mjc photographic images

<p>When I first started photography I used to print on a Epson R1800 and R300, but I lost my enthusiasm for photography for a few years, I am starting to get it back which is why I was looking at a calibrator more up to date than the spyder2 pro.<br>

I think I have nailed it though (well the screens look the same) instead of resetting back to factory settings on the monitors, I put the R,G and B sliders up to 100, brightness up to 100 and contrast to 50 on all monitors. Calibrated them with the spyder 2 pro and it worked. I am only using 2 of the monitors and the calibration colour chart looks identical on both, so I saved myself £200, money toward my 400L f 5.6.<br>

Thanks to all for advising me to stick with continuing to use a calibrator, all great advice.</p>

<p>Hi.<br /> I have had a spyder 2 pro for about 8 years but with progression I now have 3 LED monitors and after searching it appears the Spyder 2 pro is not up to the task of calibrating LED monitors. I have tried and 2 Benq monitors have a similar colour cast, but the iilyama is way off. I decided to get a spyder 5 pro but after reading reviews it seems this also has problems with different colour casts on different monitors. I don't want to waste money if I can't get the same colour on all monitors. I only used the spyder 2 pro on one Samsung LCD monitor at the beginning so was none the wiser if it looked different on another monitor. So I guess my question is, are these calibraters just a gimmick ?</p>

<p>Thanks for reading<br /> Jim</p>

<p>Personally I think this is to do with a recent windows 7 update, for about a month now everytime I plug in a storage device it comes up with the same message as the OP. It would be nice to figure out which it is and uninstall it.</p>

<p>The first lens I bought was a sigma 70-300 APO and it was used a lot, then I bought a 70-200 L (non IS). I took a photo of a wingnut on my bird feeder at the same focal length and apperture and the pictures were like chalk and cheese. Since I bought the L the sigma hasn't been used, even though it has more reach @ 300, I get sharper images with the canon @ 200 cropped.<br>

I also have a 100 macro (non IS) and a 24-70L mk1 and when I take close up's of flowers (even @ 2.8) I am hard pushed to tell the macro and the 24-70L apart. So for me the difference in L glass is worth it.<br>

As for colour tints, I think every image I have ever taken I have altered the colour some what in post processing.</p>

<p>Some of the software can be downloaded from the canon website for mac. When you download and go to install it, just click on the drive your original disk is in and you should be fine.</p>

<p>HTH<br>

Jim.</p>

<p>In 2007 I bought a new canon 100 2.8 macro from WEX for 329 GBP, now they are 449 GBP.</p>

<p>I bought a 24-70L about 4 months ago after my first one was stolen 3 years ago, I am extremely happy I bought one again. <br /> It is my favourite lens, hence why I bought it again. This just may be wishful thinking on my part but the 24-70L seems sharper with close up flower shots than my 100 macro. I would not sell mine discontinued or not.</p>

<p>Philosophy? No, <br>

Common sense? yes.<br>

Glad your mind is now at ease.</p>

<p>I have turned off show all focus points and the grid so I am left with just the single focus point in one shot mode. It definately flashes red but it is very very hard to see in daylight.</p>

<p>My 7D is the same, if you close your curtains a bit and look through the viewfinder so half your viewfinder is looking outside and half looking at the curtains, you can see the half of the grid looking on the curtains flashes red. I am pretty sure it all flashes but it is very hard to see it flash in daylight.<br>

HTH<br>

Jim</p>

<p>It still makes me laugh how the OP never mentions a 7D but some idiot allways has to bring it up and slag it off. The 7D is a lot more complex and needs time to get to know it. Maybe these people who slag off the 7D need to get a point and shoot and use it on Auto, because the 7D is obviously too complicated for them.</p>

<p>I photographed my first live gig last month and shooting at ISO 1600 I was amazed how clear the images were. Sure there weren't many keepers with the low light but none the less I was very happy with the ISO performance.</p>

<p>Depends on the safe, and the fire rating (time). Some safes internal temp can hold 55 c, 131 f. and some get as hot as 177c, 351 f, these would be tested in a constantly heated environment in excess of 1,000 c for around 30 minutes. Most safes go with a 30 - 60 minute fire rating, others are 120 minute rated and waterproof. </p>

<p>The same with most things I guess, the more you spend the better the quality.</p>

<p>HTH<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Thanks Michael and Scott for your replies,</p>

<p>I am over the moon that after 2 years I finally have a 24-70L again, the first one was sharp as a tack and this one seems to be the same.</p>

<p>What arose my curiosity was, after reading the specifications on the Mk ll<br /> <em>"it utilizes 1 Super UD lens element and 2 UD lens elements that help minimize chromatic aberration in the periphery at wide-angle as well as reduced color blurring around the edges of the subject. In addition, 2 types of aspherical lenses are combined to help reduce spherical aberration over the entire image area as well as through the full zoom range"</em><br /> <em></em> <br /> I was just curious if any of the lens elements ever found their way into any of the older models that are still in production.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>This is just a question to satisfy my own curiosity, I bought the 24-70L yesterday, 6 years after buying my first 24-70L which was stolen. I checked the date code and it was made in November 2011.</p>

