jay_blocksom

August 3, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Brian Mottershead, aug 02, 2005; 02:42 p.m.

Jay, I don't find your arguments persuasive. Your argument rests on the assertion that linking words in a post implies an endorsement of the links by the writer. That assertion is not obviously true, and your misplaced moral outrage starts from this assumption, which is debatable.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh...

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

- Matthew (Mathew) Henry, Commentaries (Jeremiah, XX)

</BLOCKQUOTE>

You have already had *several* people tell you that not only is the implication inevitable, some were actually deceived by it to the point of clicking on the links "by mistake", as they had (quite reasonably) assumed that the links *were* placed there by the article author(s). The fact that the robo-links can be interpreted this way means that, inevitably, they *will* be interpreted this way -- and that is exactly what makes them absolutely unacceptable, no matter how many pink-with-purple-polka-dots squiggly quintuple underlines they may sport.

How could you possibly not "get" that, by this point in the proceedings?!?

Perhaps you have found in the past that yelling and shouting and adoping a posture of moral outrage prevents people from examining or challenging your assumptions, but I'm afraid that doesn't cut any mustard with me at all.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not "yell and shout" -- at least not until it became clear that you were selectively deleting posts to this thread that you found personally distasteful (and/or counter to your profit motive), while cowardly refusing to debate or even acknowledge the issues that I and others had raised. Obviously, you later realized that avoiding the debate was effectively impossible; but at the time, my "moral outrage" was MORE than justified.

Does anyone assume that the writers on a web site have anything to do with the many links, advertising and otherwise, that appear on the site, and that the posters are responsible for the advertising and endorse all of it? If I stick an ad near to a post, does anyone suppose that this implies an endorsement by the writer? If I link a word in the heading or title of a thread does that imply an endorsement by the writer? These "implied endorsements" that you assert could be used to disqualify any advertising in the forums at all. What it comes down to is that you don't like advertising.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

How un-FSCKING-believably presumptuous of you, to attempt to tell me what *my* motivations and objections "really" are, especially when I (and others) have already (repeatedly!) flat-out told you in plain English that they are something else entirely!

One more time: YOU ARE WRONG.

(Now, is there some part of those last three words you still don't understand?)

If it is disclosed to readers that links in posts are generated by the site, that the site-generated links are distinctively styled from any links in the posts that were placed there by the poster (assuming posters are allowed to create links), I do not see an issue, even if some of the links are paid advertising links.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That can only be so because you are desperate to *not* see it. Lord knows, it's been explained to you enough times, in enough ways, by enough different people, that you certainly *should* see it, by now.

If some of the advertising links lead to Abe's of Maine, etc, then that is more embarassing for the site than if they all go to Adorama, or B&H, etc, but that is true of any advertising links on the site, and one would want to avoid having advertisers on the site like Abe's of Maine.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That's looking at it purely from *your* perspective -- i.e., what is "embarassing[sic] for the site", which is an entirely different matter than the individual author's perspective. Who are *you* to say that *I* must necessarily endorse Adorama, or B&H, or etc.? Maybe I do, and maybe I don't; but in either case, it is NOT your call to make.

All this does not mean that other objections to these links are not possible. One might argue that the auto-generated links will be less relevant, and may tend to make all links less valuable, or that they are annoying and distracting.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite correct that all of those arguments could be made. But they completely miss the point at issue here. For one thing, all those objections are inherently made from the *reader's* perspective, not the writer's. This is a crucial distinction that you seem to consistently fail to grasp.

One could argue that there should be a clear separation between editorial content and advertising and that these auto-generated links blur that distinction.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That is also true, in part for the same reasons alluded to above, and in part for the reasons which form the basis of our objection to these "robo-links". This too has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Certainly such a distinction is the norm in newspapers and many magazines, but I am not sure the same is true on web sites, where paid advertising links within text are quite common.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The phrase "within text" is not nearly precise enough to be a proper basis of comparison between those examples and the issue we are debating here. As has now been stated so many times that I feel like a broken record, there is a HUGE difference between text created by you or your "official" staff, and text created by (and especially, credited to) the rank-and-file PhotoNet contributors/participants. Until and unless you understand that distinction, and its gravity, you probably cannot understand or appreciate why the robo-linking scheme (as it is/was implemented) is *inherently* unacceptable.

And besides, even if some other website(s) use these robo-links willy-nilly, that is completely irrelevant; and it remains so even if they are used to infect "contributors'" content -- two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, nobody seems to be making that argument with respect to the IntelliTXT links in the articles, where such an editorial separation would seem to be just as important as in forum posts.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Only from the *reader's* perspective, if then.

And again, you ignore the distinction between editorial content sourced from PhotoNet itself (and/or its "official" staff), and editorial content sourced from the rank-and-file PhotoNet contributors/participants. The former are *your* words; do with them what you will. The latter are *our* words; and so you do not have standing to sell them for profit, let alone to unknown/unpredictable/uncontrollable third-party advertisers.

Earlier, I stated:

From the copyright POV, there is nothing really different about this "robo-linking" scheme than suddenly deciding to sell off the members' uploaded images for use in third-party advertisements. Surely you understand that would be an absolute non-starter, right?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

But you rather conspicuously failed to address this point. As (literally) incredible as it seems, I'm now beginning to wonder if you really *do* understand that.

Let's postulate another (somewhat more far-fetched, but still useful) hypothetical example...

Suppose, for the moment, that one of PhotoNet's paid advertisers is the maker of Pepsi Cola. Let's further suppose that a contributor uploads an image -- say, an homage to Andy Warhol -- which rather conspicuously features a can of Coca-Cola. Now, presuming that you had the technology to do so "automagically", would you feel justified (or comfortable) Photoshopping out the Coke logo, and replacing it with a Pepsi logo, perhaps complete with an embedded (image map tag) link to <A HREF="http://www.pepsico.com/">PepsiCo's website?</A>? And how do you suppose the image's creator would feel about that?

In summary, your moral outrage and rhetoric does not substitute for reason or argument, and while you might hope that this outrage will sweep aside any questioning of your assumptions, it hasn't worked with me.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts."

How sad.

August 2, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Ben S, aug 02, 2005; 01:48 p.m.

Jay, can we assume your 25 dollars is on the way?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no, you cannot (safely) assume that.

I have not yet decided whether or not I will continue to participate in PhotoNet. Pending that decision, I have limited myself to this thread (and, possibly, others related to it) until such time as Brian states unequivocally that the robo-linking scheme is a thing of the past, and that he understands *why* that must be so.

If/when all that is resolved, I'll then look at the idea of contributing to PhotoNet in cash form as a separate decision.

August 2, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Brian Mottershead, aug 02, 2005; 11:19 a.m.

It is clear from photo.net's Terms of Use that when people post text on the site, that photo.net may modify or delete their text at its convenience. It did not explicitly state so before but I considered this to include creating hypertext links within that text.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The context in which that proviso was couched ("we reserve the right ... to delete, move, or edit any postings that come to our attention that we consider unacceptable or inappropriate") rather strongly implies that the point and purpose of any such modifications or deletions would be to control abuse, spam, vulgarity, etc., much as I previously mentioned. The "...of for any other other reasons, which we need not disclose, and which need not be reasonable..." part which follows is obviously standard-issue (if badly written) lawyer-ese CYA boilerplate; and I fully expect that *most* people (including the all-important "reasonable man") would dismiss it as such, NOT presume that you "really meant" something else entirely, completely outside the bounds established by the context of the statement. The fact that the CYA boilerplate is there probably (slightly) protects you from a damages award; but it does not give you carte blanche to permit third-party commercial use of other folks' works, especially without compensation, notice, or explicit permission.

