rffffffff

<p>I agree with Matt, but asuka book lets you design in photoshop... its utterly and completely up to you in every sense.</p>

<p>I recently shot a family with six puppies and it was extraordinarily difficult! The best advice that can give, if the dogs are small enough, is to have them each hold two dogs while sitting and just photograph the lovefest!</p>

<p>I also did a shot with all six puppies on leashes (call ahead and make sure they have enough leashes!) pulling the kids... I think that works really nice if the dogs are a little older and want to go the same direction... some of these new puppies just sat down.</p>

<p>Last advice... make sure you have an assistant at the very least... when we werent looking the puppies were in camera bags and all over the place!</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

<p>I googled the 1725 and it looks really good... I am amazed at the specs for the money, but tech changes fast and my projector is old! I do fine with a 1024x768 2000 lumens projector in a dark room. <br>

I wish I had 3000 lumens for sure, and more would be better if you have any issues with light control. I have medium weight curtains, and when they are closed but the light is shining directly on them I lose contrast.<br>

1024x768 resolution is basically the minimum acceptable resolution.<br>

The things that I would check before buying it is if the zoom or focal length is acceptable for your location (I found that projectorcentral.com has a projection calculator that is really great for that process... the reviews there are great too.) and the bulb replacement cost. Especially as the projector prices come down, the bulb cost is a higher percentage of a new projector... my bulb is $250, and some of them are $400-500.</p>

<p>Pretty funny Joel...</p>

<p>I did bring it to Melville, and to my surprise it was only $350 plus tax to fix. I had heard quotes as high as 600, and I expected $450, so its not too bad. I didn't confirm the price of the shutter itself, but I read someplace that it was expensive and required software at least to calibrate, so I just left it with Nikon.</p>

<p>Its not as bad as I thought.</p>

<p>Thanks for the information, guys. I live 10 minutes from Melville, so I will bring it in and see what they say. <br>

The shutter looks to be relatively intact, and I doubt the filter has been effected based on the preliminary investigation I did while I was at the event. <br>

I kind of assumed that shutters come in self contained assemblies these days, designed to be replaced by trained monkeys much like most of the components in todays advanced medical equipment, but it may not be that simple... A trip to nikon will be telling... if I decide to go the self replacement route I'll post pictures!</p>

<p>I am 99% sure I blew the shutter on the D3 today... I have no clue to the amount of activations, but I would guess that I am below 100k, not that it matters.</p>

<p>The question, for those with tight budgets, is has anyone ever changed the shutter assembly themselves on a nikon DSLR? </p>

<p>I literally took the sensor out of a D70 and put it back together again without too much of an issue, and I would imagine the shutter assembly isn't too much more difficult than that, but I am not sure if there are calibrations and adjustments to do that someone without a service manual or special tools might not be able to do. Any thoughts on the matter? </p>

<p>P.S. I have years of experience repairing $1,000,000+ mri and cat scan machines, so its not like I am an amateur in this regard... its not like I will blow the whole thing up, most likely.</p>

<p>right click the layer in the layer pane and click duplicate layer, then tell it to go to the appropriate (open) document in the dialog box.</p>

<p>hypothetically, not really. If you are just going to leave things the way they are, using nx2, it should be just about the same, if not exactly the same, and it will take a lot more time, and fill a lot more cards. On the other hand, if you are going to make just about ANY changes, nef is better.</p>

<p>I save them as psds right from photoshop, which are large too, but smaller than uncompressed tiff. Once I finish a psd, then I save it to jpeg for printing or web. One save to jpeg quality 12 will result in no noticeable image degradation, but the key is to go back to the psd if you want to make changes, then save a jpeg again when you are done.<br>

My lab will accept tiffs too, but I just can't see any benefit in a final print over a jpeg saved at the highest quality setting.</p>

<p>That's true, Matt, except I have 2500 pictures from yesterday! I use bridge and adobe camera raw with the defaults set to make no changes, then I batch edit them using presets and by hand. I find it to be loads faster than using viewNX or anything else, but thats just me.</p>

<p>Its a very valid point for the original poster, though, that camera software as opposed to adobe software can make my original point completely moot.</p>

One other point: I shoot raw exclusively, but I tweak every image. For the most part, though, if you setting the white balance right in camera religiously and getting your exposures right, an in camera jpeg will actually look better than a raw file without any tweaks. (depending on the camera, I suppose)

 

the raw files from the d3, for instance, are kind of flat, where the jpegs have contrast and sharpening and punch that a completely unedited (just converted) nef probably won't have. The raw files are designed to be tweaked, if that makes sense, where the jpegs can be more of a finished product.

