lars69

Thanks for all the answers.

So really it is an issue of wording and companies should rather say dots when they talk about their LCD screens or quote xy resolution (eg 640 x 480)

Good so that makes it all clearer.

Thanks,

Lars

So just to confirm I got that right. When I say the D200 has 230000 pixel LCD I am more or less wrong???

It has 320 x 240 resolution so really 76800 pixels?

The point I maybe don't get is the x3 for RGB thing. I know a CCD or CMOS has only 1/3 Red,1/3 Green,1/3 Blue pixles (more green I know) and we still count each one to the total resolution. But surely that is different as a 6 MPixel CCD really gives me a 3000x2000 pixel image while the D200 screen gives me a 320 x 240 pixels but claims a three times higher resolution.

How does that work for Laptops or PC monitors?

If I have a 1024x768 display I surely also have RGB dots but I don't multiply the pixels by three, or do I?

So my 1024x768 pixel laptop LCD has roughly 800 kPixel pixel or 2.4 MPixel?

Hi everybody,

Like everybody I was very impressed with the LCD spec of the new D3 and D300.

But somewhere on dpreview was a comment about it not really being 900000

pixels. According to the comment Nikon counted Dots, meaning Red,Green and

Blue points. Each pixel is made of 3 dots meaning that the LCD is really a

300000 pixel one if directly compared to a laptop LCD or other models.

So Nikons D200 has a 230000 pixel LCD or 720000 dots as compared to the

D3/D300 900000 dots LCD, which would only be a 20% improvements.

So far the rumour.

The comment never came to a conclusion and I haven't found much info about

that anymore.

Can anyone with more knowledge about LCD technology give some info here. Is

Nikon's new LCD really 4x the resolution as the D200 one or is it only clever

marketing?

Just to not make people angry, I think the two new models are amazing whatever

resolution the LCD has, I just want to understand the facts.

Thanks,

Lars

Coral Paint Shop Pro is very good value for money but cannot reach Photoshop in power. But said that it is good and relatively cheap.

Maybe try the demo.

Plus there is always Gimp as a free but good alternative.

Just something funny they had on BBC today, some software which apparently

finds similar photographs and can for example automatically replace a object

in the way with the correct background.

Take a look:

<a

href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6936444.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/te

chnology/6936444.stm</a>

Hi,

I live in NE London and have a day off tomorrow. So for a change I would like

to take some animal pictures (lions and so on not badgers...) and I was

wondering which one is the best zoo or safari park for doing so.

So far I thought I go to Colchester zoo which is not too far but I believe

there are also some other parks north of London.

Any suggestions? Any better ones than Colchester?

Thanks,

Lars

Markus,

I finally got it working but the hard way.

First I tried installing the drivers manually. I basically copied the whole folder from my

laptop with all the Kodak programs.

I then plugged the printer in and pointed windows to the folder and it actually found the

drivers.

But trying to print crashed the system with memory error.

So I tried a few loops reinstalling just the driver without success.

But then I tried the standard Kodak install again, now with the printer plugged in the USB

port and suddenly it installed.??????

Don't know what fixed it. Was it because I had the drivers already installed or because the

printer was plugged in during instal or just pure luck?

No clue but it works and I never buy Kodak again.

Thanks again,

Lars

Markus,

thanks for that. I used cclean and checked my hdd, plus I have tried the usual stuff as

disabeling firewall and antivirus and so on.

A bit dangerous actually as Kodak downloads the drivers and I just hope my router was

good enough to keep me safe.

The Kodak driver seems to be know to have a few bugs....

Hi everybody,

I just bought a Kodak Easyshare printer dock series 3 at my local PC store. Somebody had opened the

package and stolen the camera and CD so I got the printer for next to nothing.

So I was hoping I could just download the software from Kodak to use the printer. But far from that.

kodak allows downloading the driver but it is only a 1.3 MB package and the 'real' download is life

during install.

Usually don't mind and it worked fine on my laptop.

But on my main PC the install freezes right when the 50 MB download is finished. CPU usage at 99

percent and nothing happens.