Some people in this thread have demanded that they should have total control over the text that they post including over whether any of that text is linked. If they didn't choose to link a word or phrase to something, then they say photo.net should not insert any links. Some are claiming that is a violation of their copyright if we do hyperlink a word or phrase in their text, and that they will sue photo.net for so modifying their posts.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Copyright is only one issue. As "Mark M" pointed out earlier, the other big issue is the misappropriation of another's name and/or persona, particularly for commercial gain. In this case, the two are related; and while it is the latter which forms the fundamental objection (i.e., the "Abe's of Maine" scenario), it is the former which provides the more easily understood -- especially, I would think, in this venue -- legal hook to hang it on.

From the copyright POV, there is nothing really different about this "robo-linking" scheme than suddenly deciding to sell off the members' uploaded images for use in third-party advertisements. Surely you understand that would be an absolute non-starter, right?

From the misappropriation POV, the analogy would be to not only selling off the image, but having the (third-party) advertiser subsequently claim "John Q. Doe took this picture with a Frammistat Optonar 5000 digicam, and therefore recommends it highly!" Surely it is just as obvious that this too is completely unacceptable.

Would they feel differently if we had technology for linking keywords within posts to related articles, glossary definitions, and so forth? If I wrote code that automatically linked "Nikon D100" in posts in the Nikon forum to the photo.net article on the camera, or linked technical terms to a Glossary of terms, would people still object?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking for myself... I would still dislike it; but my objection would not be nearly as strong.

So, why do people object when the links are paid advertising, especially since it is clear from the style of the links that this is what they are.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the saddest and most discouraging aspects of this entire boondoggle is that you still find it necessary to even ask that question. Did you understand NOTHING that I and dozens of others have been trying to explain to you?

And for the record, NO it is/was *NOT* anywhere near sufficiently "clear from the style of the links that this is what they are" to obviate this problem.

The people running photo.net didn't get to dictate the structure of the web economy: if we want the site to survive and grow, we have to finance the site using the means available to us.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

And if you cannot do that without resorting to sleazy, unethical and legally questionable-at-least tactics like this "robo-linking" scheme, then the ONLY alternative is to shut down PhotoNet. Obviously, that would be very unfortunate; but it's certainly more acceptable than stealing the users' identities. The economic unviability of an enterprise is *never* an excuse to engage in unethical behavior (cf. Enron, WorldCom, et al).

Basically, people want a site that is free and free of advertising; unfortunately, we aren't able to give people what they want. We are compelled to have some advertising on the site, or else close it.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK anyway, no one is objecting to having "some advertising on the site"; and it is highly disingenuous of you to even imply that. That is *NOT* what this is about.

The bottom line is that, given the disdain people have for advertising, we will continue to experiment to find the forms of advertising that are the most acceptable to a community that basically considers advertising to be unacceptable.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

So, do I take it from this that you have *permanently* disabled the "robo-linking" scheme, at least within the Forums, and that you will not be re-instituting it? Your silence on that obvious question has so far been deafening.

August 1, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Brian Mottershead, aug 01, 2005; 06:27 p.m.

Thank you for your request, Jay. I will honor it with respect to previous posts, possibly by deleting them.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

As I noted previously, that would be the far-from-ideal solution; but it is an acceptable one if no other can be implemented.

However, I am not providing you with your own personal Terms of Use by giving you, and nobody else, a "do not modify" card. IF you don't accept the possibility that your posts may be modified, and that your recourse if this happens is to request that the modification be undone or that the post be deleted, then please do not post.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but that just isn't good enough.

The excerpt from the T&C that Lance posted, to the effect that you have the right to delete, move, or edit any postings that you consider unacceptable or inappropriate, etc., is one thing -- obviously, you need to be able to control and abate abuse, profanity, flame wars, spam, and lord-knows-how-many other potentially "bad things" that could beset any "public forum" such as this one. And I have no objection to that, or to your having the "right" to do it, when the situation warrants it. But that is a *FAR* cry from committing the abuse yourself -- which is exactly what these auto-generated links constitute, when they are permitted to infect postings made by the rank-and-file PhotoNet user. You need to ponder carefully yet another of Michael R. Freeman's comments:

"Incidentally, we've been running the Intellitxt links on the site in the Articles sections (Equipment, Travel, Learn) since July 13, and nobody has said a word in over two weeks."

The Articles sections are YOUR content, forum postings are OUR content. There is a *BIG FRIGGIN* difference!

</BLOCKQUOTE>

*That* is the issue in a nutshell; and it frankly amazes me that you apparently do not *yet* understand it, even if you initially neglected to ponder it sufficiently.

I got the impression that, as of a little after 6:00 PM EDT, you had turned off the robo-linking entirely, or at least within the Forums. That was the right move; and at the very least, you need to leave it that way with respect to the Forums (as Michael pointed out, other parts of PhotoNet are at least putatively a different matter). If you insist on co-opting contributor's articles for third-party commercial purposes, then NO ONE who is at all concerned with *their* intellectual property rights could possibly continue to participate here. This robo-linking scheme amounts to "putting words in my mouth"; and I, for one, sure as He__ do *NOT* want any recommendation for "Abe's of Maine" or similar to even *appear* to come from my hand.

Face it... You made a mistake. Big deal -- people are human, and mistakes happen all the time. Nothing to be all that embarrassed about, in and of itself. But to fail to learn from that mistake, and to insist on continuing/repeating it.... That is another matter.

August 1, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>David Gonzalez, aug 01, 2005; 06:10 p.m.

They seem to have stopped appearing.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It looks that way from here. *IF* this represents a permanent change of heart on Brian/PhotoNet's part, then I'm satisfied, at least for now. But I find it *literally* incredible that the adverse reaction to this sort of thing would not have been anticipated. Michael R. Freeman summed it up rather well when he said:

You are inserting content in other posters comments/discussions without their consent or knowledge. I certainly don't want my comments to be shilling for some company that I may or may not approve of. How long before "Abe's of Maine" or the like pops up under one of these auto-generated pieces of garbage.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The sheer presumptuousness and lack of forethought belied by this episode makes me wonder what the *next* fiasco will be.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Ben S, aug 01, 2005; 06:22 p.m.

I'm as unhappy as anyone about matter discussed in this thread. But I urge everyone participating to try to understand that this site cannot come free.

If you have been participating more than a few weeks, and have posted more than a dozen forum entries or photos, if you have been around for a year or two -- come on, pay the $25 dollars. That's a part of the solution to the problem posed in this thread.

Thanks Brian for turning it off. Hopefully it can stay off if people pay up.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds uncomfortably like a threat.

While I presume (for the moment, anyway) that you, Ben, are not one of the PhotoNet administrators, and that therefore your implication does not represent an official PhotoNet policy, it is ominous nonetheless. It also ignores the fact that cash is not by any means the only way to contribute value to PhotoNet. I, for example, have answered *far* more questions than I've asked in the ~20 months I've participated here. Without that participation, (and similar from thousands of knowledgable users, whether they *also* contribute in cash or not), PhotoNet would be near-worthless, and it would surely attract far fewer visitors -- which inherently means that the potential revenue from the *legitimate* forms of advertising contained on the site would be adversely impacted.

I would hope that Brian, et al, would not be so foolish as to throw out that baby with the bathwater.

August 1, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Nick Sanyal, aug 01, 2005; 05:16 p.m.

Brian said:

"If anybody objects to the addition of these links to their posts, please send us an email via the Contact Us box, and we will remove the link or delete your posts, as provided in our Terms of Use."

