wnw

<p>Hi Tem</p>

<p>Yes, the lower range of 24-50 on that lens (24-70mm) isn't really suitable for tight shots of people or babies (full face or face and neck/part shoulders). You'll get some distortion of the features. This is assuming you will shoot on a full frame camera. It won't be so much of a problem if you are shooting 1.4x or 1.6x</p>

<p>All the best</p>

<p>Without a doubt the 24-105mm <em><strong>AND</strong></em> get a good quality polarizer filter! If money is no object of course there is better but this lens takes some beating for even the fussiest of us and is the only lens you'll need to take. Avoid the 2x multiplier if you get tempted - it dramatically reduces quality and halves your widest aperture. The 1.4 is not alot better.</p>

<p>This is a tighter shot 70-200mm f.28 on Canon 5DII at 140mm - note the lack of distortion on the facial features.</p><div></div>

<p>You need to be careful shooting any sort of portrait with lenses under 'standard' - i.e. 50mm at full frame. You'll get distortions of features and noses will look bigger and faces fatter or wider. This applies to any zoom set at less than 50mm on full frame.<br>

The Canon 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 are excellent lenses, they are light and so make shooting alot easier while bending down as you'll inevitably do with children and they are cheap. The 1.2 and 1.4 versions are alot more money but expensive and will be overkill as you'll invariably end up doing post production work to get rid of snotty noses, blotches and clogged eyes (Totally Rad Retouch Pro plugin for PS is superb for this).<br>

Lens crop of 1.6x will make these lenses 80mm and 135mm respectively, both excellent lengths for newborns and tight portraits.<br>

I have used the 24-70 f2.8 for years and love it but I'd not consider it for newborns or tight-in portraits (head and shoulders) for the reasons given above. The 70-200mm f2.8 is much better for this but more than likely far too heavy for practical use in what it is you want to do.<br>

The above are my humble opinions only and experiences from use of these lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry, didn't mean to put a link to the screen grab</p><div></div>

<p>Are you shooting a mixture of RAW and JPEG on the same card in the same folder?<br /> Lightroom can handle your problem, if this is what is causing it, in Preferences. Interested to see if this is what is was.</p><div></div>

<p>Hopefully trying to get back on the track of the thread for you, I bought the Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21 ZE, having waited months and months for it to be released and it's the best lens I've ever owned. <br /> Distortion is zero to my eye, color rendition is absolutely superb, vignetting zero compared to the awful vignetting of most of the wider Canon lenses. You'll get a little of it shooting wide open at f2.8 but 99.9% nothing from f5.6 upwards.<br /> I don't really understand the previous comment that this is "not really a low distortion lens". To check, I went back over many of my RAW images with horizons spanning the frame and can only say they are virtually perfect in being distortion free. The Canon lenses don't begin to compare in this regard. Lack of distortion is one of the big, big pluses of this Zeiss lens. This especially applies to shots with a large foreground object and distant backdrop where any distortion will make the shots all wrong. I accept alot of this could be corrected in PS or whatever but the joy of getting it all right in camera at the time of shooting can never be overstressed. Your confidence as a photographer grows using lenses of this quality.<br /> I'm not sure we're allowed to provide links in forums but in case we're not, and quoting from the Ken Rockwell review of the lens - <em>It also has the least distortion of any 21mm SLR lens I've ever used. It is the highest-performance 21mm SLR lens I've ever evaluated. It is also the only 21mm lens I've ever used that cheerfully can use two stacked filters without vignetting on full-frame 24x36mm.</em> He does stress though that this lens is wasted if not used on a full frame sensor.<br /> The lens makes you work for your supper and taking it out for a full day as your only lens. instead of a clutch of zooms. rewards you with just the most amazing shots. Don't forget, this is a manual focus only lens and being wide angle can be really (!) tricky at times if focusing through the viewfinder where not everything is at infinity. I used Live View alot to check out focusing before taking the shot and this tended to produce super sharp images.<br /> I don't agree that the Tilt and Shift lenses from Canon are better. I don't have the latest Canon TS-E 24mm Mark II from Canon but do own the older Mark I and, in my humble opinion, it doesn't compare, nice as it is.<br /> Not wishing to get into a lens makers argument as I really like my Canon lenses but love, adore and worship my Zeiss lenses the issue of lens coating is also a factor. Zeiss invented lens coatings in the 1930's and the T* reference in the lens name refers to the multiple (front and back) coating of all the lenses within the lens. This enables well over 90% of the light falling on the lens to be transmitted through the lens to the sensor thus producing better and more accurate colors and better contrast. Canon's coating SWC (Sub Wavelength structure Coating) is more specifically applied to reduce ghosting and flaring, not the same thing at all. The T* Zeiss lenses therefore produce shots being more as your eye sees them. Your eye sees a tonal range far greater than any lens/camera produced which is why we can be disappointed with our images at times and wonder why they look flat and underexposed. The better the lens the more we get towards producing what our eye has seen in the first place.<br /> As an important postscript here, I'm referring to shots straight out of the camera and not shots taken with other lenses having had alot of post production work done to correct lens issues. This is a lens that exceeds all your expectations and simply thrills.<br /> With regard to vignetting - it's easy to make a simple mistake with super wide angle lenses. Super wide angle lenses have lens hoods that are shaped differently to other lens hoods and if you don't pop them on the correct way depending on if you are shooting landscape or portrait mode then you'll see the edge of the hood in the frame and subsequent shot, hence many people mistakenly thinking this is vignetting.<br /> The Zeiss web site gives alot more information, technical data and MTF charts together with links to some good reviews of this lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Traditionally the best time is June to September but we went in mid October when early morning can be very chilly - fleeces essential and body warmers until full sun comes up and then it gets nicely warm. Evenings were balmy warm and pleasant. Most important thing is to consider the rainy season - too much rain and the undergrowth is thick and you see less game. </p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Spring</strong> is September - October </li>

