jairy hunter

Bambi's book is good--didn't know there was a digital version.

An absolutely beautiful and helpful book is by an English photog--The Annabel Williams book of Portrait and Wedding Photography put out by Rotovision. Like Bambi, she uses film, but has a ton of great suggestions and ideas regarding technique and process/procedure . She gives you insight into her way of thinking which is very helpful. Plus the photos are excellent examples of quality work.

Hurter's book "Best of Dig. Wedding Photography" is a good basic starter book--a lot of detail about his process and selling technique, which you might not totally agree with. But it helps to have a lot more ideas.

Ok I think I've answered my own question.

For duotones in .psd format, open file in PS.

Under Image-->Mode-->RGB (make sure 8-bit)

PS will ask to flatten image. Then File can saved as Jpeg or Tiff.

Anyone know of a reason why this shouldn't be done?

thanks,

J.

Opening in PS and "Save As.." work for most images, but unfortunately for duotone

images, JPEGs and TIFFS are not an option in that menu, unless I'm missing

something. I know there has to be a workaround, though. Hoping....

Anyone know if photoshop documents (.psd) can be converted to JPEGs or TIFFs--that

is I am trying to get duotone images to a disc that can be taken to the local lab for

printing/proofs etc. Unless I'm mistaken, most of these kiosk labs cannot read .psd.

Thanks,

J.

This has been beat to death, but here's my kick.

I use both PC and Mac. While Windows XP is much easier than I expected (based on

past experience), mac is far more intuitive and seamless. It's basically idiot proof, but

if you want to get into the OS, you can do that too with Unix.

About the software availability: there's nothing out there I want that I can't get. Either

mac version, or via windows emulation program (which I don't have or need). Office

for Mac is better than the windows version. Microsoft freely admits that.

I wouldn't dream of using photoshop on windoze. Too unstable OS, clunky controls.

Please someone let me know if this has been answered elsewhere!

What is the best way to prepare a disc to give to clients to enable printing at, say a

local lab?

I've struggled with how much work I should do before giving a disc to a client. As I'm

sure is the case with everyone, I 've had unsatisfactory results from the local drug

stores, Target, etc.--no derogatory comments, I know professional work deserves

professional labs, etc.

But what is the best way to optimize files so that good results can be achieved from a

disc? TIFF files? uncropped JPEGs (that is, unprocessed files to disc, then crop, color

balance, etc on the kiosk or online?).

The problem is that I want the control over the images as far as processing, cropping,

etc, but I don't have the time to print these myself. Also I'm a little hesitant to let

people see/work with unretouched/processed files (the JPEGs, not the RAW

processing I'm talking about).

Any suggestions or insight into the process is appreciated. Also happy to get referrals

to online "consumer" printers, as well as professional labs.

Stacy: Very funny. At least I got a chuckle. I'd call it "spit-shine." Cropped version is

good--it's almost funnier for wide consumption in the uncropped version.

The others are funny too, almost what I'd expect though with some of the "feeding

each other" shots I've seen, though.

You'll be thrilled with the professional quality of the 70-200 f4 zoom lens. It's

an L series which is Canon's pro line. I've used it for fast action sports, day

and night, with and without flash, with/without monopod, and for portraiture

(although the 135mm f2 L works better).

I purchased mine from Adorama, which was around $550, shipped, Gray

market. Careful about buying Gray market--non-US warranty, but cheaper, the

same product.

Also, they often try to add or suggest products to go with your stuff--some get

pushy. You probably need just the filter, and I suggest getting the tripod shoe/

adapter even if you don't plan on using it now.

You can avoid the "hard sell" approach by ordering online, but sometimes

they still call you and want to "verify your information" while trying to add-on

crap (GAP-style: do you want a belt with that?).

J.

Not to be "me too" poster, but if you can dig just a little deeper ($500-600) you

can get the pro 70-200 f4 L. Not as great as the 70-200 f2.8 L of course, but

way cheaper. I've done lots of sports sans monopod (daytime) and portraiture

as well. It's the daddy for pro-sumers like us.

Wow! Thanks for your quick and complete responses.

Actually the problem I am having is not so subtle. That is, a couple of cm here or

there are not an issue for me (ie the face in focus, nose slightly blurred).

And really, the focusing problem is not that bad or noticeable except to we

perfectionists.

I am completely and totally willing to accept the possibility of operator error (my

fault).

What is happening, specifically, is that when I compose a picture of a group of

people, say, three, on a front porch, I get a decent shot, but using autofocus, about

half the time with the 135mm (using P or automatic modes so I don't feel I have to

manage the aperture as completelu--handheld or monopod), the people are just

slightly out of focus--mainly observable at higher resolutions (say 200 pixels at 50%)

--but the front door, transom, and brick wall that the people are positioned in front

of --that's in full sharp focus.

Maybe I should try to take more control, but with 6 or 8 people in the shot, some

children, it's hard to imagine having to fiddle with the aperture settings too much

when the automatic modes and focus work so well. I guess I should say well enough.

Sample below (1/200s; f5.6; ISO 400); BTW keep in mind it has not been

photoshopped.

I think the most logical/understandable thinking for me is that the focusing zones on

the autofocus do not completely correspond to the zones on the viewfinder, which is

something I think i can correct for when shooting, if I know that to be true.

Thanks again for all the input and I'd appreciate any other thoughts you have on this.<div></div>

I've been using the 135mm f2.0L lens with my digital rebel for a couple weeks.

Unfortunately although I love the low aperture, it seems to have trouble focusing on

the subject. This is compounded by the fact that I have to be so far away for portraits

due to telephoto quality--I can't tell whether the subject is in focus or not.

When the focus is good, the shots are brilliant, but I have to shoot a lot of exposures

to get a good one.

Is this something I have to live with?

My 70-200mm f4.0L focuses pretty well, even in lower light and when shooting

action shots, but again the same thing, occasionally the autofocus is just off the

subject. I expect this in action shots with a lot of players running around.

Thanks!

Interesting discussion.

The Canon 300D -Digital Rebel has all you need. Trust me. I was where you are about

a year ago. I did a couple things with my small non-SLR camera (for fun) at

weddings, etc. and put them on video/DVD. They were really good.

Then I bit the bullet and went "semi-pro" or "serious amateur" or whatever you want

to call it.

I never want to look at those P&S photos again.

One thing that hasn't been dealt with here is that to be a real pro, you need software

with a digital camera. Photoshop photoshop photoshop.

It comes standard with the Digital Rebel (Photoshop Elements, a scaled down

version)--not sure about the 20D. But whatever it costs, it's worth it. You simply will

not believe the improvements an difference it can make.

The 18-55mm is adequate to get you started in portraiture. You must then research

and get what you really really want. You don't absolutely have to have everything

immediately. Let's face it, we have an expensive hobby, we need to take the time to

get what we want, and to get it right.

I picked up a 70-200mm f4 L series (L-series are the Canon "professional" lenses and

far better than the "consumer" lenses you can get at Best Buy. Cost online : around

$570 (unbelieveable). Surprisingly, with a little practice and great software (plus

Macintosh) you can do professional work as good as anybody.

I just got the 135mm f2.0 L and I am simply giddy.

What I am now grappling with is whether I should get a 20D--mainly for the 8-plus

megapixel resolution it offers.

You cannot go wrong with the Digital Rebel, but I agree, the lens is the thing.

You can do Professional-type work that will have people gaga over your photos (that

is assuming you have some talent in composure, and a little imagination).

Hope this helps.

Check out this LOW-REZ version of a photoshoot with the 70-200mm f4.0 L lens.