[snip]

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems like the top post does just that!

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. But just to be sure all bases were covered, I *also* sent a message including copies of my initial post and one of my follow-up articles via the web-form. We'll see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Michael R. Freeman, aug 01, 2005; 05:41 p.m.

As for the comment about "send us an email via the Contact Us box, and we will remove the link", you've got to be kidding, right?! Photo.net inserts content without consent or advance notice in OUR posts and we have to ask that it be removed EVERY time we make a post.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That was not the interpretation of Brian's comment that I made. But in any event, in the above-noted web-form message, I explicitly made the point that:

Please note that this "request" is global, retroactive, and made in perpetuity -- IOW, remove ALL auto-generated links from ALL of my articles, and DO NOT add any such links to any future articles I may post.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

So again, "we'll see".

August 1, 2005

OK, obviously, someone is playing games here...

Now, in addition to Lance McVay's article, John Barclay's post is now "missing in action -- and again, in less than 15 minutes after it was posted. There can be only one explanation for this: One of the PhotoNet administrators is closely monitoring this thread, and selectively deleting any article which explains to users how to "hide" the bogus auto-generated links. Yet, said administrator has not had the integrity to either come forward and state this, or to even address the issues raised by this thread.

Well, that tears it.

So, Mr. PhotoNet Administrator, since I *know* you're reading this...

This is no longer a polite request. It is a *DEMAND* that you IMMEDIATELY remove any and all auto-generated links to third-party URLs from ALL of my posted articles. As shown in my original article in this thread, PhotoNet has violated not only your own Terms and Conditions, but basic Copyright law as well, with these unauthorized modifications to and commercial uses of my intellectual property. If I need to follow this up in writing via Certified Mail to your address of record:

Luminal Path Corporation

Brian Mottershead

118 Nowell Farme Rd

Carlisle MA 01741

US

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I will do so. But if I have to get my lawyer involved, I'll be asking the court for *you* to cover his bill.

August 1, 2005

<

Sorry, but NO that does NOT solve the problem.

Such measures as that, and the one posted by Lance McVay (whose article seems to have "mysteriously" disappeared within 15 minutes of it being posted), would amount to nothing more than covering my eyes a la the famous <A HREF="http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/m-p/noevil.shtml">THREE MONKEYS</A>.

The underlying fundamental problem of my (and everyone else's) articles being turned into shill pieces for unknown/unpredictable third-party commercial entities would still exist unabated.

August 1, 2005

Title:

Bogus hotlinks infecting PhotoNet posts!

What's the deal with these so-called "Sponsored Links" suddenly

cropping up in my posts to various PhotoNet forums?!? This seems

to be a new phenomenon, which I encountered for the first time today.

I often use embedded links in my posts, to point the reader to either

previous PhotoNet threads (particularly when a topic has already been

recently discussed), or to off-site reference materials (spec sheets

for a product we might be discussing, etc.). That is *NOT* what

I'm talking about. The links I'm referring to are lame ads which

are obviously auto-generated based on the system looking for keywords

in the posted text. For example, in <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D2yt">THIS

THREAD</A>, discussing flash setups, I mentioned use of the ubiquitous

PC cord. The term PC is now a link (which I did *NOT* create) to

Dell's website, hawking personal computers!

I take an *extremely* dim view of this sort of nonsense. If I

wanted a link to Dell's web site in my article, I would have put it

there. Anything I post to PhotoNet, be that an image or a Forum

article, is MY intellectual property, copyright by ME, and you do NOT

have permission to screw around with it like that, or to permit

third-parties to use it for commercial purposes! This is

explicitly codified in the PhotoNet <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/terms-of-use">Terms and Conditions of

Use</A>, which states (in part):

Ownership of Submitted Material

Submission of material to any photo.net forums, chat rooms, image

critique areas, or photo sharing systems does not transfer the

copyright to that material to photo.net. However, by submitting

the material, You grant photo.net and its successors or assigns a

perpetual non-exclusive world-wide royalty-free license to publish

that material on the World Wide Web as part of the photo.net web site

for the purpose of operating, displaying, distributing and promoting

the Site. photo.net will not use Your materials without attributing

them to You. If You object to any modification by photo.net of Your

materials (except for minor edits), or, in the case of forum postings,

comments on photos, or comment on the Site's static content, to the

use of Your materials separate from their original context, photo.net

will either restore the original text and context, or delete the

materials.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Please see to it that these bogus links are removed IMMEDIATELY.

I would strongly prefer that you do this *without* removing the

articles themselves, as my original intent in posting them (to help a

fellow photographer) is still just as strong as it ever was; and

frankly, I see no reason why this should not be "do-able". And

in any event, do *NOT* add third-party links to ANY of my articles in

the future.

Thank you.

July 31, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Greg Lyon, jul 29, 2005; 04:50 p.m.

On monday I will be starting to design a website which will have a photo gallery section. What makes this different from many others is that the photos will have to be of sufficient quality for printing (instead of trying to prevent printing as many photography websites do.)

Obviously I won't want to load the 'print' size photo directly, but rather link them somehow. I think what I'll need is a 3 tier photo handling: 1) Thumbnails that lead to 2) High quality display images with links to 3) High quality print images.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a reasonable approach. But have you carefully considered the storage and (especially) bandwidth requirements for such a site? They will be *formidable* (which is to say, "expensive"). Where/how do you plan to host this site? Self-hosting can address the storage issue (disk space is relatively cheap to buy, if still expensive to rent), but will only exacerbate the bandwidth problem.

So the questions:

1) Has anyone seen elegant handling of this sort of thing? I'd love suggestions/examples/tips. It seems that most of the photo websites I look at try to keep images small

</BLOCKQUOTE>

And some of them get far too carried away with it, to the point of seriously diluting the value and usefulness of the site. Given the generally fairly high screen resolutions (often 1280x1024 or more) used these days even on "garden variety" home PCs, 400x300 or thereabouts just isn't enough for a "full-size" image display. Even PhotoNet's in-line limit of 510x510 is too small for all but the grossest of examples.

(I assume both for load time and for theft issues.)

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect in most cases, it is the latter motivation, since the storage/bandwidth issues could be easily ameliorated by more careful balancing of the JPEG size/compression trade-off than I usually see. In *FAR* too many cases, I see relatively tiny images (say, 600x400 or so) with so little JPEG compression used that the file sizes wind up being 100-200KB or more. That's just stupid, presuming that on-screen display in a web browser is the intended purpose of the image.

2) What do you think is the upper limit for the display images? I'd like to maximize quality without it taking too long for the images to come up. I'm thinking about shooting for up to 700x500 jpgs and about 125kb per image. Does that seem right?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say that image size is either about right or perhaps just a little small. You might consider going to something around 800x600 or a bit more (perhaps up to as much as 1024x768 ; but this will play hob with visitors still using relatively low screen resolutions). Bear in mind that portrait-mode shots will have to be smaller than landscape-mode shots, in order to have a decent chance of fitting on the (still landscape mode, in at least the vast majority of cases) visitors' monitors -- you don't want them having to scroll to view the full image, right?

However, in at least most cases, you should *not* need anything like 125KB to support even an 800x600 image, presuming this is still a "preview" image intended strictly for on-screen display in a web browser. FWIW, I used to use 800x600 as the standard size for "preview" shots made in batch mode to then sift through and select which ones to print and/or further edit. Most of these were made using Graphics Workshop Pro, with "JPEG Quality" set to "70%", which produced results which would be more than acceptable for "web browsing". I just checked a directory-full (over 1,200) of these images, and they averaged just a hair over 60KB each.

