garry_anderson3

<p>400D with 28-70<br>

Fill Flash at -1 2/3 stops<br>

At "Lochinvar" on the world famous Mt Panorama race track <br>

It was a long hot day....</p><div></div>

<p>I had the same problem so I kept both. My crop camera is now used as a '1.6 teleconverter'. Its somewhat better in IQ than a glass one, more flexible and controlable also.</p>

<p>I also like having more options.</p>

<p>I started out taking portraits for family and friends, won several awards for my portraits, and people started to ask me to photograph their weddings.</p>

<p>They still do. Without any advertising or website, I still do 25-30 weddings a year by word of mouth. 2009 is nearly full and bookings are coming in for 1020. I'm no longer cheap and I get to travel all over Aus. doing something I love.</p>

<p>Previously I was a fulltime musician, and believe me being the photographer is much easier then being in the band! </p>

<p>If you wish to get some great landscape shots when you get to Aus, it would be wise to take some graduated ND filters. The light here is very hard compared to what you would be used to in Europe.<br>

Also some of our native people don't like having their photo taken. It would be wise to ask them first and respect their wishes.<br>

It sounds like it will be a great adventure, I'd like to do the the reverse one day!</p>

<p> </p>

Lightroom doesn't replace CS3 although CS3 can replace Lightroom. It will depend on your workflow. Think of Lightroom as a "front end" for CS3. It can do all your RAW conversion, basic editing and croping, set up galleries, basic printing and of course archiving.

 

It cannot do major edits, comping images, selective or area edits, or serious picture manilpulation.

 

When I first heard about Lightroom, as a "dyed in the wool" Photoshop user, I couldn't see how it would be any benefit to my workflow.

 

Eventually curiosity got the better of me and I downloaded the demo to have a look at what it could do, and now I use it as my "front end".

 

If you work like me to get as much right "in camera" as possible, you can do about 85% of you need in Lightroom. Also the "batch importing" is a much more efficient way to prepare images, it's streets ahead of using CS3Bridge.

 

It also interfaces well with CS3.

 

Download the Demo and have a look at it. It's more usefull than It first appears.

Often, It's great for those group shots were you have 200+ guests to get into one image. It's also very quiet, just the tool when you're trying hide for grab shots.

 

That said it's usefullness is limited at a wedding other wise it becomes a cliche.

One of the joys of also being a pro musician, I write my own!

Yes it's a good camera, but it doesn't suit everyone. Go and have a look at some different reviews (ie www.dpreview.com) and read carefully. Then go to a shop and phsyically handle one. Some people find the size off putting.

 

If your still happy then buy one.

 

People coming from a non-slr backgound seem to have more problems understanding what the camera is doing, and blame the camera for the problems they encounter.Be prepared to put the time in to learn you gear.

 

P.S its 10Mp

More resolution doesn't equal more shadow details. More bit depth (ie 16 bit)may give you more shadow detail, but it depends on the type of film you are scanning, the exposure and the quality of your scanner. Most people agree that in the real world the best you can hope for is the equivalent of 14 bit of depth under ideal conditions. You can of course overlay a number of exposures to increase the apparent bit depth.

 

More resolution give you more pixels to play with, thus you can print a bigger image. Again the final result is determined by the type of film and the quality of your scanner.

 

With film the higher the resolution, the greater the detail in your image upto a given point, generally around 2700dpi, then the law of diminishing returns kicks in. ie a 5400dpi scan does not give twice the resolution of a 2700 dpi scan.

 

Scanning artifacts do decrease with an increase of dpi, but these rarely seem to impact a final image.

 

For web use a small resolution is all you need. Computer monitors are only 72 pixels per inch.

Always remove batteries from any electronic equipment before placing them in long term storage (including cameras) If the battery develops a fault (ie leaks) it all over for your gear. The chemicals used in modern batteries are highly corrosive, after a given time, maybe even a couple of years they will leak.

Mine doesn't

Sorry Mendel, but everytime you save a jpeg file you are compressing it, and therefore the algorithm is removing redundant data. That's the way it works.

 

Everytime you open, edit and save you throw away more data.

 

It's only when you open/veiw and then close without saving the data in a jpeg is not changed.

 

Tiff's are not compressed and therefore all the data is saved.

The RAW immage is a Canon proprietry lossless compressed image that opens up to a 25MB TIFF file. There is no change in quality. Editing as RAW or TIFF is the same as far as quality goes, it depends on your prefered workflow.

 

Save as TIFF or PSD, as there is no loss in quality in either of these formats. Compress to JPEG to publish on the WWW or for email. JPEGs are fine for a final distibution format

 

Printing from either TIFF/PSD or JPEG is fine. It's only when you open/edit and re-save JPEGs that you loose quality.

In the Rebels there is a switch controlled by the eject button that powers down the camera when the CF card is removed to prevent damage the camera electronics. It sounds like the switch in yours has failed or jammed and holding the electronics in the off position.

 

I don't know if it's something you can fix youself, so it's probably of to the workshop for repair/replacement.

Thats's strange, I thought this was the 'Canon' forum, not the 'Digital' forum!

 

I agree that film will/has become a niche market, but have a go with it and see if you like the result. To some people film looks better than digital, others think that film workflow is too painful.

 

Strange as it may seem, with the current value of film bodies vs the rapid depreciation of digital bodies, the actual running cost is about the same.