So I have been trying to get the printer driver itself without easyshare, I am using QImage anyway so I

only want the driver.

But I have not managed to find it anywhere. XP itself doesn't recognize the printer and I am basically

stuck.

And I am quite annoyed that Kodak doesn't allow downloading the complete package itself. Or at least

a driver only version without Easyshare. I have tried now several times to install it and must have

several hundred megs of the same download, pretty tedious.

So does anyone have an idea how to get around that problem? I tried safe mode by the way, doesn't

install either.

Thanks,

Lars

Late answer, hope you still read it....

But I have a Dell D420. Weights only 1.3 kg or so and is really great to carry around with the SLR.

1 Gb memory and A core Duo processor (many other Ultraportable only have Core Solo).

Only downside is a slightly sluggish harddisk but it runs any photography application just fine.

In fact I used it with Vista as well for a while but went back to XP purely because I like it more.

Good laptop for photographers on the go.

Hi,

I have just bought a Fuji F31fd as a backup when I am too lazy to carry my 10D

around, so for parties etc.

But having always used CF cards I am slightly confused about the xd format.

So type H are faster, so much I know.

But somehow there seems to be a difference between Fuji Type H and other

companies. Am I right?

If yes, is an Olympus or Scandisk 1GB Type H card compatible with the F31fd?

The Fuji cards seem to be short in supply at the moment, in the Uk at least,

and I have to order another brand.

Just want to check if I am going to have trouble or not.

Thanks,

Lars

Hi everybody,

I am not actually a full time pro but once year a friend of mine who owns a theatre school has a show

for the parents and I take pictures and sell them after the shows.

So the problem is, even the pictures are very well received and generate a lot of interest, I don't actually

earn much money. Or at least not enough to make it really worth while.

So what I do is, I take pictures during rehearsal. Spend a sunday selecting the best ones, making sure

each kid is at least one time on each image.

I then print around 50 shots on 10x8 at home. I use an Olympus P-400 dye sub which has quite nice

photo like quality. And put them into frames, the card board type you can buy at photo supplies.

I then also make contact prints of around 100 images.

On the show date (3 shows, around 100 people each time) I put the contacts on the wall and the

images on a table.

I sell the pictures for 10 pounds (UK) = 15 dollars each plus postage if people order.

So in total I sell maybe 40 images, which is after deducting petrol, 4 days working, and costs not much.

Assuming that the pictures are nice (and honestly they are). What can I do to make a bit more money?

I don't want to become rich but at the moment I would earn more selling newspapers and that doesn't

really support my photography.

I honestly believe I should change the sales pattern.

Should I take only orders to save printing costs?

Offer online sales, even though as I do it only one time a year it sounds a bit too much fuss to do?

Or anything else?

If any of you do events photography let me know if you have any ideas.

Any help would be really appreciated.

Cheers,

Lars

Currently Intel seems to be slightly ahead in terms of processor performance, so the Core 2 Duo precessors are a bit better and faster than AMD counter parts.

Having said that they are also more expensive and in real terms graphic card, memory and hdd matter more than CPU.

So, I would buy the Toshiba without worries.

1. I would say sit straight in front of it, so basically your viewing direction in right angle to the screen. No offset in hight or sideways.

The reason I am saying this is because colour calibration is always done head on the monitor without any angle, hence that should be the correct way to work.

2. I used to have my CRT next to my LCD in dual configuration and it was exactly the same. Even at same resolution the CRT looked more blurry than the LCD and each pixel was less obvious. Can only assume this is because a CRT is a beam scanning accross while a LCD is actually a set of individual pixels, each one with well defined size and area.

Can't say anything to the other points though, sorry.

One problem I always have with NAS is that you usually tend to have several(depending on RAID config) identical drives inside.

And a few hdd from the same batch of the same manufactorer with the same amount of access time tend to fail on the same day.

At least we had a few server failures where the second disk failed a few hours after the first.

So I never really trust those systems too much or at least would never wait replacing a drive if one starts playing funny.