3) For the print quality images I'm thinking they'll need to be 5"x7" @ 300dpi.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have pointed out, "DPI" is meaningless until you actually go to print the image. Forget that (and curse Adobe for perpetuating this ridiculous terminology). Just keep the images as large (in terms of their pixel dimensions) as possible given whatever cropping you need to do, *without* any "upsampling" or similar. Leave that to the person doing the printing.

Should I have them 'open' in a browser window? I am leaning toward download via link. Does that make sense?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely.

I would even put notes next to the download links cautioning visitors against attempting to display these images in their browsers. An image that large can (and often will) utterly *swamp* a web browser, quite possibly to the point causing the underlying system to become so unstable that it needs to be rebooted (especially under Windows). Web browsers just aren't designed to cope with really big images, and they'll start sucking up system resources like there's no tomorrow in an attempt to "cope", when forced to deal with one.

Another way to enforce this is to place each "print-sized" image file (regardless of whether it is in JPEG, TIFF or other format) into a ZIP-format archive file, and post only *that* for download. You probably won't see all that much additional compression, at least not vis-a-vis JPEG; but you will help avoid "accidental" attempts to display the monstrously oversized images in folks' web browsers.

I sure appreciate any information you have to share with me! I'd prefer to avoid using Flash for this site,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Good move.

Also studiously avoid Javashit, ActiveXploit and other whistle-and-bell nonsense, no matter how "trendy" you think it is, unless you want to alienate a significant portion of the user base.

July 31, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>joe miglionico, jul 30, 2005; 12:28 p.m.

I have a D-70 and right now I'm using the 24-120 VR lens with it, but I want a faster zoom. I don't have a lot of money to spend, max is about 400.00.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch.

That budget is going to be the kiss of death for anything in the "fast zoom" (a term which itself approaches oxymoron status) category, at least presuming you want to maintain decent optical quality.

I do almost exclusively glamour style full body portraits, but I like using a zoom. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? And just how important is that "like", as compared to the trade-offs you must make to accommodate it?

If it matters any, I use Alien Bees flash for lighting.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case, why is "fast" even an issue, given that you (should) have copious quantities of light available to you. If it's simply a matter of getting very shallow DOF for "effect", then you should be looking at a *really* fast (at least f/2.0) prime lens anyway. The classic "portrait" focal-lengths of 85-105mm would likely be a bit long for use on your D70; but the 50mm f/1.8D and/or the 85mm f/1.8D would be right in the ballpark -- and at least the former is *dirt* cheap.

Any thoughts? Any others I should be considering? It's important to me that it should be able to open to 2.8 at any focal length.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It strikes me that what you say (you think) you want is somewhat at odds with what you say you'll be using it for. Perhaps if you explored that apparent contradiction a little more, a clearer path will become evident.

July 31, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>brian raisbeck, jul 30, 2005; 01:17 a.m.

I'd love some advice on digital lenses for my D100.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, first and foremost, there is NO SUCH THING as a "digital lens", per se, no matter how much male bovine excrement the marketing mavens shovel trying to convince you otherwise. There are lenses which are "designed for" use either primarily or exclusively on digital SLRs (such as Nikon's "DX" line); but the lenses themselves are still purely analog devices. And further, *any* Nikon F-Mount AF lens (and most of the MF ones, as well) *will* work on your D100 (albeit, with some metering restrictions in the case of the old MF ones) -- and in at least some cases, they will work far *better* than anything carrying the "DX" moniker.

I travel a lot and want a 1 lens solution so I won't have to lug multiple pieces of glass around.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That is understandable, and a commonly expressed desire; but do realize that it will *inevitably* mean making significant compromises in either the quality of the images you can make, or the flexibility and convenience you can enjoy in making those images -- and probably both. It all gets back to the fundamental wisdom of "TANSTAAFL".

I want a Nikon brand lens but the most extensive zoom they make is 18-70.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Leaving aside (for the moment) the question of why you think the brand name itself is all that important, your statement is simply not true. The <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2149">18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor</A> (a.k.a. "D70 kit lens") has a zoom ratio of 3.89:1. Meanwhile, the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1928">70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor</A> and <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1924">70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor</A> both have a zoom ratio of 4.29:1; and the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2145">24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor</A> and <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1996">80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor</A> both have a zoom ratio of 5.00:1.

Of these, the only one (other than the 18-70mm) I could really recommend as a potential "single-zoom travel solution" would be the 24-120mm, and even then, *ONLY if you are reasonably sure that your proposed itinerary and shooting opportunities will be better-suited to longish focal lengths than shortish ones. And it still isn't ideal.

Was wondering if anyone has compared this with the optical quality of the Sigma 18-125 or the Tamron 18-200?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

See

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CkI0">THIS RECENT THREAD</A>, where those lenses in particular were thoroughly dissed. And note, if "optical quality" is even a tertiary consideration, you need to abandon the "one cheap zoom for all purposes" approach, pronto, more-or-less regardless of the particular zoom under discussion.

Or do you think 18-70 is enough coverage to cover most situations while traveling? Thanks!

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends almost completely on just what sort of shooting situations you (expect to) encounter in your travels. Bottom Line: There is NO single lens that can be "all things to all men", or competently cover ALL the possible scenarios you are likely to encounter

July 31, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>r ran, jul 29, 2005; 10:53 p.m.

Well I bought it today and have been trying it out and have a few more questions. What photo software does each of you use for the NEF/RAW files and what are the benefits?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I use <A HREF="http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/software/capture4/">Nikon Capture</A> near-exclusively, which I find quite adequate for 99.99% of my post-processing needs. Note that a slightly older version of Capture is on the CD that came with your camera. After installing that, you can <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/software/NC421.zip">download v4.2.1</A> from Nikon's web site, and install it "on top of" the original installation; your "registration" (if any) should remain intact. Then, if you want the very latest, apply the <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/software/capture/NC43_up.zip">v4.3 Updater</A>.

On the oft-made advice found here (among other places), I also downloaded and installed <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?goingto=dtc_options&cat=1&grp=2&productNr=nikonview">Nikon View</A> (and later updated it to v6.2.3.3; tho' I see that <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/software/view/NV626_up.zip">v6.2.6</A> is now current); but I find it not particularly useful for my purposes -- tho' if I didn't have Capture, I'd probably feel differently about that. And regardless, it is unquestionably head-and-shoulders better than "Picture Project", which I would strongly suggest that you not even bother to install.

In the *very* rare cases where I've needed to do something that Nikon Capture couldn't do (actually, only *once* so far), I found <A HREF="http://www.gimp.org/">The GIMP</A> to be quite capable, if more than a little intimidating to a newbie. If I found myself in that position more often, I'd probably give <A HREF="http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/">CinePaint</A> very serious consideration; but so far, I just haven't needed to.

Some of the first photos are a little blurry any suggestions? (I know I need to read the manual I am just excited to start using it)

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this your first auto-focus camera? If so, you definitely have a learning curve to climb. Auto-focus is (or at least, "can be") very convenient in most "typical" shooting situations; but it is NOT a panacea. To get the best results, you'll not only need to understand how the system works -- and from that, make informed decisions on how to set up the camera's various focus-related settings, *and* adjust your shooting style to accommodate it -- but also, MOST importantly, when *not* to use it.

In any event, I cannot see how this complaint ("Some ... photos are a little blurry") can have anything to do with post-processing issues. It is surely a matter of how the image was captured in the first place.

