geoff_foale

I have never been able to get on comfortably with Photoshop Elements and prefer Serif Photo Plus, which I find more user friendly. Their latest edition X2 is available in the UK as a download for GBP 60, but I don't know about elsewhere.

 

The trouble with asking for opinions on software is that 20 people will give 20 different answers. I would suggest looking through some photography magazines that give independent reports on best buy software.

Will the 28-135 be a waste? If you already have it use it. As a purely personal opinion, I use my 28-135 for people/landscape and the 70-300 for landscape/wildlife. For me anything below 28 would be a waste. Just see what suits your style of photography then decide later. But remember that you won't want to take 3 lenses on a hike.

The 70-300 IS is an excellent general purpose good value mid range zoom which is ideal for most conditions. It isn't too heavy and fits snugly into an average zoom camera bag. Obviously F4 is a restriction but I find it it isn't that restrictive most of the time.

 

The 100-400 IS is good but relatively expensive heavy and cumbersome to use and you can't just hang your camera on your shoulder and forget it.

 

For deer and longer distance birds, 400mm is the minimum size. So, as I see it, you don't really have a choice unless you are prepared to purchase 2 lenses. I have seen some good shots taken with the bigger Sigma zooms, although many photographers prefer Canon.

 

Primes are an alternative but will a fixed size suit your wildlife photography requirements? If you have to keep changing lenses or converters you will miss some shots. Also look at the minimum focus limits. The 100-400 will focus down to around 5 ft, ideal for that butterfly which settles just in front of you. I think the equivalent 400 prime is around 11 ft.

I have just given a longish answer to a similar question 'What quality expectations should I have moving to a higher end printer?' by Martin Canning (2008-02-10). So rather than repeat that again I would just say that larger printers are considerably more expensive but if you really do want one I can't see much point in getting a stop gap smaller machine. However, do you need a high quality printer for 'everyday use'.

 

I recently switched from an Epson R800 to a Canon Pixima 9000 which is performing well; but most people on this forum seem to prefer the Epson alternatives.

Same with me. There are a few scratches and dust spots that need to be cloned away but the lightness on the bottom left corner looks like natural sunshine. Most scanned images need a little adjustment with Curves etc and a bit of Unsharp Mask but if they are all like this sample I wouldn't worry. What size and resolution images are you ending up with?

Like almost all items, the more you pay the better the quality. When my R800 died I wanted to go to A3 so I bought a Canon Pixima 9000. Some people think that the Epson alternatives are better, but I had a lot of nozzle clog problems with my R800 so wanted to try a different make.

 

If you are using a printer with 7 or 8 individual ink colours you are obviously going to get better colour reproduction quality than a printer using 3 colours. The more colours you have the more expensive it is to purchase the cartridges initially; but as you only replace them individually when empty it actually works out cheaper than throwing away an all in one cartridge because the cyan is empty although the magenta may still be half full.

 

Probably, the question you will have to ask yourself is 'Am I happy with my current prints and how much more am I prepared to pay'. But remember, once you go up to A3 you will be demanding a lot more from a printer and that machine will cost significantly more. If you only occasionally want A3 size prints it may work out cheaper to get an A4 size printer and pay somebody to produce the odd bigger print.

I have a friend who has a microfilm business; but most of his current work involves scanning documents onto CDs for many UK companies and city authorities. Recently I asked him this question and his advice was:- Only write on the non coated clear plastic area at the disc centre or around the very outside of the disc back, outside of the area normally used for recording. Then, if you do have an unexpected reaction it won't affect the recording.

 

He said that he had produced some CDs for a city authority who insisted that identification labels were attached to the back of the discs and they supplied the labels. Two years later they contacted him to say that some of the discs were now unreadable. He keeps a copy of all his work and his discs, written on the back, were OK. For some reason, one batch of labels made the discs go bad.

Can you explain 'Wildlife/Nature? Do you want specific lenses for different purposes or an all rounder? eg For small birds at a distance you will need at least 400mm, and the cheapest one is expensive. For close up subjects like flowers, you may be better with a proper macro lens. As an all rounder I like the Canon 70-300 IS which will focus down to around 5ft., but in all honesty I am finding it a touch small for some wildlife, and while it is good value it isn't cheap. I did buy a secondhand camera with a Sigma 28-300 which was a cheap all rounder, but I thought the construction was flimsy and I soon broke it.

 

My honest suggestion would be to have a good think about EXACTLY what you want to photograph and how much you are prepared to spend in total. Also think about what quality of photo you are considering; a snap at 7 x 5 or exhibition quality prints at 12 x 8 or larger?

 

The Canon 10D is capable of producing good results (I have one) so I wouldn't really advise buying anything too cheap; in the long run you will be better off saving up for something decent.

