geoff_foale

<p>I'm also in UK. The VAT tax has been temporarily reduced by 2.5% which will help with the larger purchases but as it will continue for another year, or at least until the next election, there is no rush to purchase.<br>

Some professionals may wish to get new equipment before the end of the tax year (April 5) so maybe some retailers will really be feeling the pinch then. UK prices, in general, appear to be getting closer to US prices anyway.<br>

I'm waiting for Canon to get hard up and introduce some really good Cash Back deals. But they will probably have reasonably good Christmas sales with the low budget point & shoot equipment.</p>

<p>I get exactly the same thing as you, Phylo. Using Opera I can quickly find the first subject but cannot move to another page, ask or answer a question. If I come out of the Photo net site I can instantly return and see another page. Then out of the site and back again to see another, etc.<br>

No problem with the other sites I visit.<br>

If I try IE everything works but very very slowly. I've never made much sense of IE anyway, although that may just be me.<br>

I don't have any History. It is automatically erased when I leave a site to prevent any backtracking of virsuses or other malware.<br>

Possibly the adverts are causing a problem. All the other sites which I use only have the occasional small ad; perhaps these more complex monstrosities are zapping my limited computing power. Using this site has just become too much of a chore so I am afraid that I don't bother with it much now.</p>

I always print my own. Quite easy if you have a text or desk top printing programme with a calendar function and also have a suitable size printer. If you only want one I would recommend this but I usually print around 10 and give some to friends and family. The great thing about this is that you can personalise the calendars and add birthdays or other important family events etc.

 

Previously I have printed 12 x 8 but might have a go at something bigger this year. I perforate the sheets just below the staples to create a tear off page but you can also do them as 'wrap over' pages.

 

I paste a front cover over the staples so as to hide them and punch a couple of holes to create a hanging point.

There is one other method which I find sometimes improves b&w tones. Add a Hue/Sat adjustment layer between the colour original and the converted b&w layer. Adjust the Hue setting until you get pleasing results.

 

Doesn't always work but sometimes this makes all the difference.

The R800 produces reasonable quality prints in both colour and B&W. Obviously not as good for B&W as one of the expensive specialist machines but most people appear happy with the results/price equation.

 

On the down side, with my R800 I found that I tended to get rather frequent ink nozzle clog problems, but simple to automatically clean, and the printing head died after what I considered to be too short a time. But I suppose it is a case of what do you expect for the money.

 

I've now gone to an A3 Canon printer which, so far, works fine but did cost a lot more. So, yes, the R800 will produce what you want. Individual ink colour tanks are a bit more expensive initially but work out a lot cheaper in the long run, especially if you do a lot of printing.

 

Do have a good look around for best offers though. As Tom said, UK prices are very variable and as more people opt for multi function machines the specialist photo printers are being regarded as a niche market. I have found ABC Digital Cameras usually give me good deals but there are several others to check. Jessops are getting better on price, but do a comparison price check.

Would using the Channel Mixer for B&W conversion be suitable here? Select Monochrome (name varies with some software) and try Green 60% Red 30% and Blue 10% as a suggested starting point. Vary the numbers as suitable, just make sure they add up to 100%.

Totally agree with Michael's reply. I have a file named RAW Conversions and everything goes directly into it, automatically numbered. But you can change numbering or image naming as required. Select All and Batch Process works as well. Any changes, such as White Balance alteration etc can still be performed on individual files prior to Batch Processing.

 

With my rather elderly equipment, I just set it running and go away until everything is converted.

Firstly, I don't use the same equipment as you but as nobody else has ventured an answer so far:-

 

Converting from digital light colours namely Red, Green and Blue into printing colours namely Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (plus a few others with the better printers) always causes some problems and I agree that magenta and purple usually cause the greatest mismatch.

 

How do the images compare with reality straight from the camera? I find that using a camera Custom White Balance really helps to capture those difficult colours, also increasing the colour temperture very slightly can make a difference.

 

Is your monitor colour calibrated? This is essential to ensure that you have a true starting point. If you have a really good eye for colour it is possible to approximately balance a monitor manually but any defect will show especially with those problem colours.