I have used Ulead Photoimpact for years, I am very used to its features but the version I have does not support RAW files. I am still trying to find out if the newer version does.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't help on that, other that to opine that I *highly* doubt it could do a better job (and probably not as good a one) of RAW-conversion as Nikon's own software, due to the fact that some of the .NEF-format details are proprietary. Hence, *all* third-party RAW-converters are by necessity "reverse engineered" to mimic the behavior of Nikon View and Nikon Capture. Some accomplish this better than others; but none can do it *better* than Nikon's own.

My daughter uses Photo shop and but don?t know if that supports RAW files. I really don?t want to have to learn the features of different software but it looks like I am going too. Just need opinions on what is best.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Photoshop users often espouse the <A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html">"Adobe Camera RAW"</A> plug-in/add-on. I suppose it works OK, *if* you're sure you want to use Photoshop in the first place. But for reasons I've already expounded on at length in <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D213">other threads</A>, I don't think that is a valid assumption (or even a good idea) in *most* people's cases -- and certainly not for relative newbies.

Until I decide what to use I will be using the camera in JPG fine mode, which is ok for now.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That's understandable; but I would strongly suggest that you get to the point where you are "comfortable" with both shooting in .NEF format and doing your routine post-processing in that format as soon as you possibly can. If nothing else, you can for the time being set up a batch-conversion routine in Nikon Capture to auto-magically make TIFFs and/or JPEGs out of the .NEF files, for use in other editing programs, while still retaining (and archiving) the original NEF file, so that no image detail *or* post-processing flexibility is ever permanently lost.

All opinions are welcome and this is not meant to start an argument over which software is best. Thanks for all the advice from my previous post. PR

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Understood, and you're welcome.

July 31, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Abigail Landeros Landeros, jul 29, 2005; 07:37 p.m.

I currently am an owner of a nikon D70 digital camera. i want a flash for it but i dont know which one i should get the sb800 and 600 are too expensive for me. i want a flash with good results for my nikon D70, Of course something around 100 dollars as well.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but you are basically asking for the impossible. The cheapest shoe-mount flash unit that I know will work *properly* with the D70 is the Nikon SB-600, at around $200. In general, third-party units can only be used with the camera in full-manual mode, if at all. There are a couple of exceptions to this, such as the Sigma EF 500 DG Super, which at least claims to support i-TTL; but I vaguely recall some chatter awhile back to the effect that the compatibility was "iffy", at best -- and besides, it's at least as expensive as (albeit, also significantly more powerful than) the SB-600. If Lex can recall the exact model number of that Sunpak unit he's thinking of, that might be worth checking out; but I wouldn't get my hopes up too high

Everyone keeps telling me to go with the sb 800 or 600 model but that is just not within my budget right now, i need something cheaper but of good quality. im mainly going to be using it for portraits.. i hope someone can help me :)

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Portraits with a single on-camera flash? Hmmm... Do you *like* the "Deer in the headlights" look?

If this is to be in the context of a "home-brew studio on the cheap" setting, I would suggest that you look for some used Vivitar 283s or similar, at maybe $25-35 each, and buy at least two of them (three would be better), along with some light stands and reflector umbrellas, and set them up using the classic 45/90/45 arrangement, for starters. Then experiment with the geometry (you'll want to either put one flash unit significantly closer to the subject than the other *OR* have two 283s firing into one umbrella vis-a-vis one in the other, in order to balance the main-light/fill-light ratio. This was basically the approach I used several years ago when I was "drafted" as semi-official photographer for my father-in-law's wedding; and save for a couple of minor disasters due to a recalcitrant camera body and one slightly-too-short PC cord that I tripped over at exactly the wrong moment, it worked out pretty well, despite being more than a little reminiscent of Rube Goldberg.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Abigail Landeros Landeros, jul 29, 2005; 09:25 p.m.

i read somewhere with older modles on the D70 i would need a special adapter and i would also have to use it in manual mode.. is that true? write back :)

</BLOCKQUOTE>

As noted above, the bit about manual mode is at least mostly true. The general exception is that if the flash unit is what was, 20 or so years ago, called an "Auto Thyristor" unit, you can still at least potentially use the *flash's* "automatic" mode; but the camera itself needs to be in full-manual mode in order to do this.

The need for the adapter will depend on the specific flash unit -- specifically, the trigger voltage it puts on the hot-shoe terminals, vis-a-vis the camera body's ability to withstand that voltage. Some of the *very* old models (which were designed for use with purely mechanical cameras, which in turn meant a simple mechanical switch contact for the hot-shoe trigger), would route the full high-voltage flash charge (i.e., what actually fires the xenon tube in the flash head) through the hot-shoe contacts, letting the camera's trigger switch complete the circuit to fire the flash. But modern electronic SLRs (be they film or digital) use "solid-state relays" to make/break the hot-shoe circuits; and these can be seriously (and instantly!) fried by that much voltage on the hot shoe. So this is something you *definitely* need to check out thoroughly before mounting ANY older third-party flash unit to your camera.

To sum up... With the possible exception of the "home-brew studio" scenario mentioned above, I essentially agree with Lex here... If you cannot afford to buy the *right* flash unit, do without (i.e., struggle along on the D70's pop-up flash) until you can.

July 30, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Max Cooper, jul 30, 2005; 02:09 a.m.

so it seems like the consensus is that if i want to make any money doing non-art photography, it has to be digital.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much so, yes.

two questions: is the D70 enough?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

"Enough" for *what*, exactly?

Enough to get you started, and let you start building a collection of quality lenses (which you *will* keep halfway to forever), while you continue your climb up the learning curve, *and* work out your digital workflow, *and* learn the finer points of digital printing... meanwhile putting out some reasonably high-quality images and -- most importantly -- getting the job done? Sure. No question.

Enough to cover every possible contingency, and be all things to all men (or even just you), in perpetuity? No way.

and, is it even within the realm of possiblity to make a living as a "serious artist"? obviously people do it, but should i plan a career around it?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

You just answered your own question... By dint of the fact that some people do indeed make their livings as "Serious Artists", it is by definition *possible*. But that's a long hike from being something you should count on -- unless perhaps you have a very tidy trust find on tap, to cover your living expenses for the next 40-50 years or so.

July 30, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Joseph Wisniewski, jul 29, 2005; 08:49 a.m.

Well, the current Sigma EX converters won't physically mount to either of those lenses. Both Sigma and Nikon converters have proturding front elements, which means that they will only mount to lenses with recessed rear elements. The 180mm f2.8 Nikkor and the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 both have rear elements that project past the lens mount into the camera. Not a good combination.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, HRMPH! <~>

So, "bottom line": There's no good "easy" answer. That figures.

I suspect that I'll still go with the Sigma 70-200 zoom; but I'm now re-thinking the value of ANY teleconverter. Presuming I do have that lens, I'm pretty well-covered, focal-length wise, up to the 200mm mark -- i.e., I would not really *need* to use the TC on any of the shorter lenses. I had been looking at it mostly as "cheap insurance", for if/when I found that 200mm wasn't enough; and secondarily as a compact/lightweight (and yes, cheap) way to get still more flexibility out of the other lenses already in the bag. Now that the latter application is more-or-less out of the question, I could still go with the Sigma TC, which would in effect be "dedicated" to that one lens. But OTOH, rather than spend $175 or so on that, I *might* be better off just biting the bullet and picking up a used Nikon 300mm f/4 ED-IF... At least the older (non-"D", non-AF-S) versions seem quite affordable; and I doubt that at least the "D" feature will be all that crucial at this focal length (the AF-S might be another story, depending) -- of course, it's also anything but compact or lightweight.

