h_d4

<p>You are going to have to print a large number to get the cost down significantly. For 1000 calendars, you might get them for about five dollars each. Are you ready/able to sell 1000 calendars? What are you going to do with the 900+ that didn't sell at the end of the year? Maybe it it is worth it to print them in small numbers even though the cost is high. The online services charge about $20, plus the cost about $1-$3 per calendar to ship, depending on how many calendars you order at a time. Plus, look for discount coupons that come out in the early part of the fall, encouraging people to order their calendars early. You can sometimes save about 20% on the entire order.<br>

You could think of it another way. You pay $23 for the calendar, and you sell them to the Customer for $20. Think of it as a three dollar method of having your images in front of your clients every day of the year! Somebody is bound to see your beautiful images and say where did you get that?<br>

So there's no profit in it, but maybe some good promo. The pleasure of printing them and having people put them in their wall might be worth the three dollar loss.</p>

<p>Hey everybody, I want to post a quick reply to this thread to let you know that I am having big problems with Digi-labs (AKA Digilabs, Digilabspro.com, digi-labs.net and "my photo creations" - They seem to have a lot of websites and a lot of different names). I have been printing 12" x 18" calendars in significant numbers every year to give away to my colleagues and customers. As a long-term customer, with some orders in the thousands of dollars, You might think I would get good service if I ever had a problem, but as you will see if you read on, this is not been the case.</p>

<p>First of all, these calendars are a relative bargain, and so my expectations are in line with the cost. We're talking about a relatively large calendar with a cover and 12 pages, each 12" x 18", and the total cost is about $20 plus shipping.<br>

As a photographer naturally I am very focused on image quality. This year, I had significant color banding on multiple images. They are naturally much more noticeable In images with large areas of similar color. If you look carefully they are on all the prints. Basically, the entire stack of calendars is unusable. I can't give badly printed images to my clients! What kind of impression does that make for my business?<br>

So is this a big deal? Well it would've been okay if I got a prompt and helpful response from Digilabs customer service. However, this has not been the case. I have been in contact with them repeatedly (6 emails, 3 support tickets, 5 phone calls) in the past 10 days. No phone call has ever been returned. The only way to get any kind of response is to submit a support ticket.<br>

I have received responses from three different persons, none of which seems to have been in contact with the other two, and I have sent representative images to them on two separate occasions.<br>

So far I have had no satisfaction from Digilabs. As photographers we have a lot of choices including some mentioned in this posting. For the present time, I would avoid digilabs.</p>

<p>I wanted to beta test the new white balance target for DGK/digital image flow. They are sending them out free. Sent in my info and they sent me a nice note saying they are looking for pros only. Has anyone done this? What was the requirement?</p>

<p>I am in the process of reviewing about 3300 scans. I am happy with the quality I see in the small, review versions of the scans. I was prepared for the time it took to get them so that was not a problem (about 4 weeks). <br>

THE PROBLEM: Even with a hig bandwidth, high speed computer, the review process is slow and tedious. I have communicated with them several times - they keep saying to use firefox (which I use) and that there might be a "temporary glitch" in their system. <br>

Unfortunately it seems this "temporary glitch' is occurring every day and at all times, since i have been working at this for about 10 dyas at all different times. I've tried several computers in different locations, all with brodband or T1 access. <br>

The scancafe pages are slow to respond, sometimes seem to hang o freeze entirely, you can't tell if something is going to happen or if the system has stopped responding, navigating back and forth between folders is slow, tedious, painful. Overall, the review process has been a bummer. <br>

I get the feeling the scancafe people WANT you to get frustrated, giveup "rejecting" scans, and just hit the "checkout now" button and buy all the scans. So beware - they say you can cut your costs by rejecting up to 1/2 the scans, but they (or their system) makes it tedious and time consuming to do so. Makes you go "hmmmmmm". ;)</p>

<p>I am in the process of reviewing about 3300 scans. I am happy with the quality I see in the small, review versions of the scans. I was prepared for the time it took to get them so that was not a problem (about 4 weeks). <br>

THE PROBLEM: Even with a hig bandwidth, high speed computer, the review process is slow and tedious. I have communicated with them several times - they keep saying to use firefox (which I use) and that there might be a "temporary glitch" in their system. <br>

Unfortunately it seems this "temporary glitch' is occurring every day and at all times, since i have been working at this for about 10 dyas at all different times. I've tried several computers in different locations, all with brodband or T1 access. <br>

The scancafe pages are slow to respond, sometimes seem to hang o freeze entirely, you can't tell if something is going to happen or if the system has stopped responding, navigating back and forth between folders is slow, tedious, painful. Overall, the review process has been a bummer. <br>

