edelson1

No, I just installed CS4 and activated it. I still have my old, and functional, CS3 on the drive. I could uninstall CS3 at this point, but at that time I preferred knowinng I had a functional program available in the event "early adoption" left me with only MS Paint to fall back on. :)

 

Henry

Given all the variables, which now include what video card you have as CS4 will use a supported GPU to speed up scrolling and magnification (and gets rid of the "in between" mag percentages that would render poorly) to treat the image as though it was a texture, I would certainly try loading it and testing it for yourself. While processor speed matters, you at least have over 1 Gb RAM (if you could go from even 1.5 to 2 Gb, it will help, even in CS3) and if it is too sluggish, then roll back to CS3.

 

BTW, Bridge in CS4 is a great improvement over the earlier version, and can actually be helpful rather than a hindrance. It's not Lightroom, but it can actually support a work flow that flows.

 

Henry

I would agree with Patrick. The Artisan series uses Epson's Claria dye inks, which, in the Epson 1400, provide

beautiful results, so I would expect/hope for similar quality. While dye based, the longevity is claimed, and as

tested by Wilhelm at least (with Epson paper), appears to be very good in comparison to past dye inks.

 

Henry

Please don't sue Museo..I really like their Silver Rag :). I do prefer Silver Rag for B&W though, but that's just

me. The Epson Exhibition Fiber is a great paper, but is expensive, even in comparison to Hahnemuhle papers, who

offer a Fine Art Baryta, and a new Photo Rag Baryta (which I'm looking forward to try).

 

One advantage to these choices is you can just stay with photo black, and not swap for matte black when jumping

from one paper to another (assuming you're staying with semi-gloss/luster surfaces).

 

Henry

The first issue is, are you prepared to get ICC profiles made for new papers? Using INKTEC inks, you're unlikely to find manufacturer's profiles suitable for their papers. The second is, what type of printing are you planning? Will it be primarily B&W or color? A gloss/matte surface can be used for both, but you may prefer one or the other (which different manufacturers may offer better choices).

 

If you like HP paper, look at Hahnemuhle, which private labels some of HP's papers. They offer a range from classic rags to Baryta surfaces. Ilford has nice, well priced choices (US prices at least). BTW, some papers are dye or pigment ink only, so select accordingly.

 

While I've never used it, I've heard Tecco has some nice choices as well.

 

Henry

Another one to consider is Dfine 2. It does a nice job, can be used for selective noise reduction, and also does a nice job on banding. You can go from a simple automated noise reduction, or manually control effects based on user selected sampling points. All of those mentioned, as well as Dfine, can be downloaded to demo. I would encourage you to download several of these programs (all excellent, BTW), and see which one works best for you and your workflow.

I need to type faster, or write less, as Puppy and JDM were right on it :). I agree with both of them.

The 85 mm 1.8 is an excellent lens, especially for portraiture with a FF sensor. I believe (no facts, just gut

feeling) that with crop sensors far outselling FF, the 50 mm lens has become a staple, as it provides a field of

view of equivilent to 80 mm (1.6 crop). This focal "effective" length provides the same advantage for portraiture

as the 85 mm for FF. On a crop sensor, the 85 mm becomes a "136 mm", which is still a nice focal length, but a

bit long for portrait work, unless you have some back up room for distance from the subject.

 

I have the 85 mm lens and use it with a 40D. When I need a fast mid-zoom I think it's terrific. However, it's

not a "walk around" lens for me.

 

50 mm used to be the "accepted" standard focal length lens for 35 mm film (FF). Personally, I found that 35 mm

was a better match for a daily walkabout lens at that time, but that's just me.

 

I think a big benefit for you in the 85 mm would be it's usefulness for portrait work. It's a little longer than

your current zoom, and gives you decent shallow DOF, if you like that. The 50 mm will not offer you that benefit,

and you can cover that focal length with your 24-70 mm lens. I've also found, at least for me, the use of a

walkabout prime lens to be less appealing when zoom optics have become so good. IMHO, it has reduced the value of

such a general purpose lens as the 50 mm (or equivalent FOV for crop sensors).

 

Regarding the benefit of a fast prime in low light, it really would come down to what you would have a regular

need for, an average FOV, or mild/moderate telephoto FOV. I think if you look at your commonly selected focal

length you use with your 24-70, you'll know which one would suit you. As for still life work, (not landscape or

macro work), the 85 mm can be used just as the 50 mm can by just backing up a bit. You will, however, have a

shallower DOF with the 85 mm lens, so it's really a question of personal style.