Thanks again for your comments.

July 30, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Arnold FRANCK, jul 29, 2005; 10:48 a.m.

Jay,

Why do you think the D50 body is inferior to the D70(s)? Is it about build quality?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not really. As I alluded to above, it is (at least mostly) about features and flexibility. There is no "one big thing" that separates the D70 from the D50 (tho' there are at least two that come pretty close, IMCO -- namely, the D50's use of SD memory cards instead of CF cards, and the near-crap 18-55mm "kit" lens, which is seriously inferior to the 18-70mm model that comes with the "D70 Outfit"); but there are a LOT of "little things that add up"... which, when all is said and done, make the D70 a far better value as long as the prices are even close to similar. This situation is in marked contrast to when the D70 first appeared, vis-a-vis the long-existing D100 -- the D70 is and was *notably* superior to the older model in several ways, and comparably deficient in very few if any (the distinction between "very few" and "any" being mostly dependant on the individual user's specific needs).

I think that digital cameras should be as cheap as possible because they become obsolete very soon. It's like with buying a PC in the eighties and early nineties. The technology is not mature yet.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... Yes and no. While I would agree that the technology is not yet *fully* mature, it is definitely getting there. The rate-of-change has slowed down tremendously vis-a-vis even two or three years ago, let alone when compared to the DSLR's infancy period of perhaps 5-10 years ago. The fact that the D50 is *not* a slam-dunk improvement over the D70 is further proof of this thesis.

More importantly, you don't want to "paint yourself into a corner" by foregoing features and flexibility you can use *now* (and, of course, for the life of whichever camera body you choose).

Look... I'm not saying you should go splurge on a D2x or similar; clearly, that *would* be a poor investment for you, at least at this time. But given the fact that you *will* need a truly wide-angle (i.e., in the 20mm or so range) lens regardless of which DSLR body you pick, you might as well kill two birds for the price of one with the D70 kit. You said it yourself earlier: The D70 kit is but 200 EUR or so more expensive than the D50 bare body. So what *other* suitable lens could you add to the D50 for 200 EUR or less, that would be a better all-around performer than the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S Zoom that comes with the "D70 Outfit"? I submit that the answer to that question is "None." So given that, you can consider the extra benefits of the D70 body to be *free*.

If you read the review of the D50 on dpreview.com, the D50 is not that bad.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you familiar with the phrase, "Damning with faint praise"? If the best thing you can say about the D50 is that it's "not that bad", then you have seriously condemned it, indeed. And when there is essentially ZERO economic incentive to make that compromise... Well, why would you?

It requires less post processing and that is very important to me.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not at all sure how you figure that. When either camera is used *properly*, there would be essentially no difference in the post-processing requirements. If anything, several of the more poorly-chosen (presumably in a cynical attempt to appeal to rank-amateur "point'n'shooters") default settings of the D50 need to be "un-done" in order to get the best quality out of a D50 -- IOW, you need to deliberately "work around" the camera's assumptions and limitations, significantly more so than with the D70.

I'm an amateur, not a professional.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

That's all well and good. But does it mean you *want* to do poorer-quality work, or put up with a less convenient/capable camera?

What would be the best lens of the two (optical quality): Tamron 17-35mm or Tokina 12-24mm?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Taking this question purely "in a vacuum", I'd give the nod to the Tokina 12-24mm, simply because of it's focal-length advantage. The Tamron doesn't really offer all that much that the D70 kit lens (or whichever other lens you might press into that role) doesn't already provide. As I said before, when you want wide, you want W-I-D-E.

July 29, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>John Bingham, jul 29, 2005; 12:49 a.m.

My area of photography is weddings and commercial promotions. However, this year I am sponsoring a fundraising event, including a fun shot booth. We have the following equipment for the event, a laptop, a HP 345, A HP 7550, and, Fuji S3.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I presume that by "HP 345" you are referring to one of the Hewlett-Packard "Pavilion" series desktop PCs, such as <A HREF="http://www.hp.ca/products/static/pavilion-desktops/a1110n/index.php">THIS ONE</A>? If not, just what *are* you referring to?

Secondly, I also presume you plan to shoot with the camera tethered to a PC, so that you need not shuffle CF cards back and forth, right? I'm not sure what software/facilities Fuji offers for this function; but I (again) presume they do have something similar to Nikon's "Capture Camera Control", which would be perfect for this job.

I can assume that making prints would not be a problem, as long as they are 4X6 and need no editing.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think that, as long as you can tightly control the lighting (you didn't mention *anything* on that front), this should be quite "do-able". In essence, you're talking about a small portable studio setup. That *should* produce highly repeatable results, if your setup is right.

What I would like to know is there a better way? How hard it to make 5X7?S and 8X10?S at the event?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't see where print size, per se, would have any bearing on "how hard" or "how easy". OTOH, it *would* have a significant effect on "how fast" and "how expensive" -- have you *really* figured out the per-print operating costs of that HP 7550 ink-jet printer, even for 4x6 prints? If not, be prepared for some serious "sticker shock"! Also, you'll need to keep *plenty* of spare ink cartridges around, as you will surely burn through them at a horrific rate, if the booth is at all busy. All in all, if you're anticipating a serious amount of "business" at this event, I would think you'd be better off investing in something like an <A HREF="http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=37472319">Epson R800</A> and a <A HREF="http://www.inkrepublic.com/ProductDetail.asp?item=R800">CIS system for it</A>.

How would you quickly preview prints without flipping cards constantly?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

"Flipping cards"? Do you mean manually shuffling CF cards from the camera to the PC, to the printer, etc.? I'd avoid that PITA tap-dance entirely, if at all possible. Shoot tethered, preview on the PC's monitor (optionally with a second, probably larger, monitor for the audience's benefit), and print either directly out of the image-capture software, or from a second (networked) PC after the first one captures the image from the camera and writes it to disk.

July 29, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>mark berenblum, jul 28, 2005; 08:12 p.m.

I tried to find an answer to these questions on the forum, but I couldn't really find them answered directly... I was wondering if when you shoot in raw, you have to convert back into a JPG or TIFF, why not just shoot in JPG in the first place? Won't you have the same loss of quality in the computer conversion as you would in the camera conversion?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The better question is, why are you presuming conversion to JPEG at all?

The only really *proper* use for JPEG is to make very much reduced-quality/size versions of your images for posting to the WWW, e-mailing to friends/relatives, etc.; as a shooting, editing, printing, or archival format, it just plain sucks.

Also, how do you open up a RAW from an EOS 20D in photoshop,

</BLOCKQUOTE>

One route is to use <A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html">Adobe Camera RAW</A>, *IF* you're sure you really want to be using Photoshop in the first place. But there are also several third-party RAW converters, such as <A HREF="http://www.bibblelabs.com/">Bibble 4.2</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/">Dave Coffin's "dcraw"</A>, plus whatever Canon themselves offer.

and if you convert it to a TIFF is the image information (shutter speed, aperature, WB, etc.) still there? Thanks!

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Some, but probably not all of it. TIFF can support <A HREF="http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/tifftags/privateifd/exif.html">at least most EXIF tags</A>; but then, most camera manufacturers tend to encode more data beyond the basics covered by EXIF in their proprietary RAW file formats. How useful/important that "extra" data is to you is another question entirely.

<BLOCKQUOTE>mark berenblum, jul 28, 2005; 08:39 p.m.