I get the feeling the scancafe people WANT you to get frustrated, giveup "rejecting" scans, and just hit the "checkout now" button and buy all the scans. So beware - they say you can cut your costs by rejecting up to 1/2 the scans, but they (or their system) makes it tedious and time consuming to do so. Makes you go "hmmmmmm". ;)</p>

<p>I recommend the Digital Grey Kard - it works well and it's cheaper. Also, there are paper cards made by Delta -1 that are the least expensive option, but they tend to get wrinkled and creased and are subject to water damage.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.digitalimageflow.com/ebayItems/premiumDGKs.jpg" width="300" height="276" /></p>

<p>I recommend the Digital Grey Kard - it works well and it's cheaper than the WhyBal. Random white paper may have a color cast - most often a slight blue tinge - so it will not give you accurate white balance. Outdoors my 5D's AWB works well, but once I go inside the tent or the church, the colors can be very bad on AWB.<p><p>

 

Also, there are very accurate paper cards made by Delta -1 that are the least expensive option, but they tend to get wrinkled and creased and are subject to water damage.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.digitalimageflow.com/ebayItems/premiumDGKs.jpg" width="300" height="276" /></p>

<p>I recommend the Digital Grey Kard - it works well and it's cheaper than the WhyBal. Random paper may have a color cast - most often a slight blue tinge - so it will not give you accurate white balance. Also, there are very accurate paper cards made by Delta -1 that are the least expensive option, but they tend to get wrinkled and creased and are subject to water damage.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.digitalimageflow.com/ebayItems/premiumDGKs.jpg" width="300" height="276" /></p>

<p>I recommend the Digital Grey Kard - it works well and it's cheaper than the WhyBal. Also, there are paper cards made by Delta -1 that are the least expensive option, but they tend to get wrinkled and creased and are subject to water damage.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.digitalimageflow.com/ebayItems/premiumDGKs.jpg" width="300" height="276" /></p>

<p>I recommend the Digital Grey Kard - it works well and it's cheaper than the WhyBal. Also, there are paper cards made by Delta -1 that are the least expensive option, but they tend to get wrinkled and creased and are subject to water damage.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.digitalimageflow.com/ebayItems/premiumDGKs.jpg" width="300" height="276" /></p>

<p>I recommend the Digital Grey Kard - it works well and it's cheaper. Also, there are paper cards made by Delta -1 that are the least expensive option, but they tend to get wrinkled and creased and are subject to water damage.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.digitalimageflow.com/ebayItems/premiumDGKs.jpg" width="300" height="276" /></p><div></div>

Yikes! The old 'Gray card for exposure, white for white balance" rears it's (not so pretty ) head again! Let's all change some of the old, fairly dusty wires in our heads that lead to confusion between "18% gray card", "gray cards", and "white balance". Here's how - and it won't hurt a bit!

 

Please disconnect the wires in your brain that equate from "18% gray card" from "gray card". 18% gray was a way of setting exposure in the good old days. Gray cards are different, they are the preferred tool for digital color balance.

For white balance, please change the wires in your head to read "color balance" since that's what you want. That will sever the old, dusty connection between "white" and "digital color balance" which started years ago when it was only video systems that needed color balance. You don't want white for white balance, (see below) so lets maybe stop calling it white balance - call it digital color balance?

 

Now, make the following synaptic connection: "Spectrally neutral = digital color balance" you need a spectrally neutral surface for digital color balance. (For white balance, for gray balance, for whatever) Spectrally neutral is a surface that reflects all the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum equally, neutrally. By definition, such a surface cannot be other than black, gray, or white, depending on it's reflectance. If it's reflectance is near 100%, it will be white. That's fine for color balance, but the liklihood of severe clipping (overpowering your sensor) is high. A spectrally neutral surface with 50% reflectivity will appear a nice, medium gray and makes an ideal color balance reference. No more worries about clipping, plus perfect digital colors every time.

 

Who said you can't do brain surgery at home?

Dr. D

A grey card is sufficient for white balance for digital photography. No white card is needed, but a white reference and a black reference is nice to have for jpeg. For critical shots I use an inexpensive grey/white/black card on a lanyard which is sold on EBay for about 7 bucks.

 

The Gretag colorchecker is paint on cardboard - way too expensive for what you get. - 70-80 bucks shipped!

 

WhiBal is a ripoff - it used to be 3 cards for 30 bucks, it's now 1 card for 40 bucks. The CD they promise you in the ad online does not ship anymore.