 

Assuming that the image looks correct on a calibrated monitor, do you have the correct colour profile for each paper that you use? Once again you can set an approximate value from the basic paper type options but this will not be exact and there can be considerable variation in the colour reproduction between different makes of the same paper type, ie Glossy can mean a lot of different things and some makes of paper are better for different colours.

 

Finally, most printers have a weak spot in their output of the full colour range. I use a Canon 9000 printer and sometimes find it is a bit poor on the reds. So I manually adjust the output controls to give a little boost to the magenta setting. Usually about 5% is sufficient. This does take a bit of experimentation to get correct.

 

If you can give a little more information about your equipment, settings and work practice I expect someone can help with more specific advice.

While, to some extent, I agree with Stuart and Ronald; I already have a couple of sackfulls of thank yous so I don't really need anymore. But feedback on how helpful the answers were does enable responders to know if they are giving the correct advice.

 

However, this is drifting away from the question. Rainer has given good advice about your choice of options. I would suggest just using the standard TIFF for archive storage, although I sometimes use PNG (slightly compressed lossless format) if I am trying to cram a lot of images onto a disc. If you are sending the images to someone else I would always use standard non compressed TIFF unless instructed to do otherwise.

 

Exactly how you go about selecting the option will differ between proogrammes. Which software are you using? With my programme (Serif Photo Plus) there is a section hidden under the obscure name of Optimiser where the various options are available. You should have something similar. Probably, just select TIFF and None when asked about compression, although some software works with strange names like 'Best Quality' etc.

 

As a last resort, have a look under TIFF or Exporting Files, etc. in the programme Help files, there is usually a lot of information there.

The only real argument for turning off IS when using the newer lenses on a tripod is that it does consume battery power; but most people carry a spare battery and I find that it is rare for this to be a problem.

 

On the positive side, your equipment is ready for one of those quick handheld shots. How many people, like me, have forgotten to turn IS back on.

To be brutally honest here, do you charge for your wedding work?

 

If I saw somebody arriving for a wedding shoot with a 350D I would start to worry. It was a good little camera in it's day and you may be an excellent photographer but that camera just doesn't inspire confidence any more.

 

I would suggest forget about lenses for now and obtain a 40D or 50D, even if it is a secondhand 40D. Serious wedding guys would even consider this to be a bit basic but it just about looks the part. Then keep your 350D for an emergency spare as the previous answer advises.

This probably won't be much help, but as nobody else has replied so far:

 

I find that my Canon 9000 also tends towards excessive red so I use the manual printer adjustments to tone down red and magenta about 5% when I get problems.

 

I found that I get better results using the Windows ICM setting instead of the Canon Auto control which I think produces oversaturated prints.

 

Apart from this I can only suggest trying without the 'clever bits' of custom profiling and set everything (monitor & printer) to the same basic RGB settings and see what happens then. That should prove if it is a faulty profile setting that is at fault. I imagine you have also tried other papers without success.

 

ps. I'm assuming that you have done the tests for nozzle clog etc and everything is fine with the machine.

I have a Nikon using friend who insists that his old 3 mp Nikon is far better than my Canon 40D, just because it is a Nikon. In reality there isn't a great amount of difference between the brands now.

 

Remember, as others have said, you will be buying into a total system so I would say think very carefully about lenses. Not just those which you will be using initially. Consider any lens that you might want to purchase in the future and get a full comparison of the alternatives. Include third party lenses like Sigma etc and see if they are compatable. I find www.photozone.de to be good for independant reviews.

 

ps. I found the 40D to be a good easy to use camera and would recommend it.

If you were quite a few miles further south I could recommend somebody (I'm as far south as you can get in the UK) but I would suggest a look through your local yellow pages directory. Try under both Weddings and Photography sections then ask to see some samples of previous work.

You didn't say which printer or computer system, but in the UK with a Canon 9000, I tend to prefer Canon Photo Paper Pro (PR 101) for a gloss finish. Not over keen on their Semi Gloss but it produces an average finish. Their cheaper paper does what it says on the box, and no more!

 

Ilford Classic Pearl, if you can find it, works fine. Epson papers are OK and usually easy to acquire.

 

I find that using the Windows ICM process produces truer colours than the Canon Auto setting. I'm assuming you aren't using specific profiles here. But I find Canon ink can be a bit high in red so I just reduce the red by a couple of percent where necessary.