Thanks Jean-Baptiste! I know that every time you resave a jpeg you're losing quality, but I'm wondering why is the quality that you lose less when you convert out of the camera than in the camera?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

There can be several reasons. For starters, the JPEG conversion/compression algorithm contained in the camera is necessarily limited in terms of both the processing power it has available (just how fast a CPU and how much memory do you think is in your camera, as compared to your desktop PC, anyway?), and the time it can "afford" to spend on it. Remember, when you're shooting in JPEG mode, this conversion/compression process must be carried out "on the fly", as the image is being written out to the CF card or other storage media; and in turn, that sensor-->buffer-->CF-card tap-dance must be completed before the camera will be ready for the next shot (or series of shots, in most cases).

I think what you're trying to say is that it's best to go RAW->TIFF.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's definitely better than RAW-->JPEG. But unless you *need* TIFF for some reason (and you well might, depending; see below), it isn't going to provide any benefits over keeping the files in RAW format.

Do you lose quality during that first RAW to TIFF conversion?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

You won't 'lose quality", per se, at least as long as you avoid using the data-compression that is sometimes coupled with TIFF format (this depends somewhat on the software doing the saving). But you *will* lose flexibility.

You need to understand that a RAW file (regardless of which manufacturer's variation on that theme we're talking about) is a fundamentally different thing than ANY of the various viewable/printable image-file formats like TIFF, JPEG, PNG, etc.; it is, literally, the *raw* image-sensor data just as it was captured at the moment of exposure, *before* any interpolation or similar is applied. As such, any "adjustments" you make to that image -- white balance, exposure compensation, sharpening, etc. -- are actually stored in the file header as _instructions_to_ whatever software subsequently opens up that file, *not* as actual alterations to the image data.

By comparison, once the image is saved in *any* viewable/printable image-file format, those adjustments are "carved in granite" because the image data itself is altered accordingly.

I know you won't after the first, but I'm not sure about that initial conversion.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're confusing TIFF with JPEG.

The reason JPEG continues to degrade the image with each successive re-save is that it *always* attempts to do data-compression; and more to the point, it does so in a "lossy" manner (as opposed to the "non-lossy" compression used by such general-purpose file-archiver/compressor programs as PKZIP/WinZIP, for example), which means it is literally throwing away image data in the process -- and once that data is gone, it is *forever* gone. Most image-manipulation programs will let you control (to at least some degree) how aggressively the JPEG algorithm carries out this data-compression/degradation; but you can NEVER eliminate it entirely as long as you're using JPEG.

Also, why not just work on the RAW files if you lose quality by saving it as something else?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not, indeed! If you have a decent image-editing program that understands your camera's RAW files (such as Nikon Capture in the case of Nikon's .NEF format; I presume Canon offers something similar), this is surely the most fail-safe approach -- and likely the simplest/easiest, as well.

OTOH, if you need (or want) to do more "creative" edits than the sort of global image adjustments and simple crops that such programs typically support (such as selective-area burning and dodging -- or sticking Margaret Thatcher's head on Marilyn Monroe's body), then you'll need to use a general-purpose image-manipulation program such as <A HREF="http://www.gimp.org/">The GIMP</A> or <A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/main.html">Photoshop</A>.

July 29, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Dee B., jul 28, 2005; 01:09 p.m.

Hi, I'm relatively new to photography and don't have a lot of experience with editing either, so I have lots of questions. I currrently have Photoshop Elements 2 & Album 2. I want to upgrade so I can edit RAW. My photography has improved and I'm not sure if Elements 3 will offer all the editing, etc I may want to do later as I continue to improve. At the same time, I'm afraid if I get CS2 I may only use a small percentage of the program. Any input?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

IMCO, your fears are probably well-founded. Photoshop is a HUGE and very complex program. In *far* too many cases, people tend to gravitate toward it because it is such a "household name", not because they really need what it offers. Yes, it is (at least in theory) capable of all sorts of things -- most of which you will NEVER use for routine photo-editing, no matter how skilled you may eventually become (in fact, a good argument can be made that the better photographer you are, the *less* you need Photoshop or similar). But you still have to deal with all that "baggage" just the same. It's also seriously expensive, and will continue to be so as you inevitably update and upgrade in perpetuity (that is, after all, how Adobe makes at least most of their money, NOT on new-user sales) -- not to mention the demands it will place on your computer system (which, if it is not one of the newest and shiniest multi-GHz wonders, will be *seriously* bogged down under the load of this 5,000-lb. elephant of an application program).

You didn't mention what sort of camera you're using; but the odds are that the camera-manufacturer's own RAW-converter and/or image-editor will provide at least 95% of the functions you will ever actually *need* for purely photographic pursuits. And these programs tend to be either free, or relatively low-cost. For example, If you're shooting with a Nikon that supports the .NEF format, look at <A HREF="http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/software/capture4/">Nikon Capture</A>.

OTOH, if you really think you need (or want) a "full-featured" general-purpose image-editing program (with the understanding that this goes well beyond photography, per se), I would strongly suggest that you give <A HREF="http://www.gimp.org/">The GIMP</A> a serious look-see. It is very nearly as powerful as Photoshop (in some ways more-so, as it will run on more different platforms). But very much unlike PS, it is completely NON-proprietary and absolutely *FREE*. If you ever get to the point where the difference between 8-bit/channel and 16-bit/channel editing is meaningful to you, then you're ready to progress to <A HREF="http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/">CinePaint</A> (formerly known as Film GIMP). But for now, don't worry about it.

Also, will the software explain when I get it how to put my 3,000 pictures I currently have in Album 2 into the new software?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you're asking this question -- and especially the way you phrased it -- belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how this software (and at least most software in general, for that matter) works. Your image files are your image files, period. They are not "in" an application program. You simply use an application program (or several different application programs) to manipulate those files in one way or another. It's the difference between a tool and a project. Would you refer to that bookcase you just built as being "in" your table saw? If you're thinking of your image files as being "in" Adobe Photoshop Album, then odds are you don't *really* know where your images are (and/or what format they're really in) -- and that is an ominous prospect, indeed.

Last question...I'm wanting to put my pics in an external hard drive & with the editing program and storage program combined I'm worried about putting my editing software on an external hard drive. Adobe can't answer with certainty if their software requires it be put on the boot drive or if it can be installed on the external drive and still function properly. Has anyone out there done this? Thank you for your help.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you need to separate (if only in your mind) the concepts of image editing vs. image (or file) *storage*. They are two *entirely* different things. Beyond this, I would NOT suggest an external hard drive for either purpose, albeit for different reasons. Specifically, they tend to impose significant performance penalizes when used to load/run application software (especially something as large and resource-hungry as Photoshop); and they're too fragile/insecure for archival storage.

July 29, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Aaron Beddes, jul 27, 2005; 11:09 a.m.

Is there a RAW conversion package for less than $200 that will correct for chromatic aberration at the time of conversion (and do a good job of it)?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Does Canon have an equivalent to Nikon Capture? If so, that would be the obvious answer.

I know I can do it in an image editor after the conversion, but isn't it better done during conversion?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It's *best* to not have to correct it in the first place. But failing that, yes, the sooner the better in the image-processing "chain".

July 29, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Paul Keith DickinsonPhoto.net Patron, jul 29, 2005; 08:41 a.m.

Hi I am shooting inside and outside of a church on a sunny day,using my D70 set on P mode.My SB-800 set on TTL-BL,for fill in flash.My first question is what setting should I have the white balance on.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that's two questions, requiring two different answers.

In all cases, doing a custom white-balance setup on the spot, under the same lighting conditions you're about to shoot under, is your *best* bet. But failing that, for outdoor shooting with or without fill-flash, pick whichever of the "Dir. Sunlight", "Cloudy", or "Shade" settings seems to best approximate the current conditions, and hope for the best -- it will likely be "close enough", as long as you're shooting in NEF (RAW) mode. I would recommend *against* the "Auto" setting, simply because this will mean the actual setting use can (and probably will) vary from frame to frame, making batch-mode post-processing next-to-impossible.