 

I hope that helps.

Photo size is just like program size, over time, the bloat is immense. Remember how big VisiCalc seemed at the

time (OK, I'm really showing my age with that one for anyone else who remembers), and now we accept without a

thought that Excel, with its associated junk, takes up around 500 Mb? It's like closet space, with cheaper and

larger storage, we always find a way to fill it.

 

Still, if the cost of storing an entire photo shoot (1.5 Gb or about 100 RAWs?) is the cost of 1 4X6 proof print,

remember that 100 shots (those are the "keepers", too) would have been 3 rolls of 35 mm film you would have

processed, and had contact sheets or proof prints made. That was costly, even when you did it yourself. You still

were then left with the issue of how to safely store the negatives for future use (costs of glassine envelopes,

finding a dark, cool spot, hopefully water and fire resistant, etc.).

 

In truth, the cost of storage is your least expense with digital photos. Think about your ink and paper costs (or

printing costs if sent out). Once you're past the initial investment in an external RAID enclosure which accepts

hot swappable drives, and it doesn't even need to be "hot" swappable, as it's backup, not a striped array, you

will spend about $150 for a 1 Tb drive whenever you have filled one and want to remove it for long term storage.

You can even duplicate the full drive to another for $150, and store a ready to go second backup off-site in case

of some local event that damages the original backup HDD.

 

As those files are just like the fragile negatives you used to store, I doubt you want to lose them. Ignoring

questions of file formats, retrieval methods, or other hypothetical problems in reading those files 30 years from

now (which can be solved by transferring, converting or otherwise updating to what would be current technology at

that time, prior to the last SATA cable becoming extinct), the expense of placing an entire photo shoot into a

rapidly retrievable device for $0.35 or even $0.50 is a bargain! As for the cost of your time, especially given

how easy it can be to set up a scheduled backup routine, imagine the cost in your time (and money) without that

backup when your primary drive fails, which, inevitably, it will. Besides, you can't even buy a candy bar for

$0.35, so look at it as the cost of a 10 minute phone call. It really is part of the overhead, and a small one at

that. You can even start out cheaper, with a simple 1 Tb external HD attached with a USB cable for $189, and buy

a new one as needed, or even better 2 drives to start out and rotate them so you're in the habit of maintaining 2

distinct HD backups (stored separately). That's less than what a 1 Gb CF card used to cost.

 

Ruthless culling is important to control the bloat, but under-budgeting will break you every time. Besides, think

about the size of your final, layered, edited image that you'll also want to save so you can go back and tweak an

adjustment, without starting from scratch. Those files get REAL big :)

I believe you want to create a "Ken Burns" effect during a slide show. This usually done by importing the still

images into a video editing program, ordering your images to be displayed, and special effects for final playback

(image transitions, photo pans, soundtrack, etc.). You can use anything from Windows Movie Maker (if running win,

obviously) or probably iMovie on a mac, to more sophisticated video editing software. The method of implementing

the effect will depend on the video software, and should be fully documented in the manual or help files.

Im my personal workflow, using ACR, I virtually follow the order laid out on the "sliders". First, I adjust the

white balance. Even without a WB exposure tool or lightmeter (how do you determine your exposure without a

meter?) you can try to find a neutral gray area somewhere and click on it with the white balance eyedropper (yes,

click on neutral gray, not white) Or, use a preset that matches the conditions the photo was taken under. This

will at least get you in the ballpark, even if your camera's WB setting isn't correct. You can then fine tune by

eye using the color temp slider and if necessary, the tint slider.

 

Next I adjust the exposure, checking the photo and histogram (turn on shadow and highlight warnings if there are

any areas that need work (almost always the highlights, not the shadows. you have the recovery tool for

highlights, fill light if needed, and black setting (hint, hold down the alt key (win) with your mouse over the

slider and you'll se where your true blacks are, and how much you might raise or lower them can be a little

clearer. You can also use the brightness and contrast sliders to adjust the image.

 

At this point you should have a balanced, well exposed image. Usually, this will also give you all the color

correction necessary, although the sliders such as vibrance and saturation are of help.

 

I will typically do some minor touch up while still in ACR, correct the horizon if off, and crop the image (nice,

nondestructive way of cropping for me).