Can't add a great deal more. The second photo may be a bit underexposed but that can easily be fixed with a tweak of Curves. When in doubt, I would sooner underexpose as blown highlights are gone forever. There are a great many good advice sites now but learning is really about experimenting with a bit of trial and a lot of error; eventually the errors get less.

 

If you set your camera to spot metering and check all over the subject you will see the available options. Skill is deciding which are the most important, that is what your camera does in Auto mode. When faced with a subject, I say to myself, which is most important shutter speed or aperture? If the subject is moving or I am handholding in poor light then shutter speed comes first. The correct speed depends on the lens size and how fast the subject is, or could, move. eg a 300mm lens with somebody running would mean around 1/500 minimum. That is just experience.

 

Secondly, I think about aperture to give the desired depth of field. Do I want a clear or blurred background and what is the depth of clear focus which is required? eg if someone is lying down and you want their head and feet in focus you will need a small aperture to give maximum depth; but if you just want a head and shoulders shot without any clear background use a larger aperture.

 

Adjust ISO to give the lowest possible setting which will allow you to obtain the best shutter speed and aperture. It can take me a couple of minutes to decide so if I need a quick action shot I usually take one at semi auto mode before I start my thinking time. Then, if I am too late or get it wrong, at least I have something in the camera at an average setting. Professionals do this without any thinking time.

 

Don't forget to check the histogram after taking a shot, but don't rely on it totally.

 

My failures are getting less - but I've still got a lot to learn.

I'll try to give a simple answer, Sloane but expect to be corrected. The Image Stabilisation locks onto your subject and compensates for your shaky hand. I think of it as working like a gyroscope. Hand holding a long heavy lens is difficult, as I'm sure you are aware, and with a long lens any shake is magnified on the photo. Higher shutter speeds overcome this shake but it can ruin your photos at slower speeds, say below 1/300 for a 300mm lens.

 

In my opinion, Canon IS works very well and I wouldn't buy a lens for handholding without it.

I purchased a 9000 a few months ago; so far, I'm happy with it and the prints are good. I think that Epson ink is more waterproof, but that shouldn't affect most uses. Previously used Epson printers and had problems with frequent ink nozzle clogging, but that was with the Epson R800 which isn't really a fair comparison.

 

I find that the Canon Super High Gloss paper gives good results but their Semi Gloss tends to look a bit too flat. Other makes of paper print OK. Not the fastest of printers, but I can't really say how that compares with Epsons.

 

It appears to me that Canon printers aren't so popular as Epson in the US and especially on this site (I'm in the UK). All I can say is that I'm happy with my 9000 but haven't done any side by side tests with Epson.

Sloane. The stupid answer is, Yes. Very simply, it's like using a telescope on the end of your lens, but remember the more you increase zoom the smaller the scene that can be included. Lets try to put it another way, the children will get bigger but you won't be able to see so much of the surrounding area. So, a 300mm would be a lot better for your purpose than a 200mm, but 400mm might be even better. You need to work out just how big you need to go.

 

Like many things in life, the more you spend the better the quality but the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens and good value for money if 300mm will be sufficient; if not think about a 100-400mm or a big prime lens. The downside of larger lenses is increased cost.

Cameras have a default resolution setting, some are 72 pixels per inch but others use different settings. My camera defaults to 180ppi. As others have said, don't worry too much about this; just make sure that you reset the image size/resolution to what you require before printing.

 

How big do you want to go? Just double checked my maths with my software; 3504 pixels x 72ppi means 48 ins (but won't print well at this resolution). If you reset your image size to 300ppi you will get 8 x 12 ins approx with no loss of quality. If you need to go bigger than this, resize upwards using the bicubic interpolation setting.

 

I always think that in reality this is easier to understand than to describe. When you reset the pixel per inch number make sure that the pixel numbers stay at 2336 x 3504. If the pixel numbers increase enter that number again in the pixel number box; when you enter 300 in the resolution box the dimension box should alter to the smaller dimension (48 to 12 ins). If you increase the image size (above 12 ins) and keep the resolution at 300ppi you will see the total pixel numbers box increase as you add extra pixels.

 

Just have a play around with different settings until you fully understand what is happening.

In reply to Mark. I was rather hoping for something around 500mm to COMPETE with the Sigma lenses, by which I meant around $2000/$3000. Something which I could realistically dream about. As an alternative I would accept an update on the 400mm including the addition of IS. Or, Louie's suggestion.

 

Canon have a selection of excellent lenses in the short to medium range but have a bit of a gap at the larger affordable lens sizes. Sigma are trying to fill this gap but I think Canon could do it better.

 

On a UK wildlife site I see that some people are suggesting that the new Canon 450D is trying to cram in too many pixels and tends to give a noisy image above ISO 200. Any comments?

An 800 mm with IS will be welcomed by serious birders and some other wildlife specialists, but unfortunately it is just a tad outside my price range. In the longer lens bracket, I was hoping for something around 500 mm with IS to compete with the larger Sigma zooms.