<p>I am just wondering do Canon continually work on lenses to make them optically sharper through the years ?</p>

<p>The 24-70L mk ll is coming out which is supposed to be optically sharper, so say for example the lens I bought yesterday, would that be exactly the same as the lens I bought 6 years ago, or would canon (through the years) have worked on it and made it better than the one I bought 6 years ago ?</p>

<p>Sorry if this is a time wasting question but I am just curious.</p>

<p>Thanks for reading.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

<p>Sorry, double post</p>

<p>Thanks for all your input. When I had the 24-70L i did wish it was wider for landscape and to be honest, I sometimes wondered why I bought it. I have looked back through my images and It is 50/50 for focal length, most FL portraits were around the 30MM and head and shoulders between 60 and 70mm. So I did use all the focal length.<br>

It looks like I will bite the bullet and save a bit more and get the 24 - 70L and then after a while get the sigma 10-20 for WA.<br>

Thanks again</p>

<p>Jim.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I use a 7D and my lenses include a 50 f/2.5 CM, 100 f/2.8 macro and a 70-200 f/2.8 and the original 18-55 kit lens which came with the 20D. My preference is portraits and macro, I used to have the 24-70L until it was stolen.<br>

At the moment I am struggling to get full body shots indoors even with the 50 CM, plus my Niece is in a band and they want me to take some promo shots of them, casual and on stage. I know how good the 24-70L is but I would like some advice as to the IQ of the 35 compared to the 24-70L. I have seen a few reviews which say the 35 f/2 is as sharp in the middle but not at the edges. I got my 24-70 back in 2006 for 660 GBP new so I don't like to think I will have to spend the best part of 1,000 GBP to replace it if the 35 f/2 would be a better option paired with the 50.<br>

Thanks for reading.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Thanks Andy, that is great information, just what I was looking for. I have bit the bullet and gone for £10.00 per item.</p>

<p> I will post back if I get the work.</p>

<p>Thanks again</p>

<p>James.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your feedback and advice, I will definately check out the "light science and magic" book and hopefully if I get this gig then it will give me confidence to maybe try for other commercial shooting jobs too.</p>

<p>I know this is a personal thing that I have to do myself and it is between the client and myself as to what fee should be exchanged so thanks again for taking the time and replying to my question.</p>

<p>I have photographed 15 items just so the owner of the business can see my work, it is floating on white which I will be doing from home, with my own direction, (7D, 2 bowens lights and a 100 2.8 macro). Should be only 20 or so items a month as new lines come out, but if she likes my work and the price is right I will maybe get to re- shoot about 300 items. So realistically maybe only shooting one weekend a month.</p>

<p>Up until now I have only taken images for my own pleasure but I am hoping this oppertunity (if it arises) will give me a bit more confidence.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I have been asked to shoot some costume jewellery for a small costume jewellery company, the prices for each item are between 5 pounds and 9 pounds. The images will appear on their website and in a catalogue. The owner of the company is away on holiday so doesn't know anything about this. She might not even go for it. I have googled product photography prices and the lowest figure I have seen is 40 US dollars but this was back in 2005. I don't want to charge too much but I don't want to charge too little.<br>

Any feedback relating how much I should probably charge would be very welcome.<br>

I am by no means a proffessional, but photography has been a serious hobby since 2005,<br>

Thanks for reading,<br>

James </p>

<p>I have the 70-200 2.8L and it is great for head shots but for full body shots you would have to be a long way from the subject, which isn't ideal in a house. The lens I used on my 20D for full body shots was the 24-70 2.8L.<br>

Unfortunately my 20D and 24-70L were stolen so I now use a 50 2.5 CM on my 7D for the full body shots which is OK but I have to stand further away and most living rooms aren't big enough. <br>

These are the only 3 lenses I have used for portraits so I can't comment on any other lenses but I can recommend the 24-70L and will be buying one myself again.</p>

<p>sorry for the double post. internal gateway error</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please a FF 7D! is that possible</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes...... it will be called a 5D mklll ;)</p>

<p>Calm down Scott, geez.<br>

First.... where in any of my posts have I mentioned Post processing, I think you will find I said, after using my 7D for over a year I now know how to get the best out of it, that means actually learning the camera settings to enable me to take better images with the camera, not post processing my images so they look better.<br>

Second....petulantly demanding to be taught, WTF does that mean,lol, I frequent these forums for information on glass, to admire other peoples images and hopefully once in a while to be able to help someone with a problem they are having, not on how to use my 7D.<br>

I apologise if I have upset you and promise to refrain from entering into any more of these 7D bashing threads. ;)</p>