steve_bright1

<p>i've printed a few panos using my R1800 and Olmec roll paper (no longer available, i think, and i had to use some hideous colour compensation).<br>

<br />you need to pay close attention to which buttons you should be pressing to a) feed out to the cutting line, b) feed back to the starting point, and c) eject paper. a couple of times i was careless and ended up with the entire roll being fed through.</p>

<p>Glad you got it sorted in the end, and I'm baffled at Canon not acknowledging the problem. I've only recently bought a 5D2 myself, and I'm thankful that i've had no such problem, especially since I didn't give it more than a quick once over before an expensive vacation in the US.<br>

Yours is a beautiful photo, and I'm relieved that it's not in Death Valley. I was there and I'd hate to think I'd missed that view!<br>

Steve</p>

<p>of course there are other factors at play as well as the optical quality of the lens and ability of the user... i used to be a bit bemused about people saying how 'tack sharp' their 24-105/F4 lens was. mine was good, but not excellent, on my 20D and 40D. now i've got a 5D mk2 and i am totally blown away by how sharp it is.<br>

conversely, my 100-400 gave better results on the 40D, so i'm still fiddling with the AF microadjustment on that.<br>

<br />steve</p>

<p>I'm a bit late to the party, but i'd like to add my thanks and support to Patrick too. His posts are always informative and well-worth reading. Go Patrick!</p>

Whether or not you get hit for import duty + VAT + handling charges (yes, all 3) depends to a large extent on the carrier used by the seller and how much artistic licence the seller uses when declaring the contents of the parcel. Having bought a couple of lenses from B&H myself 3 years ago, I think you have a high likelihood of getting hit with the taxes. You'll stand a better chance of avoiding them if you take a chance on one of the more reputable Hong Kong dealers on Ebay. Some of them offer to refund any taxes that are levies.

 

Six months ago, taking into account the taxes, buying from the US was only of marginal benefit. Now our beloved currency has disappeared round the S-bend, I'd have thought you'd be better off buying in the UK, where the manufacturers are absorbing at least some of the currency fluctuation.

but there are issues with png files, in that Internet Explorer does not support the transparency properly.

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294714

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/making-png-image-transparency-work-in-internet-explorer/

The focus ring on my 10-22 is a bit loose, as it has been since brand new. In fact, I posted a question about it a year or so ago. I didn't do anything about it; it has exactly the same looseness now, and it hasn't affected the image quality of functioning at all.

 

I'd say that Peter's description of the focus ring covers mine too.

I shoot RAW + JPEG. I process individual photos from the RAW file, but frequently look through the JPEG photos to choose a photo to process. I set the camera to sRGB.

 

When browsing the JPEG photos, using Windows Explorer and IrfanView or other non-color-aware programs, having an sRGB JPEG means that the colors I see on the screen are pretty much as they are, and allow me to make a reasonable assessment of whether I want to work on the image.

 

If I had set the camera to AdobeRGB, it would mean that I would have to use a completely color-aware workflow just to browse through my photos in order to see the correct colors on my display.

 

Setting the camera to sRGB does not affect the RAW files at all.

 

When I decide to work on an image, I'll process the raw using either lightroom or ACR, and send an image to Photoshop in the ProPhoto colorspace. This has a wider gamut than AdobeRGB, so it's better to work with, preserving as much color information as possible for as long as possible.

 

It doesn't seem to make any sense for the author of that article to convert the image from ProPhoto to AdobeRGB as soon as he opens it in Photoshop. If he prefers to work in AdobeRGB, he might as well do the raw conversion into AdobeRGB. The fact that he says he can't explain why he sets the camera to sRGB would imply that he doesn't really understand the process fully, and therefore I wouldn't place too much store in the rest of what he says!

 

You asked 'is it not better to ALSO convert to ProPhoto in photoshop'. Unless I missing the point, if you've selected ProPhoto in ACR, your image is already in ProPhoto, so no conversion is necessary.

Having been to Disney on a number of occasions, including when my children were the same age as yours, my advice would be: 1) take a good compact camera, and/or 2) take a decent video camera. Leave the SLR behind.