With ISO, larger numbers mean more sensitivity to light, just like film cameras. As a starting point I would suggest setting your ISO at 400 and see if it works for you. Be wary of going above 800 as it can produce 'noise' with some subjects.

 

The shutter speed recommendations above are minimum speeds. Usually I like to be a little bit faster if possible. Quite a lot faster if you or the subject are moving. Once you start experimenting and reviewing the results everything will become clear.

I'm going away to measure a piece of string. For most people there isn't any such thing as an average, unless you measure total images per year divided by 52. It all depends on availability of subjects. Some people get desperate and start photographing their pets or children if they haven't used a camera for a couple of days. Others, who prefer outside work like landscape or wildlife are limited by weather and seasonality. And sometimes, having to work. So for me, some weeks it might be a couple of hundred and some weeks zero.

 

One thing that I will say is that I usually only keep a couple of photos of each subject.

Equipment wise you have everything you need for now. Do not waste money on more equipment, except perhaps a tripod and possibly a flash. I have the same lenses but with just an old 10D camera.

 

I would suggest that as you have recently come from the point & shoot department the only thing you will need to do is abandon the auto settings and learn to fully exploit the 'Creative Zone'.

As we seem to have drifted away from photography to anything about cats I would like to ask another question. It appears to me that here in the UK, Labour voters prefer cats while Conservative voters prefer dogs. Is it the same in the US?

If you intend to turn professional, producing good your work is only part of the requirement. You have to look professional and inspire confidence in potential customers. For that reason alone I would say that a 40D was the bare minimum.

 

After all you wouldn't let a mechanic with just a couple of bent and rusty tools work on your engine! Having said that I have an engineer friend who used to turn up wearing an old oil soaked ex army coat with his tools in an old battered tin box marked bread. But he only did agricultural work.

For me +1/2 equals 0 exposure. But I'm used to it now (+1 1/2 actually means +1 etc). If in doubt over autofocus modes then just use One Shot unless either you or your subject are going to move. I prefer to work with just the centre focus point. Sometimes I may miss a quick shot but too often the camera decides to focus on the wrong item. I use Partial Metering a lot as it allows me to expose for what I consider to be the crucial part of the scene.

 

One problem that gets me sometimes is when using partial metering or AI focus and I want to hold the shutter button half way then recompose, eg to get the sky correct. The exposure changes as you move the camera angle unless you lock the exposure, which I keep forgetting. If I have time I prefer to check out the required settings then use Manual.

 

Autofocus will always be a problem in poor light, especially if there isn't a sharp edge available, or if the camera decides to focus on the 'wrong' sharp edge. This will always vary with the lens and chosen aperture. I don't like using AI Servo because I am never quite sure if it has focused correctly, but most of the time my photos still come out OK.

 

I use the Zoom Browser/File Viewer that came with the camera for downloading RAW, but I don't do any editing until my images have been converted to a 16 bit TIFF, apart from any White Balance changes.

 

Every camera has it's own quirks - just like photographers. But all in all I like the 10D now that I have got used to it.

I think the cunning little device that Patrick mentioned is a Protractor. Haven't heard the 45 degree method before but will give it a try. The only problem would be having space to turn a large image.

 

The poor copy problems with some original images is due to the fact that newspaper/magazine photos are produced from a series of very small dots. Look at the image under magnification. Some types of paper and printing methods allow very small dots (screen) while others like newsprint only work with larger dots. A bit simplified but that's basicly how printing works.

 

That is why you need to apply different settings of Screen to suit the original printing method in order to remove the dot problem when scanning. You may well be able to save your scanned images using the previous advice.

Lets put it another way, do cats prefer photographers? My current cat previously lived with a neighbour but decided to change owners and adopt me. Cats are good subjects for testing lenses or exposure settings and experimenting with new techniques, etc. If you can get bright eyes and crisp fur you are doing things correctly and are ready to move onto 'real' subjects.

 

However, showing off cat photos, apart from asking for advice, is a totally different matter. Other people's cats are about as interesting as other people's children.

 

With regard to the other part of the question. Where do nudes come from? Perhaps it's where I live, a small UK coastal town, but I've never found any naked flesh crying out to be photographed. In fact I haven't ever seen any nakedness without having to give some vague indication of lasting meaningful commitment.

ps. Just out of interest, I've checked the price from my usual supplier. 970 GBP including delivery etc., how does this compare?

Don't have CS3 but using my modest software, assuming it is an uncomplicated image on a uniform grey background, I would use the auto colour selection tool on the background, invert the selection, copy to the clipboard, then paste as a new image (check the resolution). You may need to set suitable Tolerance (degree of selectiveness) level for the selection tool. If the background isn't a reasonably uniform colour then, yes, it can be done but requires a bit more time and skill.