deans

<p>Hi Paul, I'm very blessed to have a son who is a computer scientist. There's no way I could do the coding he does to set up the website. I can do most of the work on my blog because I don't have to know code. Computer languages are totally foreign to me. All I have to pay for is the hosting which costs $10.00 per month and a percentage of my web sales to my son. I think thats a pretty good deal! If I didn't have the site I would probably do the same thing you are. Put my photos here and on places like Flickr which is free. I see quite a few photographers going to Smugmug. Don't know much about it but take a look there. Let me know if you have any other questions.<br>

Good Luck,<br>

Dean</p>

<p>I would make the images a little smaller so you have room to put your copyright either on the picture or below it, also to make your logo bigger, its to small. Move your e-mail info off to the side above your arrows. </p>

<p>I hate to admit it but I have done much better by showing and selling my work in person than on the web through my website. Mostly what I sell off my website are to people that come to me first, and then I refer them to the site. I'm sorry I can't answer your question about Betterphotos, for me I have to think about the cost and if I can sell enough to pay for a website like Betterphotos.</p>

<p>How does my new blog look and is it worth the trouble adding to it each week? www.dsprophoto.com/blog<br>

Thanks in advance for any opinions you may have. Dean</p>

<p>I hope I am not just following the crowd to much in starting a blog. I would like to hear from those who have a blog and how it has affected you business. What is your purpose for having a blog and how do you get people interested in it? Any feedback on the blog I started would also be appreciated. www.dsprophoto.com/blog<br>

Thanks in advance. Dean</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. I have taken your advice and changed my ordering page. If I could ask that a few of you take a look again I would really appreciate it. Let me know what you think.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dean Sauskojus<br>

www.dsprophoto.com</p>

<p>I have had my website up for awhile but people seem shy to use the ordering system. I have had a few complaints on finding the add to cart button. I would appreciate if you folks could run through the ordering system and give advice on the changes I need to make if any. If there are some other areas that could use some attention please let me know. www.dsprophoto.com<br>

Thanks for your time,<br>

Dean Sauskojus</p>

<p>Nick, Thanks for info and the nice pics on the Zeiss 25mm. Have you had a chance to see how it performs with direct light? Does it have a lot of flare or ca's? I have heard that Zeiss lenses are pretty good in that area. Would you say the Zeiss lenses perform better than the 21mm Oly? Looking forward to see how it performs against the Canon L lenses. Thanks, Dean</p>

<p>Nick, Thanks for info and the nice pics on the Zeiss 25mm. Have you had a chance to see how it performs with direct light? Does it have a lot of flare or ca's? I have heard that Zeiss lenses are pretty good in that area. Would you say the Zeiss lenses perform better than the 21mm Oly? Looking forward to see how it performs against the Canon L lenses. Thanks, Dean</p>

<p>Just bought a used lens from Adorama. They rated it an excellent minus. Other than the lens cap, the lens looks and works like brand new.</p>

<p>Nick, I posted your question at fredmiranda.com under the alternative forum. Look under "5D2 not working with the Contax 50mm 1.4". My user name is Higard. Hope you figure it out. If anybody can help they can. Dean</p>

<p>I compared my mf Contax Zeiss 50mm 1.7 to my Canon EF50/1.8 II. Sharpness wise they are about the same. The Contax 50mm did have that creamy look like Nick described and more of a 3-d look. I was surprised how well the placticky Canon 50mm performed. You can't beat it for the price, it's a great lens. Just be careful with it.</p>

<p>Are there any Canon wide angles out there that will come close to the sharpness levels of the Canon 70-200mm f4L IS? I do very little sharpening on images from the the Canon 70-200mm and a lot of sharpening for the Canon 17-40mm L. If not Canon, are there others to consider? I can't afford the Zeiss 21mm and the Nikon 14-24mm is just to big and bulky for hiking around with. Am I out of luck?</p>

<p>Nick, When you get it drop me a line. I'd like to know how it performs. I guess I got spoiled with the sharpness of the 50. You're right the Contax 21mm is the best but I meant the Contax 28mm f2.8 Distagon. I'm moving into digital from 4x5 which I have shot for the past 15 years so I'm always on the lookout for the best lenses for a reasonable amount of money. I have a Caonon 30D now and am moving up to the 5D2. My expectations are pretty high so who knows I may have to go back to 4x5.</p>