<li><strong>Summer</strong> is November - March </li>

<li><strong>Fall</strong> is April - May </li>

<li><strong>Winter</strong> is June - August </li>

</ul>

<p>Summers can get quite hot especially around Durban and KwaZulu-Natal where summer rains make it humid and muggy. The winters are generally mild with perhaps a dusting of snow on higher elevations.</p><div></div>

<p>We've been to S Africa a few times and can totally recommend Makweti and Londolozi for safaris and especially for the photographer.<br>

Makweti is a knock your socks off reserve where your treated like their only guests and you'll want for nothing. We found having to keep to the tracks a little restrictive as the area is shared by a number of lodges and this is a conservation measure. You'll see most of the game animals in abundance. We'd totally recommend this place.<br>

Londolozi is an experience of a life time and is known for the famous conservation work done by the Varty family and is now run by 3 of the Varty 'children'. Londolozi is famous for leapoard and you 99.9% guranteed to see them each day as they are on their 5th generation of leapoards who have made their home there. There is a private airfield you can fly into from J'burg charter which is right by the camp. The camp is complete luxury and you're pampered from the time you arrive to the time you leave. Going off track is not a problem as the whole area is under the same ownership and you'll see the lot. We took alot of camera gear and so drove from J'burg (4-5 hours) which Jeremy (see below) organised.<br>

I believe they now have a Land Rover equipped just for photography which you can request sporting the latest camera supports etc. <br>

Londolozi isn't cheap but it ranks in the very top S Africa has to offer. We've always booked through Jeremy Lock in J'Burg who has amazing contacts and local knowledge of any and all travel in S Africa especially safaris. We can't fault him and have used him many times - jeremy@mrsafari.com. He'll also get better prices than otherwise available due to his extensive contacts.<br>

Hope this helps - let me know if you need a more specific info.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi Gregory,<br>

A good rule of thumb is to remember that any zoom lens that can zoom more than 3x will suffer from a loss of image quality - the more zoom range the poorer the quality. Lens reviews are always a good guide but 18-250 is an almost 14x zoom - more suited for shots you would otherwise miss than for landscapes. If optical quality is more important then I'd think carefully before buying. I'd look on eBay for a decent second hand prime lens or 2 and try to pick up a bargain.<br>

