right time, hanging out at a local photo store or studio, or wherever and getting to know photographers who are likely to need a hand, and just being persistant till you get one ...

You can bite the bullet and shoot weddings and portraits and whatever else someone will pay you for ... After all, it's about making money.

You can try to freelance and sell photos to media outlets ...

Or, you can find completely different job that pays the bills (after all you have a degree right? How about teaching ... Not fun, but it's money), and do the art thing in your spare time.

I think the problem is that you don't want to do what it is you already know you need to do.

The very first lesson they should teach, as far back as high school even, but certainly when you enter college should be ... Work is not fun.

Work is about paying the bills ... So you can have fun.

I've been extremely lucky in my professional career, in that I've been able to switch careers three times and still have been able to pay the bills ... And I'm about to press my luck and switch a fouth.

Ultimately though ... One of my career changes gave me an opportunity to do something I loved as a hobby professionally ... And what was a hobby (golf of all things), immediately became work and was no longer "fun".

Oh it was satisfying ... When the money flowed. As had been working in the IT Industry ... And owning my own businesses ... And I'm sure so too will be photography (when I take that plunge in the next couple years, though it'll be a semi-retired kinda thing). But in order to make the money flow you have to do things you may or may not WANT to do. Like hit a million balls a day till your hands are raw or learning a programming language you aren't particularly interested in so you can fulfill a need in the organization or carrying a line of merchandise that you aren't going to make a large margin on, simply to increase store traffic so you might be able to sell things you do make a larger margin on ... All these things have to be done.

I'm not particularly interested in doing portraits or weddings or comercial work ... But in order to be able to what you want, you have to do what you must ... And our business plan involves us doing portraits, weddings, and comercial work right out of the box ... And our trips to shoot landscaps and nature will allow us to keep the "Hobby"/fun aspect of photography alive ...

Not to sound mean, cause I'm really only trying to help ... I promise I am ...

But welcome to the real world ... Where you have to support yourself first and do what you want second.

Thanks guys ... There's just something about the smell of new electronics in the morning isn't there? heh

So uh Juergen ... Tell me about the 100-400 ;-)

Oh and for sure Charles, make sure you eventually get yourself the 5D ... While I saved those pennies for a while, there hasn't been a single day since I've gotten it that I thought ... You know, I could have gotten by with <fill-in-the-blank> instead. It's a great camera!

I've been into photography for a million years ... Ok, more like 35 (I'm 47),

ever since my grandfather (who was a real photographer) took me into a

darkroom and I got to smell those smells and watch a picture appear out of

nothing ... I've never forgotten.

I've always shot with standard issue amateur equipment, but I've been shooting

constantly for the past 25 years ... Pentax K1000, SMC 55 F1.8 ... Then a

Pentax ZX-M with the same lens and a couple cheep zooms. Last year we decided

to venture into digital a bit and got a Powershot A620, which we really liked

(and still do, it's a great little camera) and combined with the ever

increasing lack of decent film processing options in our area and a desire to

finally break away from standard issue amateur equipment ... Well ... We

decided that I could finally build myself a "proper" digital system (from

capture to print).

Being a computer professional, the big lack was the capture hardware ... We

already have a spiffy little six computer network at the house, including a

couple brand new gaming rigs, laptops and a pair of servers (the wife and I

like gaming ... heh), and other than getting a copy of Photoshop CS2 and a

good printer, we already had the darkroom (helped make our film/digital

decision).

So after MUCH reading, a few months ago I took many of my saved pennies and

got myself a 5D and a couple decent starter lenses ... A 50m F1.4 USM and a

100m F2 USM and have spent every non-working, waking minute of the last four

months learning ... Shooting/CS2 ... CS2/Shooting ...

This past weekend, it was time ... I ordered my first "L". The 17-40m F4L USM

(of course, it's everyone's first isn't it?), but an "L" nonetheless. I also

got the 100m F2.8 USM Macro (for double rebate purposes don't you know

*cough* ;-) ) ... But we all know it's the "L" that prompted this post.

Giddy doesn't begin to describe what the next week (delivery is on the 11th)

is gonna be for me ... It's worse than when I was waiting for the 5D to show

up.

And yes ... The next one is already being saved for. The 100-400m F4/5.6L IS

USM ... Hopefully this spring.

No real point to the post really ... Just couldn't stand it and had to let it

out a bit.

Hi ... My name is Larry. I'm 47 years old and I finally am getting my first

really great lens (just in time for a Christmas trip to Idaho I might add ...

Pics to follow I'm sure) ... And no ... I never have grown up.

;-)

"... but other than a local Sierra Club using one of my images for a postcard campaign, and a pub in Korea using one of my images for an local ad ..."

