mdickerson

<p>Hi Jeffrey, I have some idea of where you are coming from. Using pirated commercial software, which requires constantly fighting with Windows, wasting time looking for cracks and so on, leaves a bad taste in your mouth when there is a better alternative. Given that mindset and the fact that you have geekish inclinations, I think that once you make the switch, your only regret will be that you didn't do it years ago. I'm a full time Unix system administrator that works on Debian, so I guess I'm not a real man, but I would nevertheless make a couple of suggestions.</p>

 

<p>If there is any way you can arrange it, I would try to get help from somebody that has already made the switch. Unfortunately, getting Linux installed can be quite a bit harder than just using it (which is the same with Windows or OS X). There are plenty of respectable distributions that people have mentioned (I would throw in Ubuntu as a candidate), but the best choice would be whatever your friends are using, at least until you have learned to keep your head above water.</p>

 

<p>It's completely possible to teach yourself from scratch, but you will have frustrating times where you spend hours trying to figure out a problem that turns out to be almost trivial in its solution. When this happens, some people end up defeated and bitter and posting things that make them look like fools, such as this gem:</p>

 

<p><i>Sorry, but I buy software from real men who get paid for their development skills vs give code away for free because they can't get real jobs in the IT sector.</i></p>

 

<p>The reality is that between 2/3 and 3/4 of the programmer hours spent on Linux and open source software are spent by full time programmers working at their day jobs. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm">Don't take my word for it</a>.</p>

 

<p>Most of this thread has been about GIMP, so I don't have anything much to add about that, but you should also check out a commercial program called Bibble Pro, which I use for the raw processing and any color corrections that I want to do in 16-bit color. It comes in a native Linux version that you can demo for free. Between Bibble and GIMP I do just fine.</p>

 

<p>Don't let the lack of color calibration scare you off until you have seen actual bad results that you find unacceptable, with your own eyes. Peoples' equipment and standards vary so dramatically that there's not much point listening to what some random guy on the Internet thinks is important.</p>

 

<p>Someone mentioned the scanning program "Viewscan," but what they meant was "Vuescan" by Ed Hamrick which also comes in a native Linux version, and it does work much better than SANE.</p>

 

<p>Last thing .. You mentioned an AMD CPU. If it's a 32-bit CPU it doesn't matter at all. If it's the AMD64, you will have the choice of installing a 64-bit version of Linux which I would recommend that you <i>not</i> do. I have an AMD64 machine and thought it would be cool to install 64-bit Linux, and all it has ever done is make things incredibly difficult, since there are so many incompatibilites. There are no 64-bit versions of Bibble or Vuescan, for starters</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p><i>Not true. Raid 1 just mirrors two drives with either no performance penalty, or a slight performance penalty.</i></p>

 

<p>A good RAID controller will be able to read from the two mirrors in parallel, particularly when files are not contiguous and one head can be delivering blocks while the other moves into position to read the next blocks. Although I haven't used RAID 1 so I don't know if there is any practical difference, and I doubt that "good RAID controller" includes the pseudo-RAID capability that every ATA chipset manufacturer now claims to have on every motherboard.</p>

 

<p>And yes, every "fault tolerant" drive will eventually fail and lose data.. I have several RAIDs, none with fewer than 6 active drives and one hot spare, and the mean time between total volume loss (per array) is about 2 or 3 years.</p>

<p><i>There was no written agreement(my fault), I should have asked, but I assumed my camera = my images.</i></p>

 

<p>Then you assumed correctly, at least as far as copyright law, since the person who took the pictures owns them unless there is a contract explicitly saying otherwise. There are still plenty of other legal issues to worry about, such as getting releases from the people in the pictures, but none of them would seem to require that you get permission from the other photographer.</p>

 

<p>You would still have to decide whether it was a wise business decision to strike out on your own against the wishes of the guy you have worked for, but you're the only one in a position to judge whether he is treating you fairly or just trying to screw you out of working for yourself for another year.</p>

<div></div>

I think I can identify another city to stay away from: Los Angeles.

 

Problem one is that you have some truly top notch talent to compete with.

 

Problem two is that for every photographer that is better than you, there are five more that are worse, but take your business nonetheless because they are better at running the Hollywood hustle. I think it is a state law that every time the bill collectors or fraud investigators catch up with one of these people, two more must be born.

 

Problem three is that you have a sizable population of young "creative" people in greater or lesser stages of desperation, who try photography (among other things) when their micro-budget TV pilot or screenplay or whatever doesn't sell.

 

I imagine any city anywhere would have the same problems, but I think they are made worse here by the presence of the TV, movie, video game, and music industries.