<p>Nick, just looked and there are some tests on 16-9.net between the Zeiss 25mm and the Canon 24mm L.</p>

<p>There are some comparisons on a site called 16 9. Not sure of the exact url but you can find it through a search. I believe the canon 24mm L won the comparison but the Oly 24mm was called a gem of a lens. I just ordered a Oly 28mm 3.5 for my canon 30d which is also highly rated. I have a Contax 50mm 1.7, and wow what a lens. I was so impressed by the Contax 50mm that I ordered a Contax 35-70mm Vario Sonnar. I compared it to my Canon 17-40mm L but was dissapointed. The sharpness was about the same on both lenses although I think the Contax would be better on a FF in the corners. Does the Ziess 18mm have the same level of sharpness as the Contax 50mm? I saw the street photo you posted and boy does it look sharp. FredMiranda.com is another great site where you can probably find some info on the Zeiss 25 mm f2,8, just look under the alternative lenses forum. Most people rave about the Contax 28mm 2.8 Distagon so I think the 25mm gets less attention, but I think it is well liked. Let me know what you find out. I am looking for an inexpensive alt 24mm with excellent sharpness.</p>

<p>Nick, is the Contax 18mm the mm version or the ae version and what adapter did you use? Thanks for the info.</p>

<p>John, Thats it exactly. Has it affected your ability to take sharp pictures?</p>

<p>I tried out an Oly 28 f3.5 and a Oy 28 f2 on my Canon 30d with a Fotodiox adapter. Both have a slight focus shift when trying to focus them. Is this normal for the wide angles? What I mean by focus shift is that the image when viewed through the viewfinder moves just slightly while focusing, making it a little more difficult to focus.</p>

<p>After shooting 4x5 for the past 15 years I decided to try digital this past year. Here are some of my reasons for giving it a try: Digital costs less in relation to processing and film, although the higher end cameras and high quality lenses cost more than my large format camera and lenses. Digital gives me instant feedback. I can shoot up to 3 or 4 times as many pictures in given time period with differing compositions. Digital exposure is more forgiving, more exposure latitude. At times I don't have to use a tripod. Its lighter, not so much stuff to mess with, so there is alot more freedom. There are drawbacks of course. Image quality of a digital camera is pretty good if you are shooting objects like rocks, water reflections, rivers, but for intricate details there is no comparison to my large format. Images of grass blades, tree foliage and such just falls apart at higher magnifications. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but there is no way I can blow up my 8 megapixel images to 30"x40" and be happy with them. You have to deal with software which can sometimes be a headache. My expectations are pretty high concerning digital since shooting large format but I think I'll stick with it. The equipment gets better and better. There is so much more freedom, which is probably my greatest reason for giving it a try.</p>

<p>I was at Mammoth Hot Springs shooting this past weekend in 15 degree weather. This was my experience: After taking 40 images my battery went dead. My hands froze because of inadequate gloves and the bare metal of my tripod made it worse. I almost biffed it on one of the walkways it was so slick. Even so I got some great pictures. January and February are our coldest months here. March gets a little better. I actually prefer to shoot when its very cold because the hoarfrost builds up on the landscape making it other worldly. Yellowstone is a spectacular place in the winter. </p>

<p>Canon is coming out with an updated 24mm which you should also consider. You can find it on Amazon. It isn't cheap though.</p>

<p>I consistently receive e-mails about my photography from High School students and College students that want to write papers about my photography. The questions are not personal. I'm often asked about what I like to photograph, do I use digital cameras, are there tips you can give and such. I assume they are getting my e-mail from my website. Is this happening to anyone else and is it a hoax? As far as I can tell the e-mails don't come from the same place.</p>

<p>Thanks, Dean Sauskojus</p>

David: Any way you can post an image from both lens? I'd like to see the difference myself before I invest in a lens like this.

Keith: Living here in Bozeman we can have some pretty grey days during the winter. What I tried to do this year is get out right after the first snowfall and photograph Hyalite Creek. There was a little bit of color still left on the trees and I was able to hike to Grotto Falls. There was alot of snow but I still picked up some nice color. If I don't pick up color I'll switch to b/w on grey days. Otherwise wait for a blue sky which the snow will pick up. Alot of good advice above. Dean