For indoor shooting, it's a whole 'nother ball game. Unless your flash unit is going to be the *sole* (or at least overwhelmingly dominant) light source, you *MUST* use the appropriate filter gel on the SB-800 to match (as closely as possible) its output to the ambient light, or you will surely have a huge (and probably un-fixable) mess on your hands come post-processing time. This stands regardless of what setting(s) you use in the camera and/or flash unit. Beyond that, the same advice applies as for outdoor shooting: A Custom WB setting is best; but you can *probably* find one of the preset modes (such as "Incandescent") which provides a match which is "close enough" to be zero-ed in later during post-processing.

I also shoot with a Fuji S3 pro and if someboby could give me the same information I would be most greatful. Paul

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely the same logic applies, regardless of the camera. The settings names may be (and probably are) a bit different on the Fuji; but the principles are the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Christophe Suzor, jul 29, 2005; 09:41 a.m.

My advice: don't waste time getting the right white balance, just shoot NEF, and spend as much time as possible capturing those magic moments to memory.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I must rather strongly disagree with this advice. Sure, *IF* you're shooting outdoors under "average" conditions and everything is right with the world, you'll *probably* luck out and the results will not be so far off that you can't patch it up later in post-processing. But that is still far from the ideal approach -- and when everything is NOT just exactly right with the world, it can (and probably will) come back to bite you in the a__.

The key thing is that, when using multiple light sources (such as fill-flash under either daylight or any of the many varied forms of artificial lighting found indoors), you MUST balance/match these two light sources to each other, regardless of any overall WB setting in the camera or similar. Failing that, you will have differently-colored light in different parts of the same frame, making reasonable post-processing patch-ups at least very difficult, if not outright impossible.

July 29, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Max Cooper, jul 28, 2005; 09:14 p.m.

Hello. I am preparing to buy into my first professional SLR system, and I have decided on Nikon. The camera that I want, and have wanted for years, is the FM3a. I like its ruggedness, battery independence, and superb construction.

However, I will be graduating in a year (BA in Photo) and will need to make it in the 'real world'.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Define "the real world", in this context. Are you talking about "making it" as a (drum-roll and echo-chamber, please) "Serious Artist", or as a working photographer (be the latter in the realm of sports/photojournalism, fashion, weddings, etc.). These are two *very* different worlds; and the former at least is about as far-removed from "which camera should I buy" questions as you can get -- do you think the reason that Van Gogh and Rembrandt are considered masters is due to their materials choices? I thought not.

My instructor has recommended a used F100, because of its automation.

I shoot lots of things. My main artistic focus is night photography with exposures >30 sec. But I love photojournalism/documentary as well. I don't do a lot of portraiture and I don't plan on ever doing studio work.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case, you really have one foot in each of two decidedly different camps.

The F100 is certainly a very nice camera, as is the F5 that several respondents have suggested. But I don't see how either of them are really all that suitable for *either* sort of photography you mention. In the commercial/PJ/whatever world, you'll need an all-digital workflow just to maintain productivity. In the "Serious Artist" world, a good argument can be made that *no* 35mm camera is really all that good a choice, and that you should be looking at MF or LF. In the specific context of long-exposure night shots, all the automation in the world is a complete waste -- the best you could hope for is that it might not get in your way *too* much (but it probably will).

My question is: can a serious photographer do without automation?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends almost completely on the *type* of "serious photography" we're talking about. I doubt that Ansel Adams would have had much use for a whiz-bang auto-everything SLR -- but he may well have been *very* intrigued by the better digital backs for MF/view cameras (hideously expensive as they may be)

Am I being stubborn in prefering an almost fully manual camera?

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps not "stubborn" -- but probably misdirected. For the one sort of need you've identified, the auto-everything film SLRs are a step in the right direction; but they don't go far enough. You *will* need digital to seriously pursue that application. For the other, the Pentax K1000 you mentioned later (and apparently already own) is perfectly adequate -- perhaps even a *better* choice than the FM3a or similar, due to the very low cost of additional lenses and such.

Got'ta run... Maybe a few more thoughts later.

July 28, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Arnold FRANCK, jul 28, 2005; 02:45 p.m.

Jay:

Thank you very much for your thorough answer.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

You're quite welcome.

In Belgium, where I live, the D50 without lens is considerably cheaper than the D70s kit (let's say 450 EUR or 540 USD).

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference is that large, eh? Well then, I guess I now better understand your thinking. BUT...

The D70 kit, if you still are able to find one, is approx. 200 EUR more expensive than the D50 without lens.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

OK then, this is still a "no brainer", IMCO. Go find one of those (original) D70 kits *NOW*.

Look at it this way... The D70 is unquestionably a better body than the D50 -- to the point that, even if its particular strong points do not seem all *that* important to you right now, you'd still have to figure on it being *easily* worth another 100 EUR or so, if only on general principles, right? Now, if you accept that notion, then by buying the D70 kit, you are effectively buying the 18-70mm zoom for just another 100 EUR -- which is a downright *HUGE* bargain. Run, do not walk, to the closest store that still has one, and grab it while you can!

Since digital cameras are rather fragile, I definitely would like to buy in a local shop.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Understandable; and in general, I agree -- but not to the point of paying hugely more for the same item (a *modest* premium -- say, 10-15% -- is both expected and perfectly OK), or accepting a lesser item just because the local shop doesn't have what I really want.

I think that the image and build quality of the D50 is on par with that of the D70(s).

</BLOCKQUOTE>

For the most part, and *if* you're working under near-ideal "low stress" conditions, yes. But where the D70 shines is when the conditions are less than ideal, or you want to go beyond routine "point & shoot". It is significantly more flexible and "adjustable" than the D50 (tho' of course, not to the degree that the better Canon DSLRs compare to the *severely* crippled EOS-300D); and its overall "handling speed" is noticeably better too.

For convenience, I would choose zoom lens instead of a prime lens. It will be either the Tamron or the Tokina with a slight advantage for the Tamron since it is more an "all-round" lens.

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you have to be happy with whatever you choose; and if that's what will make you happy, then so be it. But I still think you ought to grab a D70 kit, while you can -- and I *definitely* think you should at least borrow/rent one of those primes I mentioned before committing to yet another relatively slow zoom.

July 28, 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>Joseph Wisniewski, jul 28, 2005; 01:37 p.m.

Jay - "a little strange" means several things, all related to the communication between a motorized lens (Nikon AF-S or Sigma HSM), a teleconverter, and a camera.

[snip]

</BLOCKQUOTE>

The exposure problems are relatively rare. The AF problems are more common and more annoying, expecially with a 2x converter, although they're still annoying with a 1.4x converter.

Hope this helps

</BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you very much for the thorough and detailed explanation. Obviously, I'll need to put a little more thought into this combination. I'd been presuming the Kenko 1.4X converter (or the functionally identical Tamron) precisely because I perceived to be the "most universal" of the possible choices (especially as compared to at least most of the Nikon converters, which are chock full of "except"s, "if"s, and "but"s); and I really can't justify (cost-wise) multiple converters of the same or similar magnification factor.

I'm also wondering what your thoughts would be on using the Sigma converter with, say, a Nikon or Tamron AF lens (such as, just for example, the 180mm f/2.8, or the 18-70mm D70 "kit lens, etc.).

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jay_blocksom