timarmes

A typical DSLR sensor has a surface area 8 times larger than that of a compact camera. Each pixel is therefore much larger, captures more photos in a given time, and therefore has a much better signal to noise ratio.

The result is a much less noisy image. That's why DLSRs happily go up to at least 1600 ISO, whereas compacts go up to 400 whilst displaying hideous amounts of noise.

Hi,

You should leave the working space as Adobe RBG. Photoshop CS uses the default Windows monitor profile when converting from the working space to the monitor in order to display your pictures.

Assuming that the Photocal package set your new monitor profile to be the Windows default, you should be all set. To check that, right click on the windows backdrop and choose properties. The colour management setting are there somewhere (can't remember off the top of my head in which tab you'll find them).

Tim

Hello,

This is easy. You select the source image. Choose Edit->Copy properties (I think that's where it is. Shortcut is Alt-Ctrl-C). Then Go to the desired image and paste them (Alt-Ctrl-V). Imatch will ask which properties you wish to copy, and categories is one of the options. Voila.

Hi,

I've just discovered Photokit Sharpener. The workflow seems

excellent, but I'm just wondering if it's compatible with QImage?

I don't normally print from Photoshop since it's a pain to print

multiple images per page etc. Besides, the output from QImage is

stunning.

Does anyone have a recommended workflow on how to get these two

applications to work well together?

Tim

Picture Window has a chromatic aberration removal tool. There's a 30 day free trial.

Tim

Hi all,

Thanks for your answers, you've helped me to clear my thoughts a little.

For the moment I'm now heading along the lines of the Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70 and Canon 70-200/2.8 IS.

The Sigma seems to be the only good wide angle choice open to me. It's not as fast as I'd have liked, but then as pointed out that isn't so important for a wide angle lens. The reviews are generally very good, and the shear fact that they've managed to make a 12-24 full frame zoom is a stunning acheivement. The fact that it's full frame means that it'll move with me (possibly after reprogramming!), unlike the Canon 10-22 which is EF-S and not massively fast either (although admittely faster than the Sigma). By the time I'll be able to afford the Sigma the 10-22 will be well tested, so I can change my mind at that point.

For the moment though, I know that the 24-70 is a very good base choice around which it's possible to invest in very good complementary lenses at both ends of the scale.

Tim

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your response. I suppose what annoys me is that idea of spending a large amount of money on the 16-35 know that I already have the 24-35 part. However, your point is a valid one and I may well appreciate the overlap. On the other hand 16mm isn't all that wide on my current camera.

You're observation regarding the 24-70 is a good one. I too believe that It's better sticking to this choice based on my typical photography. However I do like to attack wide angles from time-to-time, hence the dialema.

It's probably also true that there's less need for f2.8 on a wide angle lens. What I'd really like is a faster Canon equivalent of the Sigma 12-24.

Tim

Hi all,

I've spent a couple of months deciding on the best lens upgrade path

to suit my needs. I currently have a 300D which I bought with the

kits lens to tide me over, and a 70-300 that I already owned. I went

for the 300D over the 10D because, financially, I thought it better

to put my money into the lenses rather than the body.

The more I researched the currently available lenses, the more I

realised that I'd rather play the waiting game and save for quality

glass than be disappointed with the lower end zooms. I know that

I'll get a lot more pleasure from the f2.8 and the sharp images, even

if it takes (much) longer to build up my collection. My original plan

to start with a 23-135 is well out the window.

Another aspect that I'm bearing in mind is the fact that I can't see

myself staying with a 1.6 crop forever. I'd rather wait for the 1.3

or full frame cameras to drop in price, I personally believe that

this will happen, so I'd rather buy lenses with this in mind.

Besides, it means that I can use them on my film body should the need

ever arise (which it hasn't so far).

I considered going for a combination of the 16-35, 50mm/1.8 and the

70-200/2.8, but I feel that for the type of photography I do I'll be

switching lenses all the time. I'll be better off with the 24-70 as

a base lens. Besides, the 16-35 has had very variable reviews and

most reviewers seem to agree that the 24-70 is much better.