Good luck.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for those responses, most helpful. <br>

As for David, I prefer to sometimes travel in a group and also to get feedback from people with local knowledge. Local knowledge can also save masses of time to get to know those hidden spots and I have learned this through experience. I have traveled extensively throughout the world, mostly independently and have not the slightest problem or inability to organize a trip but thanks for your concern.<br>

I'll look up those contacts - thank you for taking the time to respond.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi all<br /> Does anyone know of a good photography company who do guided trips to New England (Vermont,Maine etc) in the Fall? I am traveling from the UK so independent travel is not really on.<br /> Any contact details/experiences/recommendations would be good thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Re the new HD4-40<br>

I don't think Christian Poulsen (previous CEO) would speak down to photographers like this new man Hansen does in this press release. Young photographers won't know about medium format (MF)??<br /> <br /> I think an abject, unreserved apology is needed for the ,000's of young and brilliant photographers out there.<br /> <br /> Poulsen flew the photographers' flag - someone desperately needs to grab hold of this 'new' guy and teach his The Basics of PR.</p>

Ian,

 

I've tried to create a similar sized image to result in your dims above and I seem to get something that measure around 8.6" x 5.7" at 150ppi (see attached screen grab). This still makes me believe it's the scan that's the problem - it's just not high enough for what you want. A decent scan should be around 35mb - 70mb

 

My previous comments about what your asked your lab to do still apply I think.

Curves is a neat way to adjust color. You have to work in either R(ed) G(reen) or B(lue). Dragging the curve down adjusts for the 'opposite' color e.g. Blue curved down produces yellow and so on.

 

You can play (study) with opposite colors at http://www.colortools.net/color_complementary.html

 

There is a neat diagram somewhere that I just can't find that shows which colors are opposite each other. It's invaluable for learning color correction. (I just found a simple one at http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/other/colint.htm)

 

The other method is to create a Channels adjustment layer and play with the RGB there.

 

In any event, you really shouldn't adjust colors globally but rather individually. The difference is pretty great.

 

To boost colors you can try 'Local Contrast Enhancement' - an easy but very effective method for bringing dull photos to life. You can read up at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm although some other good articles exist on ther web.

 

Good luck.

Stew,

 

You can run an action or edit it to your own needs or use parts of it.

 

Good luck

Looking at the enlarged photo I would suggest the scan resolution/size is the problem as everything starts from here. The hint is that you asked your lab to give you a CD scan for your DVD player and the web (so they probably did 72dpi)

 

What you now think is 100% is probably more like 300% to my eye.

 

No software can do much, if anything with a 72ppi scan. A 72ppi image should always be the result of a downward interpolation from a much large ppi (eg 360ppi). A decent scan would be around 800ppi at least I'd image as a starting point.

 

I'd be interested to hear what you started with from the lab.

Hi Carlos,

 

Great question. My answer is 240ppi for inkets.

 

Danny Chau, one of the Epson print gurus once showed me some prints done at different resolutions and pointed out the huge significance of 360ppi. In basic terms, inkjet printers are designed to print using 720dpi/1440/2880 (doubled each time) and all digital print using inkjets revolves around those numbers. Half of 720 is 360 and so 360 is the TRUE ppi for top quality print in sizes A6-A0 using the printer to the best of it's capabilities. (The points made about billboards are the exception for most of us of course and valid points)

 

It follows too that 2/3rd of 360 is 240 so this therefore works well.

 

Whatever you decide, keep it to what the printer understands the easiest and the starting point in 720dpi - hope this makes sense.

 

Likewise, if you print on a dye sub printer that has, say, 400dpi then you can print your images if they are 200ppi. Take the base figure of the printer and work in 1/3rds and 1/2's up or down to suit. It's that simple really.

 

What you don't do is print images with say 230 ppi for example as this is not a 1/3 or 1/2 proportion of 720.

 

The printer has to do some maths (via it's printer driver) and sending it an image that it can easily divide into 1/3rds or 1/2's produces the best prints. This applies to all printers.