 

By this time (I forgot to add you can also touch up the image with ACR's curves, which is nice for contrast,

correct lens aberrations like CA, and slightly sharpen the RAW image prior to export (not all do this as you may

prefer to use a third party sharpener once you're in PS)) you should have an image you can open in PS that needs

little work, with perhaps adjustment layers (IMO, the time to make any remaining color correction, especially if

localized) and filters.

 

This works for me, and I think is a pretty standard workflow for most people working with RAW (or I'm just a nut

who likes to do it this way). As to your question of maintaining all highlight and shadow information as possible

before opening the image, that's fine so long as your tonal range matches what you want the appearance of the

photo to be. If, with color manipulation (after a correct WB is chosen) you need to lighten or darken your image,

that's OK. Certain items in a photo will always clip anyway, such as bright reflections or true black in the

shadows.

 

I think if you follow a flow similar to what I described (it sounds long, but only takes a minute or so to do if

a photo is not problematic) you will end up with most of your work completed before your export to PS.

 

I hope this helps.

You've gotten a lot of good, accurate information already. If you area higher volume printer, the Epson 3800 is an excellent choice. I went for the 2880 as the 13" carriage is sufficient for me, and it uses the K3 Ultrachrome inks, which now have a Vivid Magenta (regular and light) for a slightly wider gamut. You have 3 blacks at any one time, either photo black (PK) or matte black (MK) and you do have to manually switch them, as well as a light black and a light light black. The resulting B&W output is stunning and truly neutral. I prefer the F type paper finishes (resembling a wet darkroom's air dried glossies) and some of the Baryta papers that are recently available. These all use the PK black, and if you plan your printing sessions you can reduce the need to swap cartridges.

 

I found the 2880 for $730, well under your budget, which would leave you plenty of room to stock some nice fine art papers after testing some sample packs (ink is not cheap, but paper can be a large expense depending on your needs and preferences).

 

Your budget gives you a choice of excellent printers. If you define your needs first (such as B&W printing), the maximum sizes of your images (will you stay around 13"X19" or do you need a 17" carriage), and your average printing volumes (several a week or several a day), you can narrow it down and get the best fit for your money.

 

Also, as already mentioned, a calibrated monitor is virtually a must, so figure in the cost of a colorimeter if you don't already have one.

 

Good luck.

I would have to agree that from my experience with a 1400, the Epson premium luster and the Ilford classic pearl or smooth gloss worked great with the right profiles. I changed to a 2880, not so much for a desire for pigment inks (although the color output happens to be excellent), but for B&W work. If I only printed in color, the 1400 would still be my first choice (despite the ink costs). Really, try the Epson luster with the ICC profile that came with your printer driver. You might be surprised at just how good it is.

 

Also, be aware that if you are selling your prints, longevity does become an issue. While the Claria dyes are rated to potentially last up to 90 or so years with proper storage/framing, the only tests done to date by Wilhelm have been on Epson's premium and ultra premium glossy, as well as heavyweight matte. Epson luster is a recommended choice by Epson, so you could infer similar stability. But do keep in mind that some third party papers may not support Claria's claims of longevity. You should give some serious thought to your paper choice so your buyers are not disappointed by premature aging of your prints.

My experience is that, despite a mixed reputation, the 17-85 IS is a very useful lens. It does have some flaws at 17mm, but they are easily cleaned up in pp, including its CA. While certainly not an L lens, or offering the IQ of the 17-55 2.8, it is sharp and the IS works well. The build quality is also decent, and is not, IMO, in the "kit class" category. It is well within your price range, running around $500-520 new. Having that extra reach to 85 mm on the cropped 40D is very handy. I think it's at least worth a look for comparison to other choices.

The 3800 is a terrific printer, but it's big and heavy, so plan accordingly. The 2400 is pretty large as well, but half the size and weight (maybe not half, but certainly smaller and lighter :)) While the photo and matte blacks are both installed, you still need to purge the black ink head when choosing to switch ink sources, as they share the same nozzle, so there is still some ink wastage. If you do plan on frequently changing paper types, keep this in mind (the same goes for the 2400 and the new 2880). With a CIS on a 2400, you will also need to manually change the black inks as well.

