bill_fouche

<p>Ignoring general improvements applicable to all computer users, are there changes in Windows 7 that are designed to make life better for photographers in particular? </p>

<p>I would use DPP exclusively, except that I make extensive use of layers, requiring Photoshop. In part, that's because my captures - often shot in bright sunlight - tend to have portions that are not properly exposed. Although "fill light" and "recovery" sliders can fix some of this, they affect the crucial midtones - and major adjustments using those controls often compromise the subject. For me, the best solution for this is to use DPP to make two Photoshop layers - one with shadows well exposed, one with highlights well exposed - and then "blend" them together by hand using masks. This can be tedious, but I have found no better solution when trying to squeeze every pixel of useful info out of the image. On the other hand, I find that Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom 2.0 do just fine with well-exposed, non-problem images. (If I were a better photographer, perhaps I would not need DPP so often.) :)</p>

<p>I have both. On balance, I prefer the 60/2.8. It focuses more reliably. The bokeh is gorgeous. And the versatility of macro and portraiture in same lens is wonderful. And - for lack of a better word - the "clarity" or brightness or whatever is nice too. That's a different quality than sharpness. But it does lovely things to sunlit objects, without muddying up the shadows.</p>

<p>The primary disadvantage to the 50/1.4 - and it's a deal breaker for me - is its fiddly and inconsistent focus, compared to many other good lenses. It's heart breaking in a way. Because the optics of the 50/1.4 are first-rate. (But no macro.)</p>

<p>Another vote here for DPP as a first-rate raw "developer." Price is right (free). Good video tutorials can be found on Canon's educational websites. And the quality of the conversions is unsurpassed for the two Canon DSLRs I have owned (as compared to Lightroom and PS CS4). That said, it takes a while - and some trial and error - to master the DPP interface. </p>

<p>I should have added: Here is the link to the Times piece in question:</p>

<p><a href="http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/flickr-as-an-interior-decorator-tool/">http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/flickr-as-an-interior-decorator-tool/</a></p>

<p>A recent piece in the Times's "Gadgetwise" blog recommends that readers looking for photos to hang on their walls search Flickr for appealing candidates, download them (presumably without permission), print them, and frame them for the purpose of decorating one's own home. The article suggests that this doesn't violate copyright law, because it's "personal use" and he's not charging admission to guests in his home, etc. Surely this is incorrect. Anyone know? <br>

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/flickr-as-an-interior-decorator-tool/</p>

 

<p>Godfrey, that is exactly what I need. Thanks much.</p>

<p>I should have been clearer. Final adjustments of multi-layer TIF images are in Lightroom. As far as I can tell, it is LR's "printing" module - not its "export" module - that can add "canvas" borders to images. The "export" module does not seem to permit this. But it's the export module that creates final JPG images for upload to web. This is quite frustrating.</p>

<p>I suppose what I should do is create full-size JPGs from LR in SRGB color-space with no sharpening and no compression. Then open each of the 30 files in Photoshop figure out the closest "standard paper size" that fits, and then manually add the necessary white canvas. Then close. Then upload to MPIX.</p>

<p>Simple? Surely. But tedious as hell and time-consuming. Such things things are perfect for the automation that plug-ins and actions provide. Hence, my question.</p>

 

<p>MPix requires that the images they receive be in JPG format and cropped to fit one of their supported paper sizes. If one sends them an image that does not fit, their printer will automatically chop off the edges of the "too long" dimension. Their website is very clear about this. To avoid this, MPix recommends that you add sufficient white space (border) so that the revised image matches their paper precisely. Then they will cut the white strips off for you. But to get them to do this, one must write this instruction into the white border: "Cut off white borders" (or similar). It would take me many hours of fiddling to figure out how to do this properly and repeat the process on 30 images. There must be an easier way. Are there actions or plug-ins that will do what I need? (I use Lightroom 2.0 and Photoshop CS4 primarily.)<br>

If not, can someone recommend one of MPix's competitors who is willing to change the setting on their printer so that it will not force an unwanted crop?</p>

 

<p>Simon - I also own both the 60mm and the 100 mm macros from Canon. They are very very close optically. And I value portability quite a bit, which is why I have a light camera (XTi) in the first place. If you also try to minimize weight and bulk, the 60 mm is the better choice. The 100 mm macro on my XTi makes for a clunky, front-heavy package. For that reason alone, I'm disinclined to take it on a nature walk, for example. At the margins, a few ounces and a few inches can make a big difference. In my case, if I did not have the 60mm, I simply wouldn't take my camera along at all.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 50/1.8, the Canon 50/1.4, and the Canon EFS 60/2.8. For macro, the 60mm is the obvious choice. But the 60mm/2.8 is just terrific for portraits as well. Very bright. Very sharp. And wonderful background "bokeh" at large apertures. I prefer it to the 50/1.4 because, in general, I find that the 60/2.8 focuses more reliably on my Canon XTi. The 50/1.4 autofocusing seems to be a bit hit or miss for me.</p>

<p>(1) I second Sash's suggestions about more adjustments available to be applied locally - e.g., why no blacks and recovery sliders. <br>

(2) I'd also like for options for exporting slideshows - e.g., flash, quicktime.</p>

<p>I'd like to "second the motion." I have the 10-22 and like it a lot. But it is too big, too heavy, and not great in low light without a tripod. In fact, I am so interested in having a bright, high-quality wide-angle prime lens (my ideal focal length would be somewhere around 14 or 15), that I am considering selling ALL of my Canon gear and changing to the Pentax system, as I will never have an interest in "full size" sensor DSLR. </p>