 

The rationale behind this is: unless you get permission from Disney, you won't be able to use any shots on a commercial basis. If you're hoping to get some fancy/arty type shots, you'll probably find it hard to get shots which haven't been done a zillion times before, and your efforts to get them will detract from your families' enjoyment. Like the other responders, I imagine that you'll be wanting to capture photos of your family experiencing the wonder of Disney and enjoying yourselves. A compact with a wide-ish lens should be good for that.

 

I think most kids would enjoy looking at 10 minutes of video more than 10 minutes of still photos - the moving pictures and sounds will really help them relive the experience more easily - it's magic being able to watch how you behaved and sounded years later.

 

If you can't dampen the urge to take the SLR, I'd go for the 10-22 or actually, maybe the range offered by one of the kit lenses, e.g. 17-85, 18-55 would be the best solution for one lens. Or perhaps the 10-22 plus the 50.

 

Whatever you decide, I'm sure you'll have a great time.

Have a look at this <a

href="http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=WhMNH4qh&p_lva=5161&p_faqid=2123&p_created=1054130576&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTI1JnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9MjpmYXFzLmZhcV9pZCZwX3Byb2RfbHZsMT0yNSZwX3Byb2RfbHZsMj1_YW55fiZwX2NhdF9sdmwxPTE1JnBfY2F0X2x2bDI9fmFueX4mcF9wYWdlPTI*&p_li">Nikon

scanner compatibility chart</a> (at 356 characters, it must be one of the longest URLs!).

<p>I'm going to hazard an educated guess that the (s) suffix actually indicates that it's silver in color, rather

than beige.

<p>According to the chart, you can fit an MA-20 into an LS40ED. Given that an MA-20 came with the LS2000 and LS30

(I think), it looks like there might be potential problems using an FH-3 with an MA-20, as blooming might occur.

<p>Hope this helps<br>Steve

To improve your chances of success when shooting hand-held at slow shutter speeds - set the drive to high-speed

continuous shooting; use your best technique to frame the shot and keep still, then gently squeeze the shutter

button and keep it pressed as you shoot five or so frames.

 

After you've done that, do it again. You'll end up with loads of shots which look the same, but when you zoom

right in, you'll see that the degree of motion blur varies from shot to shot, and hopefully there'll be some

which have no blur at all.

 

For example, let's say you could get 1/30s at ISO 1600. You ought to be able to easily get away with that with a

single shot, but using the multiple shot technique, you might also be able to get away with 1/8s at ISO 400,

which should result in a better quality image.

 

Experiment! Cover your bases! And take loads of CF cards.

 

Good luck

I ran a Unix file check and it came back as 'data or International Language text'. However, the first 16 bytes don't appear to be valid Unicode of any description, either big or little endian.

 

The first few characters don't match any of the codes in the list at http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/oldusers/rno/Computing/File_magic.html either.

 

Sorry, I've drawn a blank. I don't think it's an image file.

Actually, it is definitely Fractalius, all three of your examples are in <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lightyear/fractalius">this sample gallery</a>.

It could actually be <a href="http://www.redfieldplugins.com/filterFractalius.htm">Fractalius</a>. The examples on both sites look similar, but I think Fractalius looks a bit closer.

Well on my monitor, I can see a difference - the dark side on the right is more 'blotchy' or posterised on the LR version. Strangely though, the top left corner light-dark gradient seems more ragged on the C1 version.

 

It looks like the C1 darks are a touch lighter than the LR version. I've not used C1 at all, but I'm wondering whether the shadow setting in LR, which defaults to 5 and clips the black levels, is the cause of the problem. Did you try it with a shadow setting of 0?

 

Of course, if you set shadow to zero, it will have an effect on the image overall, but you may be able to get some of that back by using a curve at the very dark end, but hopefully without the blotchiness you're seeing here.

 

I'm surprised that a stock agency would reject an image because of this. I would have interpreted 'artifact' as unwanted patterning left by jpeg compression rather than this.

I've bought filters, the Canon timer remote thingy (TCN30R?) and an ST-E2 from digitalrev. They're shipped from HK as has been mentioned and seem to be quick. I've not had any problems and I'd use them again.

Slightly different slant to it - is your shutter release button ok? If you press really hard does it always work? My 40D had to go back to Canon inside a year because of just that reason. They replaced the piece that includes the shutter button.

 

I saw the same fault on someone's 30D once and this fault does crop up every now and again on this forum.