I honestly think your system of a few firewire/USB drives and internal ones might be more basic but is in the long run more secure.

I am not sure about US prices but I think the Canon EOS 10D is another good option, I bought mine used for less than $US400. The 10D is 'only' 6MP but from the build style in the semi-pro range, more like the Nikon D100.

So I found it more solid than the Nikon D40 to D70.

The 10D is not as good in noise at higher ISO than then the newer Canon but it still is a very good camera.

If you don't mind a plastic body then a D40 is a great choice though.

Personally I wouldn't go for Pentax,Sony etc. purely because Nikon and Canon have better choice with lenses. So if you might ever take it more serious stay with the big brands. If you think you never will than look especially at the Pentax models, they are good value for money.

Norton is horribly overvalued. It is quite slow and they don't have a very good response time with new viruses.

I presonally use Avast as well, together with adaware,spybot and kerio firewall.

As a bought product Kapersky is supposed to be very good and not too expensive but I have never used it.

I am staying away from Zonealarm though, they at least used to have some software in it which beamed data back home and they never really said what it is actually doing. It didn't even uninstall when uninstalling ZoneAlarm.

Came along the problem during software development, asked Zonealarm's support and was told 'that I should maybe try another product'...

Don't trust them ever since.

I found shooting RAW+JPEG actually very useful. I used a Minolta 7D and opening RAW is not very fast, I don't think their RAW files include a quick-preview JPEG like Canon do for example, so JPEG was a good way to see which images are no good at all.

So I always flicked through the JPEG files, deleted the RAW/JPEG which were awful and kept the rest.

Faster then any image browser on RAW only.

To your questions some image management tools have versioning and that might be a way.

I use idimager and you can automatically bind the RAW together with the JPEG file as one file with two versions. So then I would search for all files with only one version delete them.

Thanks for inviting everybody here. Looks very promissing and I guess I have to come along.

Cheers,

Lars

Are you using Lightroom?

I tried it recently and it sometimes seems to do this with my images on the 10D, even though they are actually fine.

In this case you photoshop or Canons on software to convert.

I agree with everybody here. Change lenses as little as possible and keep the last used one mounted to reduce dust inside the camera.

And take the battery out when you store the camera for longer than a few days.

But as you are new to SLRs I would also add that you have to get an UV(Skylight) filter for each lens which you keep permanently attached. This will protect your expensive glass against scratches and accidents.

First of all '300dpi' is maybe the wrong term here. More important is the compression rate

of the JPEG file and the resolution. So if you keep the original resolution of your Raw file

and the lowest compression rate you will lose next to nothing in quality. But a high

compressed JPEG will lose a lot, regardless of resolution or dpi setting.

So keeping low compressed JPEG is fine, because when printing from RAW lightroom

practically converts the RAW internally anyway before printing, but what you will lose when

deleting the RAW is the chance to adjust for example colour temperature later on. RAW is

also better if you want to recover highlights etc.

If you are 100 percent happy with the converted images you could delete the RAW but only

if you like the conversion and you will change nothing in the future. Otherwise it is better

to adjust the RAW.

And then again harddrive space is so cheap nowadays that I personally would rather spend

the money and keep the raw files.

At the end I have decided to buy iDimager. They just released a beta of Version 4 which is

better which offline work, faster and more reliable.

It is still a bit slower than the competition but I can live with that.

Still a shame that there is such a limited selection of good products.

Thanks,

Lars

Have a look at my post :

<A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LVKP">DAM software</A>.

<p>a few lines down.

<p>I pretty much tried every available software and I am not happy with any of them but it containts a list of everything I am aware off.

Have a play around, all of them offer trial versions of their software.

Thanks for the answers so far.

I have a Mac as well and would love to use aperture. But unfortunately due to my 'real' job I

always need a windows server so storing my pictures is easier on Windows as I have

everything set up for backup etc there anyway.

But a system working on both would have advantages.

I looked at Mediadex and it looks interesting so I will play around with it a bit.