<div></div>

Karen, I think your best bet is to send a link to a web page. That seems to be what most people expect these days, and there are too many things that can go wrong if you try to send a large email attachment: it might not be delivered because it is too big, it might get identified as spam, and you have to worry about whether the recipient has the program needed to view it.

 

I read the luminous-landscape portfolio article, but it seems to be written by or for a fine-arts type of photographer that is trying to make some kind of statement. Not really what you need at all. I don't have much experience, but I suspect that studios, department stores, and wedding photographers are going to be looking first to see whether you are technically competent. They need to know that you can reliably turn out shots that clients are going to actually buy, however boring they might seem to other photographers. If you are able to be creative and distinctive while you are doing it, that's great, but it's a far lower priority for somebody that wants to stay in business. So I would think twice about showing anything that was out of focus, badly exposed, or had other technical flaws, even if you really like the shot.

It works fine, and covers for some Gimp weaknesses. There is a time-limited trial version so you can see for yourself. Amazingly, they even provide a .deb package in addition to an RPM.

 

I tried to use Windows once but it was incredibly slow and unstable. I might have had better luck if I clubbed myself in the head a few times and went back to a 9600bps dialup...

What Richard said .. Don't leave anything exposed overnight, or it is likely to be covered with a fine dust in the morning (including inside the tent). I use a Pelican case, which makes me feel cool, but is probably overkill.

Lauren - Check back on your thread in the feedback forum. An admin responded to your request and offered to change your last name to M., and is waiting to hear from you.

Hi Lee, photo.net doesn't really do this kind of thing. You might try craigslist.com or ep-o.com; those are sites where people look for photographers and photographers look for jobs.

I don't think this is the shocker some people are making it out to be. US law has always allowed copyrighted works to be reproduced for the purposes of discussion or criticism. This was in fact one of the original exceptions defined as "fair use." Of course photo.net can make any restrictions on its members that it likes, but the Terms of Service seem to indicate that the owners wish to allow the kinds of discussion that would be permitted by "fair use."

 

Hence if you don't like it, you need to keep all of your images, in any form, from reaching the hands of anyone in the US. Taking down your photo.net portfolio (for instance) is not a solution.

<p><i>Keep in mind that by using an adhesive label you are reducing the lifetime of the CD.</i></p>

 

<p>I haven't heard that one before, but I have heard that the alcohol based inks in the Sharpie marker can do it. I suspect nobody really knows anything about the lifetime of burned CDs.</p>

Here was a miserable day, 8 hours at Chicago O'Hare airport waiting

for a plane that never came.<div></div>

You were correct on that part Andrew.

Aaron - Ok, I believe you. There must be rich Mormons somewhere, I just don't seem to be related to any.

<p><i>Here's an idea - move to Utah. The wedding tradition is alive and well. :)</i></p>

 

<p>Except that Mormon wedding ceremonies are only attended by a small number of close relatives and are not photographed under any circumstances. Although there are still receptions and a few minutes for formals outside the temple (really few..the next couple will be coming out in 20 minutes at the most).</p>

Not that you need the extra stress this week, but .. do you have insurance for your car and your equipment while in Mexico?

What happens when you forget your pass-key?

<p><i>Yes, yes...a good pro should be able to create shots that are much better than "uncle Mort's" shots but I've read about so many pros who won't let people shoot during the formals...so why is so different for the ceremony shots?</i></p>

 

<p>I think the formals session is a little different, because it is the only part of the day that actually <i>is</i> set aside as a photo shoot. I think it is reasonable to expect that Uncle Bob stay out of the way during the formals. I think it's borderline to expect him not to take his own pictures during the formals. (What gives you that authority, really? It's not your family, your church, or your fancy clothes. All you can do is throw a tantrum and refuse to work until he leaves, and that's going to make you look a lot worse than Uncle Bob.)</p>

 

<p>I think it's fairly absurd to ask people not to take pictures at any other time. Such a request would have to come from the church or the family to have any credibility at all. People have seen a million variations on the movie-theater-ballpark-concert scam (outside the gate: "For Your Safety, No Food Or Drink", inside the gate, "Hot Dogs $6.00"). Whether it's fair or not, they will assume your no-photos request is the same thing. I know I would.</p>

I'm sure you know this, but there is a Pentax digital option that doesn't cost much more than some of the lenses you're now considering for the 20D..

It's not very enlightening, but here is a recent thread on the same subject..

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CgH3

 

Prepare to be flamed by persons that can't understand the difference between disliking repetitive bird photos and disliking nature.