I have the HP 8750, I print color mostly. It chews through 102 (photo grey) ink at a very brisk pace. I change this cart 3 times to one of the others. The 102 ink carts are 30 a pop. It adds up. About 30 8 by 11 fully covered pages per 102 ink cart is my estimate. Total cost of ink is about 2 bucks a page for 8 by 11 fully covered, with a dark photo.

 

The output is awesome. I use HP papers. I bought the printer, plugged it in (it plugs into any open ethernet jack on your home network - no adapter required) - it set itself up and presto - perfect prints. One of my first prints won best overall print at a show a few weeks later.

SAME HERE! More than 500 in rebates denied - same reason - then I call and Oops! It was a computer error!

 

I smell a scam -- a deliberate attempt to withold payment of promised rebates - what a great story - there's "bug" in the "system" that mysteriously denies legit rebate claims. Only the lucky or persistent ones who see the little denial card they send (with no instructions) end up getting the money they were promised.

 

Net result: The fulfillment company pockets the money on the backs of Canon customers. Complain to Canon and get them booted!

Filename collision and general filename confusion are an area where DSLR's have room to improve. I humbly suggest that the wizards who design our digital toys should allow us to set the filename convention used by the camera as we wish. I am shooting with a 5D and a 350D, I might set the filenames to (carmeratype)(date) (time) so I would never have file collisions. Kevin Ames, who did a workflow class I took (and who never answered my emails like he promised to do after) prefers to add a job number to every shot he takes. He might use (job number)(cameraname) (fileneumber). The need to rename images when the cards are ingested would be eliminated. Hopefully these improvements can be implemented in firmware.

Thank you all for your responses. Yes, Umit, I admit that my posting was somewhat "troll like" and for this I apologize. The posting does seem to have generated some interest, and my frustration with my (once?) favorite camera company is genuine. One of the most interesting responses to my posting was from Suhas. He stated that all digital SLR cameras will eventually go to a small sensor. Where was this information obtained from? Does anyone else believe that the future of digital single lens reflex cameras will "merge to same path" with a small sensor and a cropping factor, or will we be seeing full frame sensors in all high-end digital cameras in the future? I hope we will, since we all like a bright viewfinder, and cropping seems to adversely affect viewfinder brightness. Hendrick, I wish I could buy a D2X over the counter the way you did - the counters in my area are bare. In response to Gary, let me aquit myself by stating the questions that were implicit in my posting:

 

1) Is anyone else tired of waiting for Nikon to produce and sell the camera that they really want today?

 

2) Has anyone else switched from Nikon to Canon for these reasons?

I did it - I switched. Finally. For 2 years I was aware that Canon was

a bit ahead of Nikon in dSLR's, but since I have so much nice Nikon

glass I stayed on the dark side (the dark lenses, that is) So I pop

for a D100, and the 17-35 2.8 with it, figuring I would stay the

course and hang on until N came out with a full-frame dSLR with enough

pixels that I would never have to look at Canons and sigh. I told

myself to keep the faith.

 

Well, years went by, then it became clear that we will be seeing dx

sized sensors in Nikons for a while, but - wait - the D2x is going to

be the camera of my dreams! So what it has dx sized sensor - it's

12mp! And 6 mp at what - 8 fps? Better than sex. OK, I'm going to

stay loyal, stay with Nikon - I put my pre-order in for the D2x.

 

Feb 25th comes - I call my guy at the Nikon store (local - no mass

merchant for me)- "Oh Nikon is shipping to NPS customers now - you'll

probably get yours in May or June". Great. You can buy a 1Ds Mkii

from bestbuy, or Dell or newegg, in stock anytime, but you can't get a

D2X until 8 months after it's announced. Nikon, I love you guys, but

you need to ramp it up. I can't wait. The D100 is just not enough

camera. The D2H is fast, but I don't shoot Shaquille O'Neill or Anna

Kournikova, so I need pixels, not FPS.

 

So I did it. I finally went over to the light side (light colored

lenses, that is) I'm going to the big C. Full frame. See ya, Nikon,

it was good but it was never great.

I'd recommend the XT over the d20. You can get it for about 900 bucks, and it will do what you need it to do, now. Right now, spending bigger bucks for what you do is a waste. Plus, the d20 is already fading. Like myself and so many other photographers, you will want something new in 12-24 months, and Canon can be relied upon to have something sexy out for you then. When the time comes, since you only spent 900 bucks on the d rebel xt, you won't feel so bad about getting another camera.

 

If you were shooting NBA games for a living, you could use more camera now, but you (and I) don't. When camera lifecycles were 3+ years, spending the long green paid off in time. Now, cameras are obsolete in 18 months - only serious pros can get the value out of a high-end camera that depreciates that fast.

 

Last point - the xt is the hottest camera Canon has now - the best man will think it's cool, as long as you have a long lens hanging.