 

All papers can vary a bit from batch to batch so even with correct profiles you may still need a touch of manual tweaking from time to time.

 

I found, long ago, that the local printers produce the same over saturated prints with digital that they did with film.

OK Douglas, I was trying to put things as simply as possible but we are talking about ACDSee here not Lightroom and as far as I am aware, ACDSee will not display RAW files. My earlier version 5 certainly will not show them.

 

Some programmes will show just the Jpeg, some both RAW and Jpeg while others show Jpeg and a blank.

 

Just trying to be helpful and work out where MM is going wrong here. And, I'm afraid RAW shooting tends to be a complicated business nowadays. RAW or RAW and 6 choices of Jpeg. Then there is sRAW and another 6 Jpeg options.

 

While the Canon manual mentions a little bit about RAW it doesn't really go into sufficient detail.

 

I'm still uncertain about what MM is doing wrong here but suspect he is trying to view his RAW files with the 'wrong' software so all will be fine if he uses a different programme like Canon's Digital Photo Pro.

 

I have seen some articles which went into a lot more details about RAW and gave easy to understand explainations in laymans terms but I can't remember where I saw it. Can anybody recommend anything here?

I just use a basic text/desktop publishing programme and adapt it to suit my needs. The only difficult bit is working

out where the guidelines should be. But once you have a basic framework, save it and use over and over.

 

I work with standard paper size A4 (in the UK) and fold to size after printing. Once again, some thought is required

about positioning and orientation of images but once you have done the first one everying afterwards is easy. My

software is Serif Page Plus but I don't know if it is available outside the UK.

 

Getting suitable card (quality for price) can be a problem particularly for double sided printing. Often, I use standard

coated one side paper and paste a writing paper slip inside.

 

When finished, I place my card plus an envelope inside a cellophane wrapper. I'm aiming at a better quality market

than the traditional cheap poorly printed seaside greetings card.

 

I found that local views sell better than most nature photos. UK south coast small coastal town.

 

I'm not doing it fully commercially, just sell a few in a local cafe. But when I get more time I might take the idea more

seriously, there would appear to be a market for a higher quality more personal product.

 

ps. Not sure it it would work, but if I get the time, later, I will try to add an example.

I my have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but RAW photos automatically embed an identical Jpeg image into the photo (2 images - one RAW and one Jpeg in the same file). This Jpeg is adjustable for size with the camera settings. I use RAW & small Jpeg.

 

Some programmes, like I think ACDSee, cannot register the RAW image so they can only show the embedded Jpeg. That is why the Jpeg image is there. It is the same with many photo editing programmes. Most of the better editing software will allow you to open a single RAW file directly but you may have to use a special menu to open and convert the files to Jpeg or Tiff before editing.

 

The best method, I find, is to convert the RAW camera file to a usable format like Jpeg or preferably 16 bit Tiff using a specialist converting programme before editing the files. You can retain the embedded Jpeg as an extra image or delete it. Personally I just use this Jpeg as a viewing image and delete it during conversion.

 

If you had a conversion programme like Digital Photo Pro with your camera use this to convert the RAW files to a useable format before editing. DPP is a very basic bit of software so don't try to edit with this, just use it to convert. You can select all your images and do a Batch Process. Save them in a suitable folder for later use with Photoshop.

 

There is better software than DPP available, but if you have it use it. I found the instructions to be a bit vague but it suffices for me.

 

All should be explained in detail under the Image Settings chapter of the 40D manual. It is pages 55-58 in my book; but my UK book may number differently.

If you haven't already ordered a tube, Alan, hang on a minute.

 

Tubes are an option but they have some limitations and will never be as good as a proper macro lens. They allow you to get a little closer to the subject but their usefulness depends on the minimum focusing distance and size of that lens.

 

Although they don't have glass to worry about distortion you will lose a bit of light and need to increase your ISO or lose shutter speed or aperture. The exposure metering can become unpredictable, although you eventually get used to that.

 

Auto focusing can be a problem, manual is recommended. Even then, with some lenses, manual focusing can be a bit coarse.

 

Tubes aren't always a cheap alternative and for that cost you would be well on the way to a 'real' macro lens. Canon tubes are often said to have a stronger construction, but do cost more.