So, with the above in mind I'm pretty much decided on the 24-70/2.8L

as a starting point and the 70-200/2.8 for the telephoto end. I

think. The hitch in my plan is finding the right wide angle lense to

complement this choice. I like wide angle shots, and I'll certainly

miss the wide angle end of the 24-70 with the 1.6 crop factor. Of

the possible choices:

The 16-35 it's obviously not well positioned due to the large overlap

of focal lengths.

The 10-22 is EF-S only (a real shame).

The Canon 14mm prime is hideously expensive, and suffers from CA.

The Sigma 12-24, while promising, is a slow lens. I'd really like to

keep to at least 2.8.

Are there any other possibilities that I'm missing?

I suppose that my need for wider angles than 24mm will decrease when

I change bodies, but I can't see that happening for a good while yet.

Besides, if I get a wide angle that works well on the 300D, when

changing the body for a lower crop factor becomes feasible I'll have

a very wide angle lens, which'll be nice :)

Are there any experienced wide angle lovers out there that can offer

me some advice. I starting to question the validity of the 24-70mm

choice due to the lack of wide angle choices.

Hi,

I realise that this has been asked before, but I feel that since no

action is being taken more voices need to be heard.

I would be really useful to be able to review the top photos by

category, and, in particular by filtering on the manipulation

statement.

I know that I'm not the only one fed up of scouring through all the

results to find the 10% of photos that aren't heavily manipulated.

Surely it's not a big thing to ask or a hard thing to do?

Tim

Hi,

I find autocolor very useful, but i don't let it rule the show. Read this:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/17164.html?origin=story

Tim

Hi,

I think I'm suffering the same decision problems as many other people

at the moment. If any more experienced photographers can give me some

good advice I'd be appreciative. I may have missed various important

points.

I currently have a 300D with the 18-55mm kit lens and a 75-300mm USM.

I find the 18-55mm quite irritating. The image quality isn't the best

and it never has enough zoom; I find myself constantly swapping

lenses. I've therefore made the decision to be a good all round lens,

with the intention of needing to swap less often. These are the lens

choices I've considered:

Canon 28-135 USM IS - I really like this lens but I'm worried that

the lack of wide angle will become frustrating. Will I be constantly

swapping with the kit lens to get wider shots?

Canon 17-85 USM IS - The extra focal length I get over the kit lens

isn't worth the money (obviously the lens is better and it has

stabilisation, but in terms of use you don't gain much zoom power,

which is my current complaint). It's format makes it unsuitable for

full frame cameras, should I ever win the lottery.

Sigma 18-125mm - I lovely zoom range, but when you use it side-by-

side with the 28-135 it's slower, darker and noisier. Plus you don't

get the Stabilisation. Other disadvantages include the fact that it's

EF-S (reducing my upgrade path is the distant future) and the fact

that its not Canon (will it work on future cameras? lower quality

optics?)

Ideally I'd like a Canon 18-135mm USM IS, but I'm guessing that I'll

be waiting a while for that. Also, alll-in-one lenses aren't often

the best choice either.

Another possibility is to go with the 28-135mm with the intention of

getting a wide angl complement, but from a budget point of view

that'll be a very long way off. How limiting is the 28mm 'wide' angle?

Can anyone offer my some good advice?

Thanks,

Tim

Hi,

I've recently upgraded my EOS 300N to the 300D. I'm facing a few

focusing issues and was wondering if any of you could shed some light

for me.

Firstly, does anyone here effectively use the automatic choice of

focus point? My experience so far leads me to believe that:

1) It hardly ever chooses the right point

2) The focus point chosen is rarely the nearest point, as described in

the manual

It seems more useful to me to just select the center focus point, then

focus, recompose and shoot.

Are the other points of any real use? I envisage that setting up a

composition on a tripod and selecting the appropriate focus point such

that the camera need no longer be moved is the only time I would ever

find this useful. Am I missing something?

On a side note, I find that the camera jumps into AI-servo mode

incredibly easily. How can this be avoided?

Tim