<p>I do reformat in camera everytime I use the cards and I completely agree that win 7 handles mounting and dismounting a million times better than vista or xp.<br>

I think the firewire portion is the trouble, as I had a bear of a time getting it to work at all, then it was really slow, and then I was finally able to configure the firewire drivers right in order to get it to transfer at a reasonable speed. On top of that, the motherboard that upgraded to did not have a firewire port (oversight) so I have to use an inexpensive firewire pci express add on card, which is suspect too. I am not sure if its hardware or software though, as googling about firewire and win 7 brings up a lot of issues.</p>

<p>I think my original idea of going to usb sounds better and better the more I type!</p>

<p>It could just be my cards getting old, perhaps, but I have noticed a LOT more card corruption issues since switching to windows 7. I have had sandisk rescue pro for years and never use it, except on a rare occasion when I format a card prematurely or something like that... Today, another card, straight out of the camera claims it needs to be formatted in order to use it. (sandisk 4gb card, d2X)<br>

Since windows 7, I have used it ten times, I think. This is getting old! I haven't lost any images so far, but I hope my luck doesnt run out.<br>

The question: has anyone else experienced increased card related issues since switching to win 7? I am currently using a firewire reader, which I think I am going to replace with a usb reader, and there are a lot of variables in this equation, but I am curious if anyone else has had increased trouble.</p>

<p>I assume you are talking about a post card type deal, not a 'business card' which is typically 2x3.5.</p>

<p>Not that it matters much, actually...</p>

<p>I use photoshop for all of it regardless. Most online printers that I use have downloadable psd guide files for each product. If you need full bleed (images running all the way to the edge), you have to design the card as a 5.25 x 7.25 card with an 1/8th inch around the outside that gets cut off... most of the guides then specify that 1/8th inch in further is the 'safe' zone, where text and important images should reside to minimize the risk of them being chopped off.</p>

<p>psprint.com would be my recommendation.</p>

<p>in my experience it can make some people say wow and some complain... usually, to be frank, older people hate it. I am not sure why.<br>

Keep doing it so that you can see when and where it doesnt work!</p>

<p>try ctrl ; perhaps?</p>

<p>if not, you might try resetting all of photoshop to default settings.. I think you can do that by holding ctrl or shift or both as photoshop starts up.</p>

<p>dave's right, btw... rescue pro, not image pro.</p>

<p>first, stop doing anything with the card.</p>

<p>second, image recovery software should help you greatly. I use sandisk image pro software (i think) that comes with sandisk extreme cards, but there are a lot of alternatives. Google around and see what comes up, but be wary in paying for software from the internet.</p>

<p>This happens to me very rarely, but when it has, recopying the file from the memory card has solved it. I had a card reader that would occasionally corrupt images during transfer causing my problem. </p>

<p>A lot of people think its good to start with fewer lights in order to understand lighting better... I found that to be a good idea in some sense, but i very quickly wanted more lights, and I really think that 3 or 4 lights is a good place to start, and 5 lights are commonly used in one shot at or studio.</p>

<p>I have no idea about pricing of lights other than alien bees, because I am not in the market, but I am sure that $1500 will not go as far as you will like! By the time you buy light stands (alien bee heavy duty 13' stands are pretty good and cheap), softboxes and or umbrellas, barn doors, perhaps a snoot and or some grids, radio triggers, etc, the budget shrinks.</p>

<p>If you are thinking about shooting primarily indoors in smallish space (as most beginning studio photographers are) I think a two B400s and two B800s would be a great place to start. Alien bee HD stands work well, although I like others better because they fold up smaller, photoflex softboxes seem to be a good value based on construction and cost although the speedrings are ridiculously expensive, and the buff radio triggers have made me mostly happy so far. Convertable umbrellas are great and relatively inexpensive, and I would recommend two sets of barn doors and or two short light stands for rim and background lighting.</p>

<p>gotta go..hope that helps!</p>

<p>Canon Sucks. Use Nikon.</p>

<p>if its basketball, you are not going to use 1.4, most likely. I would try the 1.8. Supposedly it focuses slightly faster, and you will need the depth of field that smaller apertures require, so 1.4 isnt too useful. shooting at f/2, however, seems about as low as I can go and still get a lot of sharp pictures.<br>

On the other hand, if you are taking pictures of other things, I think the 85 1.4 is about the best that there is.</p>

<p>robert seems to offer good advice... I have only used one $99 epson (820?) inkjet a very long time ago, but the initial print quality was about as good as a 'real' photo 10 years ago, although the longevity wasnt there.<br>

If you arent looking for speed or maximum gamut, cheap printers seem to offer a lot of bang for the buck.</p>

<p>the dye sub I have I think was $2000 and it isnt even close to inkjet quality... although 8x10s are 30 seconds and dry when they come out... only used for on site event printing.</p>

<p>dye subs, frankly, stink when you consider image quality. The only reason to use them is for print speed and the lack of necessary drying time. The quality of inkjet prints is far superior, and the inkjets will cost less up front, and perhaps over time too.</p>

<p>I am 99% sure the D700 can be set to commander mode to fire the sb600 remotely. The D3, on the other hand, can't. <br>

The dual compact flash card thing is no big deal from a data safety perspective. <br>

The D700 is a great choice only assuming you have a large enough budget to put good glass in front of it. If you are left with a D700 with an 24-120 or a D300 with a 17-55, the ISO thing is kind of out the window because of the smaller max aperture of the 24-120 or other less expensive lenses, and the D300 combination will likely take better pictures.</p>

<p> </p>