 

Having said all that, a tube which easily fits into your pocket will instantly convert a bigger zoom (bird lens) to a macro (insect lens) so you don't have to carry around 2 heavy lenses.

 

I have often used a Canon 25mm tube on a 40D and 70-300 lens with good results, but a tripod is essential. However, if I am going for a macro shoot I prefer the 'real thing' and use a macro lens. I found the Sigma 180 suits me. One of the cheaper macro lenses but it isn't exactly cheap. I found adding a tube to a close focusing lens like my 28-135 was a waste of time.

 

A lot will depend on exactly what you want to photograph. The requirements for static subjects like flowers are different from tiny and nervous insects.

Need more details of programmes etc to give a detailed answer but many photo programmes will only display the embedded jpeg, that is why it is there. The RAW details will not be accessible until it is converted to jpeg, or preferably TIFF.

 

Give full details of photo programme and RAW conversion software and then, if you still need it, someone will be able to assist with more help.

 

Alternatively, you have set the camera incorrectly, but I suggest that a conversion problem is more likely.

Are you handholding the camera? The 100-400 is difficult enough to handhold on its own and a converter will just magnify the problem. It can make autofocus a bit soft as well. Try it on a tripod with manual focus and see what happens. A sheet of newspaper stuck to a vertical wall is often recommended as a focus test. Close up the lens a bit for best results, say around F8 as the starting point.

 

As the others have said, some lack of sharpness is the trade off against extra magnification. I'm afraid the only real answer for a totally sharp longer lens means spending a considerable sum of money.

Get to hold a 400/450D and a 30/40D and see which feels right for you. I like a heavy chunky camera with easy to read dials but some people prefer a smaller lighter camera. They are both good quality items.

I have frequently used my Canon 70-300 IS with a 25mm extension tube for macro shots of insects. The things to remember are: You need to manually focus. Your shutter speed will be considerably reduced when using a tube, but this can be overcome by increasing ISO. The magnification factor of a tube is very little but it enables you to get closer which results in a larger image.

 

I can't see much advantage in using a tube with a close focusing macro lens. Occasionally worth it with a longer macro lens like the 180. Can you use a 1.4x converter with the 100 lens? I don't know about the Canon converter; but a third party unit such as Kenko would work, although you are bound to lose a bit of sharpness. Also, when using a converter or tube you will lose a bit of depth of field as well as light fall off.

 

When using tubes with a larger zoom, it all depends on how close is your minimum focusing distance. With my 70-300 which focuses down to 5 ft I can gain an extra 1 ft of distance with a 25mm tube which is similar to using a 180 macro at 3 ft. It really depends on what you want to photograph and how large you want to print. If you are after flighty insects then a working distance of 3 or 4 ft is about right but if your subjects are flowers or other inanimate objects you might as well stick with the standard 100 mm. I can't remember what is the minimum distance with your zoom but if you are working at 4 ft with a 200 mm lens you aren't much better than a 100 mm at 2 ft. The only advantage is greater working distance.

 

All you can do is think carefully about how you would use your zoom with a tube and try to decide if it is going to be worth while spending around £100 for a 25 mm tube (probably a bit cheaper in the US). I wouldn't recommend getting a smaller tube, the 25mm is a good comprimise.

 

I can take reasonable quality images with the 70-300 plus 25mm tube including objects as small as 1/2 inch. But I have just purchased a Sigma 180 macro for closer work and slightly finer detail.

As well as the 2x extender issue. You don't appear to have any shorter lenses; something suitable for those birthdays and weddings etc.

 

I would suggest adding a shorter zoom. The Canon 28-135 is often sold with the 40D as a special offer. While not the best lens in this range, it is a competant bit of kit and covers a useful range. Not an expensive purchase but if cost is a problem I would suggest leaving out the 85 mm for now. Unless you have a specific need for this lens I would think that the 28-135 would be more comprehensive for you.

Yes Photo Zone give it good marks except for slight possible CA problems. Otherwise, they list it as almost as good optically as the sigma 150 which is universally recognised as a very sharp lens. But I reckon it should be better than a 150 plus 1.4x converter.

 

Anyway, right or wrong; I have ordered from Jessops £450 inc vat and delivery. Probably similar price to the US. Trying to do a comparison, I saw prices around $830