For starters ... I wouldn't mention either of those to the church ;-)

I think you can find them at <a href="http://www.matcutter.com/">Mat Cutter</a><br>

<br>

I'm about to start ordering from them.

"The diference I see is not substantial or huge. Just so subtle that I can't quite describe it to my self."

Not having read all the replies yet, but I saw this and it prompted a comment, so if it's been covered ... Sorry.

I'm not a "professional" (meaning I don't do this full time) yet either, though I am in the process of trying to make the leap (still have the day job for the time being ;-) ).

But I am my own worst critic. I look at my finished product much more critically than I look at someone else's and I'm always trying to improve on something. I'm almost never satisfied.

Other people aren't nearly as critical of my work as I am ... Because they actually buy it. I sold a photo this weekend that I thought would never sell. In fact I sold several photos this weekend, which I thought were lacking.

My work was nearly side by side with a "professional" photographer's work (about 40 feet away) and I out-sold them. But when I looked at their photos, I was sure their product was that little bit more refined than mine was ... Our prices were the same ... But the people who were spending money evidently thought my work was what they'd prefer to have in their homes.

It made me feel good, but at the same time ... Makes me want to be even better.

Maybe these differences you're seeing (like mine) are more self-inflicted than real.

For what it's worth, I'm still completely impressed with the Pixma Pro9000. I never used an i9900, so I have no frame of reference for comparison, but I did talk to a Sales Rep at Canon who advised me to not buy the i9900 (which I was about to spend $500 on from them directly back in late September) and to wait for the Pixma Pro9000 ...

I was more than a bit surprised that I got that advice from Canon, but am very glad I did ... There's nothing about the Pro9000 I'm the least be unhappy with.

That doesn't mean it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It simply means I consider the $500 I spent on it ... Well spent money.

Be prepared to replace the Photo Magenta and Photo Cyan carts ($14.25 each from Canon, a bit more in local stores here) on a semi-regular basis (depending on how many prints, and what size you print ... I get about 50 letter sized prints per Photo Magenta, which definitely goes faster than any other cart) ... And make sure you have a lot of desk space (it's got a hefty footprint) ... But I don't see any decent 13x19 photo printer not having those qualities.

I agree with Juergen. And add to the control benefit the fact that locally my choices for printing have gone from slim to one (which might as well be none between their high cost and lack of quality) and you also get the benefit of much faster results than having to send out for them and waiting for delivery.

I chose to get a Canon Pixma Pro9000 ($500). I buy sets of ink directly from Canon ($100 for a set, $14.25 each), again less expensive than I can find locally, and most of the paper I use from them as well ... And I calculate a 13x19 print to cost me about $4.50 ($2.00 for paper and $2.5 for ink) ... That's a grossly conservative estimate as I get many more than 40 13x19 prints from a full set of ink carts (I did have to replace one at 40, another at 60, I'm about to replace the photo magenta for the second time during which I still haven't had to replace the other 6 carts) and not all Canon papers cost $2.00 a sheet like their Fine Art Papers do (I use Photo Paper Pro or Plus Semi Gloss which are less than $2.00 for the bulk of my printing). Obviously smaller prints cost much less.

Sure there is much debate between Canon and Epson and such, but that's all individual preference and whatnot ... I chose Canon and I'm a happy camper.

Bottom line is that you have to factor in time and control to your decision, beyond straight up dollars and cents ... For me, when it comes to prints of 13x19 and smaller, there's no reason not to do them myself.

I have not read all the replies yet, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, I'm sorry if it has ...

But I would make sure the PC has the ability to connect to the Internet, regardless if you use it on a daily basis or not, simply so you could get updates to Photoshop (first thing I did after installing PS CS2 was to get the updates for Canon Raw Files) and things like ICC Profiles for different types of paper and whatnot ... To say nothing of Windows updates and the like.

A computer without a nic is a very rare thing ... You don't have to plug it in, but you should make sure you can when you need it.

"If you (on a Mac, I am not sure of how to do it on a Windows machine) hold down the option key while click-holding the cursor on the arrow on either the exposure or shadow sliders you will see in the ACR proeview window where your clipping points are for your highlights or blacks respectively."

I believe there are check boxes at the top for those. At least that's how I see Shadow and Highlight clipping ... And I am using XP Pro.

For me ... Most of the fixed pictures there are too dark.

Just my tastes.

Well my first observation still stands ... What a great printer!

The color and detail is as good as any print I've ever gotten from a lab on sizes upto 13x19 (since it can't go bigger, that'll have to do).

Kodak still doesn't have ICC Profiles for their professional papers, for the Pixma Pro9000 on their website, so I'm sticking to canon paper and their profiles until they do ... When I can compare Kodak papers to Canon's. But I must say, so far, I'm plenty happy with Canon paper and to be honest, I don't really see a need to not use Canon paper at this point.

