remco-jan.woldhuis

Doesn't Canon camera's appear as an external disk on the desktop (like a Nikon

does)? If so, you don't need the Canon apps.

For printing you should calculate with 240..300 dpi (dots per inch), depending of the

print size (for large prints you can work with 200 or even 150 dpi.

So in your example, 1080x650 pixels can be printed at approx. 3.5 x 2 inches.

Sony has a GPS tracker. During post-processing you can add the GPS data in the

image file.

I think it's quite annoying actually, that you have to convert 16 bit images to 8 bit

before you can save as JPEG. Why doesn't PS convert automatically to 8 bit before

saving as JPEG?

On the total bill of D300 + lens, the 130 pounds is peanuts IMHO. I would buy the

Nikkor. If you use the lens for 2 years, it's only about 5 pounds per month....

I have based my workflow on Adobe Lightroom and always work with full resolution

images. The last step is resizing and optimizing for web usage.

Mountains, the lake. That's about it. Been there a few years ago, and I didn't find Interlaken

itself very inspiring. Too much tourists. Just go up in the mountains.

I guess your camera applied a lot of noise reduction before saving the image as JPEG. Note

that heavy noise reduction also removes lots of details in your images.

When shooting RAW you should apply noise reduction in the post-processing up to a level

where noise is acceptable, and you still have enough detail in your images. It can take some

time to learn the best way to process your RAW's but the end result will be superior than out

of the camera jpeg's.

I am missing one answer here: fix the basics before exposure. Saves you a lot of time in the

post-processing.

There's an open source RAW converter colled DCraw. As long as the source code is available

(just download it, and keep a copy for yourself), there's always a possibility to process RAW

files.

Sigma offers HSM lenses which are compatible with the D40x. In the 400-500mm range they

offer the APO 500mm F4.5 EX DG /HSM

An external monitor is cheaper. The differences between the Macbook+monitor setup and an

iMac are:

- a Macbook has shared video memory, but this should be no real problem if you have 2GB

RAM.

- an iMac has a faster harddisk.

I don't know how it works in Windows, but on a Mac I simply insert a blank disc and drag 'n'

drop my files to that blank disc. I guess Windows should have something similar.

They were $1499 when Apple still offered the 17inch version. When they discontinued the

17inch, the 20inch started at $1199. Rather cheap actually, especially when you compare it

to the European prices (1199 Euro, which is about $1640....).

If you are also having problems with your iPod, it makes sense that something's wrong with

your laptop. And as Ronald is saying, set the camera to mass storage (if you have a Windows

PC, if you have a Mac both Mass storage and PTP will work).

I agree with Elliot. Affordable 300mm zooms are in practise not very useful because the

optical quality decreases from 200mm onwards.

If you really want to have 300mm, Tamron has just released a 70-300 with inbuilt AF motor

for about 190 euro/usd.

You probably are working with 16 bit tiff files. Convert them to 8 bit (Image > Mode > 8bit)

and then Save As jpeg.

I don't know for Canon but with a Nikon lens you can change the apertures stepless via the

level at the mount. I guess Canon has something similar.

Darren, I don't know where the Tamron scores higher than the Nikon, but this site has

never let me down:

Nikon 70-300 VR:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70300_4556vr/index.htm

Tamron 70-300:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_70300_456_pentax/index.htm

The Tamron only scores better in distortion (and price of course). On all other tests, the

Nikon is clearly better.

Besides the MF, everything should work fine. Note that lenses like these are not intended for

manual focussing, which makes MF quite hard.

I would advice you to continue saving for the Nikon 70-300 VR lens. This lens has AF-S, VR

and a much better optical quality compared to the Tamron.