 

The fault I was experiencing was this: half-press, and it focuses ok as expected. Fully press and nothing happens. If I increased the pressure steadily, at some point it would fire.

> Alberto: Many thanks for the link, it's going to take a while to digest all that info. I'll probably pass that

link to my audience if they want to research the subject any further.

 

> Patrick: Thanks. As I said, I use channel mixer myself, and I've got that technique plus several others covered

already.

 

> Ellis:I won't have access to PS for several hours, and right now I can't quite visualise the filters you're

referring to. If they're a CS3-onwards feature, I won't be covering them as the Club's laptop only has CS2.

However, I've got CS3, so I'd be interested on a personal level.

Hi Folks,

 

I'm giving a talk to my Camera Club in a few days time, about techniques for converting from color to mono. I

always use the channel mixer myself, but I want to cover as many techniques as I can.

 

I'd always assumed that converting to grayscale (image>mode>grayscale) would be exactly the same as desaturate,

but I was surprised to find that it isn't. I spent quite a while using the channel mixer to try and replicate the

results of converting to grayscale, without success.

 

In case you thought, like me, that grayscale and desaturate were the same, the attached example shows how they're

different. In the color image, the background is 128,128,128 (RGB). The colored words have their color settings

alongside them. However, if the color channels for each word are averaged, you'll end up with 128. When the image

is desaturated (lower right), the words just disappear as they end up the same color as the background. The lower

left image is the result of converting to grayscale.

 

Does anyone know what recipe Photoshop uses for converting to grayscale?

 

Thanks for your help

Steve

 

PS. Don't take this the wrong way - I'm grateful for your help - but I don't want to start a discussion on the

relative merits of the different techniques, there's enough coverage of that elsewhere.<div></div>

I'm not saying that it isn't a shutter count, but I'm dubious - I went back to the first handful of images that I shot with my brand new 20D (in 2005) and the shutter count using the zecoj.com method above was about 17000.

Sorry, my answer only covers your question about finding the actions. I can't help you with the XP to Vista part.

I think you'll find what you need to know <a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/computers_and_more/backup_03/essay.html">here</a>.<br>

BR. Steve

Yes! I've noticed this too, having upgraded from the 20D like Quynh. Only being able to wake up from sleep by pressing the shutter release like the 20D seems to make far more sense for practical use than what the 40D has.

<p>Didn't quite grasp the meaning of your last comment, but to (hopefully) clarify...

<p>Alamy want an 8-bit (not 16-bit) JPEG RGB image containing at least 16 million pixels.

<p>16 million pixels = 48 million bytes (not bits)

<p>Really all of the information you need is explained clearly in their help pages on image preparation. The link I supplied earlier was slightly corrupted by a spurious trailing quote, so I'll present it again with another one below:

<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp">http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp</a><br>

<a href="http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-digital-cameras.asp">http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-digital-cameras.asp</a>

<br>&nbsp<br>Note: Alamy are actually asking for a 48MB (mega-BYTE) uncompressed image. There's at least three interpretations of mega that I can think of, but for simplicity I've gone for 1 Mega = 1000000.

<p>Unless Alamy have changed their rules recently, David is incorrect. Alamy (used to) recommend a minimum of a 6MP camera as a suitable image source and your 20D/40D should be fine.

<p>Their 48MP requirement refers to the dimensions of the submitted image, and does not correspond to the actual file size. Simply multiply the width in pixels by the height in pixels and then multiply it by 3 (for the RGB colours). If the result is less than 48 million, you will need to up-rez the image.

<p>Alamy allow image up-rezzing, but recommend that you use a product such as Genuine Fractals to do it with. 20D/40D images will always need to be up-rezzed as the native image from the camera is not big enough.

<p>You don't have to use Genuine Fractals, images up-rezzed using Photoshop can be just as acceptable. As an example, uncropped maximum size images from the 40D would need to be up-rezzed by about 27%, and from the 20D by about 40%.

<p>Having prepared your image, paying due regard to Alamy's requirements on sharpening and colourspace, you'll need to save the image as a maximum quality jpeg which can then be submitted. The actual file size of the jpeg will depend on the content of the image, i.e. how efficient the compression was, and is completely irrelevant.

<p>Hope this helps, there's more info <a "href=http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp">here</a>