Last night I finally drained one of the "out of the box carts" (Photo Magenta) after printing 60 8.5x11s and 2 13x19s since getting it ... All landscapes ... It shows the Photo Cyan at just under half and the only other cart that has a dent in it is Yellow (though that's according to the software, I didn't actually look them all over as I didn't change the empty yet).

This weekend I'm going to be printing a ton of 5x7s and 13x19s so I'll see how well the replacement carts hold up ... And I'm going to mess with the art papers too.

Still haven't printed a B+W image yet, but I can't imagine that would be bad ... We'll see though.

B Hall ... Thanks for that.

I am a full frame kinda guy. I either have 35mm negatives and slides or my 5D.

Last night I was messing with print sizes and settled on 7.75x10.25 centered on 8.5x11 paper, which will be matted to an 11x14 standard frame size. That gives .375 inch overlap on each side for matting.

I decided that I'll always scale the image up or down, then crop to get the size necessary ... And I guess I'll use that same .75 inch less than the paper size (or .375 inch per side) border to allow for matting.

This must all be really basic stuff ... And I really do appreciate the input ... But being that up until very recently the most I ever worried about printing images was who to take the film to and what size prints I wanted for which images, I never really understood the process.

It's one of those things I never bothered to think about ...

Thanks for the replies guys ...

I was pretty sure that the only way to do this was to have a file for each size, which I currently have set up ... Basically I have a folder for each size and after I finish with an image I resize it and save it in each folder ... That way I can quickly get to and print what I need.

I just kinda found the whole process to be fairly inefficient and was hoping there was an easier solution that I was somehow just missing.

As for printing, I do print on appropriate sized paper, meaning I print 5x7s on 5x7s and 8.5x11 on 8.5x11 ... I was just kinda not wanting to scale up a 5x7 to 10x14, print it on a 13x19 and then trim. Just seems to defeat the purpose of have nice big 13x19 prints to say nothing of being wasteful.

It also just seems to me that when all these "Standard" sizes were figured out a million years ago ...

They'd have done a little math before settling on the final sizes ;-)

Dang artists ... Math is your friend :-)

Thanks again guys ... Sorry for being such a dummy.

That dummy would, evidently, be me.

Ok, so here's my problem (besides being a dummy). For some reason my wife and

I think our photographs will sell and we do have a store front/outlet (two of

them in fact, on opposite sides of the country), which we think would be a

great place to test the waters.

After doing a bunch of reading about all the various pieces of this puzzle,

and after spending a pretty decent chunk of change to convert to digital ...

From capture to print ... And a lot of time figuring out a decent workflow and

developing mad Photoshop skillz (heh) ... We've decided to sell prints in a

couple different ways.

Framed and Unframed ... heh ... See? Dummy I tell you. No DUH, framed and

unframed ... heh

What I mean is that we want to sell custom framed prints and unframed, but

prematted (to standard size) prints. Prematted to standard sizes so people

can just go get themselves a standard sized frame and stick the prematted

print in it ... No fuss no muss.

Here's my problem. For the unframed, but prematted standard size prints, I

don't understand how to go about sizing the prints.

I mean a 5x7 print can be matted to 8x10, which is a standard frame size ...

And for example a 13x19 can be matted to an 18x24 ...

BUT .... The same image can't be printed at both 5x7 and 13x19. It has to be

either cropped or stretched somehow because 5x7 doesn't scale to 13x19. In

fact I can't figure out how prints scale at all (remembering I'm trying to

stay at standard FRAME sizes). For the custom framed photographs we're going

to make and sell, this isn't an issue.

But we'd like to offer three different sizes for each image ... Something like

an 8x10, 11x14, and 18x24 (which would be prints of 5x7, either 8x10 or

8.5x11, and 13x19) ... But I don't see how the image can remain the same for

three different standard frame sizes. Meaning I could have the same image for

the 5x7 and 8x10 print (though the matting on the 8x10 print, to make it an

11x14 frame wouldn't be the same scaling as the 5x7 to make it an 8x10), but

would have to have a seperate image altogether for the 13x19 print size. Not

to mention I like the idea of printing at 8.5x11 for the 11x14 frame size.

I'm thinking the solution involves a photo trimmer (like a paper cutter, Kodak

makes one for like $200ish) and wasting paper (not covering the entire 13x19

sheet) ... But to be honest, I'd rather not waste paper. Yet I simply can't

figure out how the image can remain the same at three different standard frame

sizes ...

So ... Can someone help a dummy out here?

I purchased a Western Digital 250gig USB 2.0 My Book, external drive to both backup my laptop and use as an external photo storage device.

It was only $125 (.50 cents a gig) and it works great. Granted it's USB 2.0 and therefore not as fast as I might like it to be, but for the price I think it's worth it.