 

I still use film for some of my work, they still can't build sensors that fit my X-Pan or Nobelux cameras! That said my X-Pan doesn't have a monitor screen or histograms, like my Canon digitals. I also can't afford a 1Ds, but I love the way my EOS-3 works.

 

If you are just a newbie, it might be handy to beg/borrow/obtain a digi point and shoot to learn the basics of camera operation. That is one way you can save serious money while you learn. You'll also find out the best way for you to get the results you want.

When it comes to 'silver' B&W, I'm afraid digital doesn't come close.

It still looks good (tones and density etc), but there's something about a well made silver B&W print that digital can't replicate. I guess there is still life for a wet darkroom yet, though it may all change at the next 'technology jump'.

JPEG's are fine as a final distribution format, and indeed this is what they were designed for. Anytime they are reopened and saved(as opposed to just veiwed) there will be a loss of data.

 

Storage is cheap, so my archives are all saved as PSD. Anything distrubuted is taken from the master file and sent as a JPEG with the quality set according to the needs of the end user. It makes it a very simple process to supply what my clients need.

9.8MB, allow 100 images per GB.

Ulimately it comes down to the result you're looking for. I'm currently using both formats with a 400D and a EOS 3 normally loaded with Fuji Reala.There are advantages/disadvantages to each technology.

 

Recently I had a job at a graduation ceremony, and as I had only picked up the 400D that afternoon I was duplicating shots using both cameras and 70-200L IS to ensure that I would get the shots I was looking for.

 

The film was scanned at 2700dpi which gives me a 10 megapixel image, equivalent to the 400D, and the same basic process was applied to each image.

 

The results were not what I expected. The digital shots where smoother, and the colour slightly more pleasing than the film scan, but the film scan had much greater detail, which no amount of sharpening to the digital shot could acheive.

 

Is film better than digital? In this case yes, but I'm sure in a different scenario the digital would be better.

 

A clever photographer is the one who selects the right tool for the job.

I also work in IT, and have to keep reminding my clients that there are only 2 types of hard drives - those that have failed and those that will fail. Digital data doesn't really exsist till it is in two or more comopletely separate locations. No matter what solution you use, backup and backup again.

Forget the EOS3, to do the job properly you need a widelux, good tripod, panorama head, a bit of practice and some basic photoshop skills.

 

Been there, done that.

RTFM

Oh Hashim, I wish it was that simple. If you have thousands of images like I have, and you wish to keep them as digital files, then judging by the march of technology you will have to keep changing them to a new storage format about every 10 years. CD's have a limited life span even when stored correctly, and are now starting to be phased out by manufacturers. DVD's so far are less reliable than CD's and the new Blueray format will be shipped this year. How long till DVD's are extinct?

 

It's one of the reasons I still use a mixed method, film capture and digital processing.

 

Modern films are very good, colour having a life span of around 30-40 years when stored correctly and silver Black and White several hundred years.My decendants can make a decision whether they think there worth preserving then, at least they will be able to see what they are.

 

I know some technicians who make photographic archives, and the only method they consider to be a permanent archive is to use colour seperations and silver black and white film.

 

Will you or members of your family think that a 20 year old DVD is worth spending money on trying to recover files when the recovery techniques cost $$$$.

 

With new digital technology advancing so rapidly the only way some images will survive is if they printed, which is why some of us spend time to make sure our prints are as stable as possible.

 

Some of the great historical photographic collections we have today only exsist because somebody didn't think they were worth anything and stored them away. Using today's photographic technology they would be iretrivable.

I have to agree with Pauls results

 

Due to my concerns about the longivity of images that I sell I have a basic test set of images that I printed 2 years ago.

 

My "test" samples show the same sort of fading. I have a test images printed with s9000 Canon inks on Canon and Ilford papers, as well as Epson 2200 inks on Epson and Ilford papers,hung unprotected in my work area.

 

The Canon prints on both papers show marked fading from the greens and blues though the colour shift appears to be slowing as they get older. The Epson prints show no visible fading.

 

The prints kept in test albums from both printers show no visible fading, though the Canon print seems to have lost some of its vibrancy. That said it looks very similar to the Epson print.

 

The same test image reprinted today on the 2200 (the s9000 is in semi-retirement after my tests!), looks the same as the other 2200 test samples.

 

It seems from my "basic" research that any dye based ink print must be protected from UV radiation to survive whereas a pigment based print doesn't need the same level of protection.

 

I also have some RA4 prints that have faded considerably in 15years that are all in albums, so even if a dye print beats that in an album you're in front!

 

BTW the main reason I started the switch from the S9000 was colour management. Everytime a new ink batch came out I had to reprofile the printer. In the end I gave up and bought the 2200, and I've only had to make each profile once.

My 2200 setup behaves exactly the same way, though its never as worried me as my prints appear exactly as the do after editing. I only use the print preveiw to make sure it's the right print/crop that ends up on the paper.

 

I have noticed that different paper profiles change the amount of magenta cast on the preview, and if you let the Epson driver conroller the colur and not Photoshop's colour management, the print will have the same magenta cast. This leads me to believe that the print preview doesn't use Photoshop's colour management.

 

Using "Normal" printing, the preview is the same as the output.

 

If you're getting the results you want, don't worry to much about it.