<p>Personally, the Canon 85/1.8 is the very LAST lens I would sell.</p>

<p>Lex - as someone who happened on this very interesting and informative thread late in the day (after it was already quite long), the only person whose comments seem off-topic and "in the way" are yours. Please try to moderate less intrusively. This is a conversation, after all. And it is surely counterproductive to our shared goal for posters to feel that they are being censored.</p>

<p>There is a wealth of helpful information here. Thanks for the careful responses. For what it's worth, Bueh's comment - pointing out that, for the price of the Zeiss, I should consider looking into Pentax (or other) - has taken me by surprise. It's an excellent point. I'm going to look into that, among other things. Thanks again to all.</p>

<p>I am interested in this new lens, which is manual focus only. But I have a Canon 400D, which has a tiny viewfinder, making accurate MF quite difficult (even with Katz eye modification, etc.). But the optics and light weight of this lens are almost irresistible to me. Two questions: (i) for travel photography in cities, do you think I can expect good results by setting aperture at, say 8.0, and choosing some particular manual focus distance on the lens barrel? (ii) If so, what settings do you recommend. (If the answer to this question is too variable for a good answer, I'd appreciate info on how to choose the right settings without "seeing" the results in the viewfinder? Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Patrick, are you saying that you can can identical results on DPP vs C1Pro vs Lightroom/ACR? That has certainly not been my experience. And it would seem to require one to believe that camera profiles the software vendors have devised are irrelevant. And that's not been my experience either. I find the renderings of DPP and ACR to be not just different, but on some images, significantly different.</p>

<p>That is not to say that I cannot usually come up with an acceptable, even pleasing, rendition of almost any image in ACR. I usually can. But on some images - particularly of white people in natural light - DPP is just better. Sometimes much better. YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I saw this news item on DPR a few days ago:</p>

<p>"Carl Zeiss has said it will produce a Canon-mount version of its 18mm F3.5 lens. The Distagon T* 3.5/18 super-w ide angle lens has previously only been available in the ZF and ZK mounts for Nikon and Pentax cameras, r espectively. A Canon-mount version of the lens is being shown at the Photo Imaging Expo 2009 show in Tokyo and w ill be available 'towards the end of the year,' the company said."</p>

<p>Question: If I save my pennies (lots of pennies) for this, (1) will it autofocus properly, and (2) will it meter properly, on my Canon 400D digital SLR?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance !</p>

 

<p>I think of true "HDR" as involving multiple exposures at different EVs merged together in software. That would be very difficult with a portrait because people move, ever so slightly. :)<br>

The "dramatic effect" you are referring to can be approximated in Lightroom or ACR by starting with the following settings and then experimenting by "backing off" the sliders until the photo is "just right." These numbers are surprising at first, but you wil find that they come pretty close.<br>

- Increase "recovery" to 100.<br>

- Increase "fill" to 100<br>

- Increase "blacks" to 75<br>

- Increase "clarity" to 100<br>

- Increase "vibrance" to 100<br>

- Decrease "saturation" to -90<br>

- Increase "sharpness" to 100 or more.<br>

- Adjust any and all settings to taste ...<br>

I'm tired of the look, myself. But some people go nuts over it.</p>

<p>The Canon 60/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. Highly recommended. It's great for most purposes, not just macro. Particularly portraits.</p>

<p>I recently went through this myself. I've been using Windows PCs for years. Convinced myself it was time to switch to Apple and then did the pricing comparisons. As of late last year, there simply was no comparison. From Dell, for $900 I got a quad-core fast Intel processor, 4 gig RAM, 750 gig hard drive, Windows XP (Vista was not acceptable to me.), nice ATI video card, etc., ample USB outlets and expansions slots, etc.<br>

Apple had nothing comparable for me because I already have a great photoshop monitor - an NEC Wuxi. Even if I had been ready to throw this out, I insist on the flexibility to upgrade to the monitor of MY choice. If I went with the twice as expensive iMac, the Apple display would be joined at the hip to the other hardware. So for me going Apple would have cost me - at a minimum - twice the price of going with the Dell. So I did the latter and am very happy.<br>

No brainer for me. As has been said, this is a gaping hole in Apple's product line. They know it. It's an effort to force upgrades to the extremely expensive (for me) Mac Pro. That's a lovely machine from lots of angles. But it's overkill for most 2D photographers.<br>

One last thing - Microsoft's new OS - now called "Windows 7" is supposed to be out in the fall and to have some wonderful attributes for photographers, including solid color management, etc. Apple already has many of these things, but the early reviews on the Windows 7 beta suggest that it will leave Vista in the dust. So, depending on how urgently you need your new machine, the relevant comparison may be Apple OS vs. Windows 7 (as opposed to Vista).</p>

<p>I've been curious about this monitor. If you are too, here's a decent review:<br>

<a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/07/apples_led_cinema_display_the_review.html">http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/07/apples_led_cinema_display_the_review.html</a></p>

LR 2.0 "low contrast BW" preset can be a useful starting place, in that it modifies the "camera calibration" settings in a way that brings out detail not otherwise easy to access. It's particularly useful on images that were not ideally exposed. While the preset rarely looks good "out of the box, further tweaking of exposure sliders can sometimes get you results that can otherwise be difficult. And finally - don't forget to fiddle with white balance sliders, which remix the color channels somewhat (sort of).

I second the recommendation for the 85/1.8. A truly wonderful lens.