"You'd have to disable the pre-flash system on the built-in Speedlight. I believe this can be done by switching to (M)anual Mode and either CenterWeighted or Spot-Metering."

 

I'd like to use my SB-26 as an off-camera slave to the D100's on- camera flash. Does anyone know any other way (other than the above) to get the D100 flash to correctly trigger the SB-26 in slave mode?

 

BTW, I'm glad to hear the SC-17 might still be worth the fairly steep price I paid Nikon for it!

I would like to toss the following thought into the pot for this group to stir: The "DX" sensor (and DX equipped bodies) as well as the associated DX lenses will stay at the low end of the Nikon D-SLR range as a full-frame sensor is introduced (perhaps with the D2x) and the full frame sensor becomes the standard in cameras at the top of the D-SLR range. The DX is a stepping stone for Nikon. Although I am not an engineer, I think pros and entrousiasts will demand huge pixel-count cameras, and I don't think you can build a 10, 12, or 16 MP sensor in the DX format.

I'm sticking with Nikon too, after a brief dalliance with a cute little number from Canon. My slide scanner, and old but sturdy LS-20 keeps plugging along, and I recently was pleased to find a new scanner driver and scan software had been written for it and was free to download from the Nikon site.

 

However, my dedication to Nikon wavers a bit when I think about all those luscious pixels in the full frame 1Ds. Hopefully the N guys will blow the Canon away with the D2x...

Long ago Hong Kong was the best place to buy all kinds of gear (remember cheap handmade suits anyone?) at low prices, but those days are waaay over. I went there a few (too many) years ago holding an ad from a NYC store in my hand and their prices were higher, and the exchange rate was an additional expense. Plus I checked every "duty free" shop in the airports from here to there and their prices were even worse! Unfortunately, I was already there, so I ended up buying my first Nikon (a N2000) there, paid a bit too much. My advice: Buy anything but prescription drugs in the good ol' USA!

If you have a small collection of inexpensive Nikon lenses, Get a Digital Rebel. Canon now rules the digital roost. With the Canon, you have unlimited upward mobility.

 

If you have a good collecion of Nikon lenses, especially any big glass, maybe you want to wait until the N70 hits the street in a few months.

 

Stick with SLR type cameras. Digi SLR's are now getting reasonable in price and the photos you take/ stuff you learn about taking photos with an SLR is definitely worth it. P/S cameras are toys.

This camera will be: (you heard it first from me)

-same sensor as d100

-dumbed-down or reduced feature set of d100

-slower to write to CF and smaller buffer than d100

-not quite as fast to wake up and slight shutter lag but not bad

-slightly less quality body construction/seals

-available on time as announced instead of late as was d2h

-next D- camera out from nikon before d2x

-same price as the EOS rebel digital when it hits the market (by that time i'd say the Digital rebel will be selling everywhere for $800)

 

Nikon is trying to keep up with Canon - I'd say they are slipping. How many black lenses do you see at pro sports events? I love and use Nikon, have for years and years, but I worry...

 

here is the press release from Nikon jp site:

 

Nikon Corporation is pleased to announce the development of the Nikon D70, a new lens-interchangeable digital SLR camera designed to deliver superb image quality and satisfying performance at a popular price users will find within reach. A new DX Zoom-Nikkor lens is being developed at the same time as a best match for the D70, and both products are scheduled to go on sale in the spring of 2004.

 

Development Background

Nikon forever changed the world of professional digital SLR cameras with the release of the Nikon D1 in September 1999. In constant pursuit of yet higher image quality and greater performance, the company followed with the introduction of the D1X and D1H, and then again with the release of the D2H at the end of November this year.

 

The range of Nikon digital SLR offerings was further expanded to reach the hands of enthusiasts and a broader audience in June 2002 when the D100 went on sale.

 

The size of the digital camera market has grown exponentially over these few years. This in turn has led to an increase in the number of customers expressing a desire to see Nikon release a D-SLR camera at a price setting that will better fit their personal budgets. Nikon has been advancing development of the D70 as the model perfectly suited to respond to this strong demand, aiming primarily at realizing a digital SLR camera that will win its place as the camera of choice for a wide range of users, from novices to the most serious and experienced enthusiasts.

 

 

Features

The image sensor continues the heritage of the Nikon DX Format (providing a picture angle approx. 1.5 times the focal length of a 35mm [135] format lens).

The Nikon D70 will inherit the Nikon F Mount, ensuring compatibility with AF Nikkor lenses already owned.

A new DX Zoom-Nikkor lens is being developed concurrently to deliver a focal length range optimized for use as the standard zoom lens for the Nikon D70.