graham boyd

For what it is worth, I have maxed the contrast, sharpness, saturation, and color tone settings in the parameters part of the menu. Also played with the WBshift and am happier with the results. The complaining was good for me, anyway. For what I am doing now, I just want decent jpegs. Thanks for the help.

Andy, thanks for the link and input. Thomas, it's true that great photos can be taken with any camera, I agree. Keith, it seems to be an issue of tonal range and nuance, not saturation or vididity. Maybe people just see differently. Anyway, the Canon is a great camera and I have learned a lot from it. At my present stage, I want to shoot more and process less, and so would like to have settings that allow for more Nikon-esque results in jpeg mode.

Andy, thanks for your help. If you have links to the relevant articles, I would appreciate that. Keith, wish it were so. Maybe it is and I just haven't figured it out. The Canon is good for some situations and it is quick and easy to use, but I have had it for six months now and tried many different settings--it just does not seem to have the full tones or depth of color one can easily get with a Nikon. The "journo" look of the Canon can be an advantage in some situations--some industrial, car paint, the racy look, some glass--but these requirements occur less than 5% of the time for me. For skin tones, foliage, interiors, skies, most building materials, the Nikon just looks much better. If I am missing some setting on this camera, please tell me what it is because I will change it immediately.

I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT, kit lens. I used a Nikon Coolpix 5000 before this one. I dislike blaming my tools, but the Nikon generated a much richer and more nuanced color spectrum. The Canon colors are flat, sort of metalic, and just plain disappointing in almost all situations. I shoot large jpeg and do not want to have to process every darn shot I take on PS. Have tried many different settings, but haven't found anything that even comes close to the rich tones of the Nikon. Any advice on how to make this thing act more like a Nikon will be most appreiated. Thanks.

Emre, sounds right. They also like to work with "threes" in Japan. You can see wonderful "two-dimensional" art in Japanese woodblock prints, where much of the aesthetic involves overlapping patterns of nature, clothing, architecture, etc. China also had a great woodblock tradition but less of it was preserved. There are many other examples of this in landscape painting, calligraphy, etc.

 

I am not sure how this relates to photographs, but do believe that when one has a sensitivity to two-dimensional form, some images will seem much more dramatic and pleasing than if one does not. Be interested if someone else has some insights on this matter.

Two points: 1) Chinese readers process written Chinese in the visual cortex, while readers of alphabetic languages process writing in the temporal lobes. Alexander Luria demonstrated this in studies of brain damaged people. There is probably some more recent research on this subject. 2) Chinese and Japanese art was traditionally more "two-dimensional" than Western art due to the use of the brush and the importance of calligraphy in those cultures.

 

Not sure what this says about photography, but it does seem to be true that some people respond to patterns or "flattened" forms in photographs more than to points of focus or "depth." And it is true that a photo is essentially a two-dimensional object, though it is often meant to represent three dimensions.

As with so many things, the most important part of the decision to shoot is very often unconscious.

Looks like my problem has been solved. I seem to be able to use a program called "cam2pc" to get the RAW files out of the camera. Then the editing can be done with another program. When I installed the cam2pc program it said that the Canon driver was corrupted, want to to fix it? Hit yes, and the thing was fixed in 3 seconds. Thanks again for the responses. They were a great help. Best--GB

Tried most of the above. The temp files are clean. I have given up on the Canon software--don't have any more time to spend chasing possibilities. Raw Shooter Essentials looks very good, but I cannot import RAW images with Picassa. Probably need to have the Canon driver installed--back to square one. Downloaded a trial program called Photline 32. This program can import RAW images from the Rebel, but only one at a time and the file cannot be saved as RAW on my computer (have to use their file type or jpeg, TIFF, etc.) Does anyone know why I can't import RAW data from the camera with Picassa 2? Picassa is supposed to be able to do this. Since the Photoline 32 software works, it may be something fairly simple with Picassa. Thanks to all for the very valuable input. I appreciate it very much.

Rich, all software up-to-date, sounds the same as yours. Error message is 1628. Some things install, but don't work properly. Have installed Raw Shooter Essentials with no problem, and it looks pretty good.

Eric, I just downloaded it. Thanks for your help. Much appreciated.

William, I did disable McAfee. Still no go. Eric, I have Picassa. Where do I get RAW shooter Essentials? Thomas, no problem.

I cannot install the Canon software (Zoom Browser, etc.) that came

with the Rebel XT. I have a Dell computer (2005), Windows XP, McAfee

Security Center. Called Canon, they said the problem was with either

Dell or Microsoft--that would take hours to chase down. Anyone had

this problem? Thanks for your help. (It's a 1628 error.)

What about photos in stores, supermarkets, restaurants, etc. in the USA? Is it OK to shoot in such places without having a release? My understanding is you can shoot anywhere unless the person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

This is a bit off topic, but not entirely.

A few points:

1) Low ratings have strengthened me in some ways, made me reconsider a photo, decide whether I still like it or not. I like high ratings better, but do not mind low ones.

2) I myself never give low ratings. Just never feel like it.

3) Many, if not most, ratings seems to be based on very general aesthetic perceptions--helpful, but only up to a point. Some images are not pretty and not meant to be pretty.

4) Due to point 3, I think it might help if there were more categories in the Critique Forum, such as "human emotions," "political/social commentary," "parody," "satire," "realism," etc. How do you portary anger in a way that is aesthetically pleasing, or should you always feel the need to do so? Might also be nice to have some other things to rate besides "originality" and "aesthetics." How about "effectiveness," "suitable to subject," "thought-provoking," etc.

5) I, for one, have learned a lot from this site and very much appreciate it just the way it is.

<div></div>

I ride motorcycles and think that accident photos are OK for that sport. If it were of me, I would be of the same opinion, as long as the shot is not demeaning. Being dead or hurt is not demeaning. Maybe having one's head on a cotton candy stand would be. Otherwise, why hide death and injury, especially with sports like that?

<div></div>

<div></div>

Sorry, wrong shot above. This is the john.<div></div>

Sorry, wrong shot above. This is the john.<div></div>

<div></div>

I have pretty much just started taking pictures with more than ordinary intentions, so this subject is something I have thought about. I would like to learn to take pictures that I like, that seem "real" to me, and that might be of interest to others. One thing that really stands out in my mind is most "good" photos, and most "good" styles are based on simplicity more than anything else. Simple shapes, colors, tones, etc. I have not fully digested this information and am not sure what it will mean to me. I do know that this same thing often is true in painting, writing, poetry, film, etc. Anyway, to some degree this demand for simplicity doesn't satisfy me. Does anyone see this differently, or see a way around it?

<div></div>

Maurik, I agree.

And Collaborative Filtering is really the answer to the problem. Then there would be a natural tendency to receive encouragement and advice for the direction we really want to go in.