dave_dube

Brian, based on the information you provided about your lens needs, I would highly recommend the 400mm f/4.5 with converters. I personally own this lens along with a 1.4x TC, and have found it to be exceptionally lightweight and quick to focus. With this option, you can easily switch to a shorter lens when necessary, and achieve well-lit shots for the majority of your subjects.

You can try using it for a few weeks to determine whether it will just sit on a shelf unused. While it's nice to have the lens, it's important to consider whether it will actually be useful in practice. If it's a lens that you will frequently use, it may be worth investing in a USA product. After all, what's an additional $800 in the grand scheme of things?

Glad adding an SSD improved your computing. With photo editing, the SSD isn't involved with the processing. My thoughts would be to open the Task Manager during your computing time and watch where the bottleneck seems to occur. For apps like Photoshop or Lightroom, the CPU does most of the work (if it can) followed by RAM. I no longer have a mechanical storage unit in my box but rely on M.2 SSDs. Yes, they are extremely fast for Read/Write but that doesn't help my processing workflow. I can't imagine working with a CPU with fewer than 8 cores.

<p>You seem to have some quality diffraction going on...</p>

<p>Walter, was the pinkish cast on the original of just the output version?</p>

<p>Interesting post, surprised it ended after a brief life.<br>

If a photo contains a person or people, my feeling is that there should be a story conveyed by the content for completeness. On the other hand, if the photo is one of a bird or raptor, it's a point of interest. Now, a photo of a Mountain with Rolling hills leading our eyes to the mountain, it can be described as a Focal Point (mountain is the key element).<br>

A person could be the point of interest in a Portrait or if he/she were modeling clothing etc.</p>

Shun, I'm sure your response wasn't directed at me but, I think the amount of vignetting is totally acceptable and

easily fixed.

 

It's an outstanding lens in my opinion.

 

You've changed your feelings about the vignetting from ~ "IMO, the amount of vignetting/corner darkening is

completely unacceptable" to "I don't think this is a major issue in most situations". I agree with both ends of your

comment. At first, not acceptable for the quality of the lens but then, it's really not that big of an issue. If it is, I'll

place it on my D300 and not worry about the vignetting.

Several days ago I posted a similar question on flickr. The resposes weren't as valuable to me since the comments

revolved around, 'what do I expect, I shouldn't be shooting at f/2.8'. My feeling was that my resulting amount of

vignette was too much for the quality of the lens.

 

Here's another image that I took last evening, it was a test photo but had the lens hood on and a UV filter.<div></div>

Hey Pete, this thread is somewhat antiquated, somewhat like the D200. Time to move up to at least the D300.

Hi Tony for coming by and answering 'One Year Later'.

 

First off, I don't know who Kim is, this is a Thread I post (please check at the very beginning of the thread).

 

You've made my point 100%, it's an emotional link with the viewer ~ plain and simple!

Hey Nerd! Please remember, we are all nerds to some extent (I know, speak for myself).<P>

 

I'm thinking your question about the file size and the answer that Ellis gave are 2 different things.<P>

 

When you have your image open in the RAW converter, at the very bottom of the image in 'blue' font will be a link and probably the size your referring too. Click on that link and readjust the settings to your cameras native size. Now, that said, that is the perfect spot to upsample and image prior to processing. My settings are:

Space ~ ProPhoto RGB; Depth ~ 16 Bits/channel; Size ~ 17.4mp (native size is 12.2 mp) and Resolution ~ 300. These settings are just for editing purposes.<P>

 

Since your blur is most noticeable in areas of transition, you'll need to work on that. You'll need to define the light and dark without creating a halo. One starting point might be to create a copy layer, open UM, push the Radius up all the way and the Threshold down all the way and then sharpen approx 40%. When you go back to the file, you can turn down the opacity of the layer. You might also try changing the mode to 'Luminosity'.<P>If you were proficient with PS, my recommendation (not seeing the photo) would be Smart Sharpen as Peter mentions. In the Advanced mode you'd have total control of the Highlights and Shadows needed to make something 'appear' sharper. The final step could be the HP filter, remember, you need to do it on a separate layer and you may need to change the blend mode.<P>Good Luck!