I agree with John. Dfine is easy, and has a simple interface. It's a well behaved plugin. I would take advantage

of the free download evaluations of these NR plugins, and see which best fits your personal workflow. All of the

major programs mentioned are excellent. It's really a matter of which one matches your preferences best.

I'd like to offer one clarification to Mark's post. Unless otherwise agreed to, I would be sure to send a flattened tif or jpg at the resolution they ask for. Sending them a psd or layered tif would allow them to make edits without your participation. It's just a question of control of your creative process. BTW, the most frequent "hi-res" request is for 300 dpi images, even when the ultimate product rarely requires it. It's just become a mindset that anything under 300 dpi is insufficient for commercial printing reproduction.

I can't help on the issue of a CIS system for the 1400, as I'm not familiar with any K6 CIS system for the 1400 on the market, but I have found that thicker papers, certainly papers that require a flat paper path are out as there is no such feed on the 1400 so I've never even looked at those, do not feed well on this printer. Some folks have reported success with "coaxing" paper along, but that doesn't seem like a reasonable or reliable solution to me. IMHO, the 1400 is a terrific printer for the money, with beautiful dyes for color work, but it's not engineered for heavy, fine art paper. If you can find a cotton paper you're happy working with that reliably feeds through, it would be an excellent, cheap way to get a 13" wide print.

 

I'm really interested in how things work out if you go in that direction, as I'd love to have an inexpensive solution for B&W as well.

I agree with Giampi, and essentially use that setup. I've gotten away from optical media, and rotate external HDs instead, although with prices slowly coming down on BR it may be something to reconsider. DVDs, even dual layers, are just too much work given the sizes that these files can become, especially if you are saving with all your layers to allow for possible future re-edits. I keep backups of my original RAWs, my final image in psd with all layers, and flattened, pre-sized tifs for printing (it only takes a few minutes to make them, and saves the hassle of returning to the original image to resize (and recrop if you change aspects) every time you need a copy of an 8X10 or 11X14 or whatever, of the same image. I don't know anything about the new Pioneer system coming out, but it does sound like a nice solution for optical storage (if affordable).

 

Giampi, BTW, Seagate bought Maxtor, so hopefully it's not going to be as much of a risk going with that "brand" as it once was, :)

Personally, I doubt an upgrade by Sept. 05. It's too soon for a camera that's only 6 months old, and is a top seller for Canon at this time. I would agree with a second quarter 06 release, which is an awfully long time to sit without a camera, with the hope a new body is coming along. If you do that, then what about waiting for a "40D"? The 20D is an excellent camera, and I would rather enjoy it now than wait for what may or may not come out 6 months to a year from now.

 

Henry

IMHO if you are really interested in a true wide angle zoom lens for a 1.6 crop sensor, I would really consider the 10-22 ef-s. No, it won't work on FF Canons, but it gives you a 16mm 35 equivilant wide angle view. It's optics are excellent, and, while perhaps not quite up to the level of the 16-35, it does give you far greater wide angle coverage for a 20D, at a reasonable price. I believe the ef-s mount will be around for quite some time, and if you're going to stay with 1.6 crop Canons' ( which, I believe will be the standard for Canon in the prosumer market, with FF reserved for their true "pro" bodies) it's the best value available at this time. If you see yourself moving up to a FF Canon, then the 16-35 will offer you the same flexibility when you upgrade, although you will lack the 16mm low end until you step up to the 1Ds series (or it's replacement).

 

Henry

I have heard from many that buydig.com is fairly reliable and well priced (I've never bought from them, but I've seen read many positive posts about them). Another place to check is Dell. They run some specials which can change weekly, and the prices can be quite good. Personaly, I shop B&H and have had no problems.

 

BTW, A US warranty is, IMHO, worth the additional cost rather than buying grey goods. One service issue would probably more than make up the difference.

 

Henry

Alan,

Have a safe trip. To break down your questions, any color space or parameters you set apply to jpegs' only. RAW files are not affected.If you're not going to edit your photos during your trip, then sRGB and parameter 1 (which you can modify to suit your taste) would work. OTOH, directly uploading those photos for email is going to be a problem as the files will be awfully big.Also, do you have a plan for storage and any editing during your trip? what program(s) will you use?

 

If you will be using PS CS, then consider using the builtin ACR RAW converter. I use it and am happy with it. You will get MANY different opinions on this, but you'll have to see which converter you like, and how it will fit into your workflow.

 

Good luck,

Henry