 

300dpi is a kick back to litho printing and is completely misused in digital inket printing. 300dpi has nothing to do with inkjet prints in any way at all I'm afraid.

 

Ref: Prints are displayed at their ppi (pixels per inch) and prints are made at a dpi (dots per inch)

Relative Intent is more accurate, perceptual intent is more of a 'catch all' intent. Always use black point compensation in my opinion.

Are these not included in the printer driver and you simply select the paper type when printing from the print dialogue box?

Sorry Sean, I forgot to mention the obvious that you would of course save the file as another image 'Save for the web' and give it another file name.

 

Someone would shoot me down for not mentioning it :-))

Hi Sean, if this was my post I'd be brain dead by now. Some of the advice given is simply incorrect and I have to say, naive. To suggest sRGB is the only color space for the web is just incorrect (and it's daft to post something saying that to say anything else is the result of someone lying - I do laugh).

 

So let me 'lie' to you:-

 

sRGB is a low end color space that caters for cameras and monitors at the lower end of the market and therefore is a 'catch all' profile. Not everyone in the world of course has a color calibrated set-up and so it caters for the masses very well.

 

As image takers and makers we need something more.

 

Different color spaces hold different amounts of color data and this is measured in how wide their gamuts are. As not all monitors for example are capable of displaying all of the color depths held in a high end profile such as ProPhot RGB the tendancy is to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator for the web, hence sRGB.

 

sRGB has a narrow gamut, Adobe RGB has a good mid range color gamut and ProPhoto RGB has a wide gamut. This is why colors wash out when you convert images from one to another for the web (e.g. Adobe RGB to sRGB) because sRGB doesn't have the ability to use all of the lovely colors you captured originally.

 

The simple solution for you Sean is to produce your images from RAW exactly as you do already into JPEG or TIFF or whatever you prefer. Use your favourite color space (I use ProPhoto RGB which Adobe say has the widest color gamut and is ideal for digital imaging - especially over the much loved Adobe RGB which holds less color information)

 

 

Then you simply convert the image(s) from your chosen profile to one called ColorMatch RGB ('Convert to profile' in PS and select ColorMatch RGB). This will retain 95% of your colors and is completely web compliant. Go try some tests and see.

 

Rob Galbraith wrote some sense in 2005 on this subject of the different color profiles: - see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/prophoto/colorspaces.mspx

 

I'm not saying the above is the only solution - I AM saying sRGB is not the ONLY solution and my advice gets over the problem of losing much of the color when converting to sRGB. The alternative is to work in sRGB from the start but that seems such a negative and backwards step to me.

 

Color management is a huge topic and you need to research and find what works for you and your own workflow. As someone above rightly points out, you need to arrange your workflow for a given end purpose in mind. Mine is both print and web, others may be web only.

 

I'm off to Mass to beg forgiveness.

IMO I think the only (!) way to get a decent b&w is to print via a RIP. I use one now and the results are stunning and a world away from prints made using the Epson print driver.

 

It's not cheap but quality costs I guess

I use a LaCie 321 and it's fab. Their new 25" looks a wow too. I have their calibrator which simply plops onto the front of the screen (you can buy it bundled with the screeen and the necessary software - in the UK it add's about $200 to the price) and does the complete calibration while you sit and have a coffee. No need for you to touch a thing unlike many other monitors.

 

(I forget the technical term of this but it changes all the hardware setttings for you).

 

Once you work with a correctly colour calibrated monitor you will never look back, believe me.

I'd completely agree with Eric. To get the best out of your own printer you need a good, professional RIP like Colorbyte or similar (the difference in results is amazing) and this add alot to the base price of your printer. To own a 7800 or 9800 you need to be making it pay unless $$$ aren't an issue. They also take up alot of room in a home so beware.

 

I don't quite agree re the nozzles as these printers really do have to be turned off at all times they are not in use - this activates a device which covers the nozzles and stops then clogging/drying. Even then, it still happens though as Eric says.

 

The above is only my opinion - the final call is your of course. They hold their price well in the 2ndhand market if this is a must buy for you.