The other issue I just noticed is given the same photo, placed on both PN and Flickr, it's the photo on PN that is getting the hits. There's no way an average photo of mine gets 9000 hits on PN and 36 on flickr. I had been wondering what was going on.

Interesting stuff for sure, great advertising however.

<P>So, 36 of my images are on that site, all taken from Photo.net. Not one of the photos on flickr are showing up, better security?

Shawn, come on over! Sorry for the steam in the photo but it's hot

and finger licking great my man.<div></div>

I have basically bailed and gone to another Photo community for most of my activity and postings. Someone that has remained on PN because of friends they've established over time told me that they had read the rating system had improved. Ugh, I think it's worse! See Ya...

Early morning attach, the cowardly driver ducked on the seat, the

deer is still fighting to get him.<div></div>

<B>JOSH</B>, no response or comments regarding the above post?<P>What do they say about silence, an admission of...

The driver was only in Beta, it worked when I downloaded but then when I restarted it was blocked. Had to purchase a Vista compliant card and all is well.

This is not a minor color space issue and it would seem that it's my ATI video card driver that's mucking everything up. I'm downloading the driver but it's only in beta, we'll see.

Terry, thanks! <P>No, I haven't done that yet due to a post I read (actually a review) that stated Vista would overide any adjustments.<P>I'm off to ColorVision!

OK, from other forum posts, I knew that once I installed Vista, I wouldn't be

able to calibrate my monitor. Little did I know how much different the images

would be.<P>Opening Bridge/CS2 or 3, the image looks extremely dynamic.

Posting an image that looks 'just right' with Vista, when posted on PN presents

a dismally presentation of the same image.<P>I need a work-around, some help.

Do I need a second boot back to XP for photo editing or what? Vista with Aero

really makes an image look GREAT! (wish I could show you but...)<P>Anyone have

an idea or solution?<P>Thanks for any assistance, assistance is what's needed.

Dave

Elaine, wow - very sorry it's taken me a year to see this.<P>I imagine that you've figured this one out but, just in case. The fonts were probably linked to a program that you uninstalled. During an uninstall, make sure you don't delete what other programs have linked or are using. You should be asked at that point of uninstall.<P>Hope all is well and I still think this is a Great Photo.

From my point of view, a photo can't reach the status of Greatness without a strong emotional link, regardless of what that emotion might be. Many photos contain strong emotions but lack some or many of the elements needed for a sound photo. Most of those won't become Great, some might.<P>Walter Hinterberger somewhat misquoted me but that's neither here nor there. He's forgetting, or didn't realise that the photos I referenced in the link were taken from medium or large format cameras. Photos that need to be viewed in a certain way, not thumbnails. I have no doubt that if viewing anyone of those photos, as intended, whether 11 X 14 or a 3 foot wide gallery photo, I would be greatly impressed. The thumbnails leave me flat since that's not there intended view size.<P>I don't know how many times I've had a response from a viewer that started with 'I didn't really like the photo until I opened it larger'. Sometimes a color photo does nothing for viewers but then when changed to B&W, it's a real winner. It may happen all in 1 sec as Ellis states, the longer and more frequent it's viewed, the deeper and more imprinted the photo becomes.<P>Another thought ~ how much do those photos you consider Great influence your view of other photos? How much is influenced by the right brain? If a person has a strong clasical music background and lifestyle, are certain emotional elements linked?

Srdjan ~ Thanks!

I really would like to thank everyone that's commented and added much to this post. Most of all, thank you for doing it respectfully.<P>

John K., as always, enjoy reading your comments.<P>Clive, you may be correct?<P>Jim, great point and worth rethinking your comments.<P>Again, thanks ~ I will enjoy reading over the comments again in the future.