david_george2

Check out these for more info.

http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/quality-settings.htm

Last one has actual photos shot to compare. You might be surprised.

Just remember RAW is NOT a photo image, it is computer data from the camera and has to converted for you to see it. I use Nikon Capture NX and I am starting to work on PS and Lightroom, but so far Capture NX seems much better to me, probably because the camera manufactures use proprietary codes and third party programs are having problems doing it as well.

Just some more info for the discussions as they seem endless.

The RX600 is pretty good, but I have had a couple of photos done by a friend who used a dye sub printer and they was much better. They seem to have a problem with size limitation though.

I prefer to print 8 1/2 x 11 and those do not seem to go that high.

The Epson does not seem to have the same zip to the photos and since both are using the same jpg to print I must assume that it is the printer. I like Epsons and HP's and have used them for years, but I am not totally satisfied with the inkjets. They seem to not have the detail on the edges and since they show up with the dye sup I must assume that it is the way the photos are printed.

Really just looking for info right now.

I am currently using an epson RX600 with pretty good results, but not the

quality I am looking for in the near future. I have looked into the dye sub

printers with mixed results from the reviews. Any good suggestions on a moderate

budget, spending most of my money on new camera and lenses. Any suggestions

would be appreciated.

I do not know if this will help or not. I get my B&W out of photoshop 7.0.1 by going to Image,mode change to grayscale and this will removal all the color attributes and allows you to work it as a b&W. It does limit the work you can do, but for me it works very well. Do not know about CS, never used it. You can look at the only B&W I have posted using Photoshop in my Sunrise and Sunset folder. It is rated pretty well.

Hope this does help some.

E. couple of good points, but I think you are missing my point. If someone is asking for critique and you give one, want I think is that if they cannot see how you look at things then it is much harder to understand what they mean. I may not be putting it in a way that makes it easy to understand.

example: I have a picture of pine tree at sunset. It is dark except for a few highlights. The shot I wanted. However, some people think it is bad because they only like fully light subjects. A comment to me was I did not know how to photograph nature,(from another site,also with an.ratings). I sent them a request why. I got back photos all brightly lit. They were very detailed on how I was not using light

properly. By seeing their work, I understood why they made the comments they did and could judge how they wanted me to change my work.

It has nothing to do with being better than anyone else. We all have our own style and ideas as to what is good or not. I have no problem with that, what I would like to see is how they judge the work of others and why. Some can explain it well others can't, I just think it would be helpful to know how they approach it and I think photos would help and maybe if they got critiqued also, it just might help them do a better job.

Film critic. That is as bad as my judge comparison. If we listened to film critics some of the most successful movies would have been flops. I just like the idea of two people comparing notes on how they see a subject in a photograph and how they approach it is better than one saying something and walking away.

I see that we will always see things differently on that, and that is ok, that is what makes it work.

Glad to have had the discussion. I disagree with some of your points, but others have made me want to think about it.

Thanks.

No E. I just think that if a person is unable show their work than what makes them think anyone should care what they think. Makes me wonder if they are not a point and shot person because they are scared to post, it might show that they are not as smart as they think they are? I think critique should be done by people who are willing to be critiqued also or they should not do it. If not it is very one sided and it may be someone who has no clue what they are talking about. They may have a great critique eye but just telling someone that their work is not up to their standards does not help, show them. If not then their critique is useless and meaningless. I do not want critique from someone who is too afraid to show me what they are talking about. Don't say it sucks and then run and hide like a two year old child. Show me, I may agree, I may not, but that is how people learn to respect each other and their work.

Now E for you, I do like the fact that you tell people what you think the photos need or what was good, but I still think that in some cases you could be more effective if you had an example to post with it. I have read many of yours and you seem to do it fairly unlike some others. Seems people have forgotten that if a photo needs work and a person asks for a critique they are asking for help to get better not a short sentence that says it sucks. I still think photographers are visual learners and that would be more effective, thats all. Just my opinion, not a critique.

I am fairly new here and have noticed the very quick response of the 3/3 raters. I put up 3 in the last 24 hrs and with 20 seconds they had 3/3s. I really don't care. Personal opinion is personal opinion. My question is why does it show no views but 3/3 ratings. I must be missing something, can you rate without viewing the photos? I love the critiques as I shot professionally for years in the tech area and I need alot of work in the creative area. I have no problem with personal opinions, but I do think that anyone who critiques should be required to have posted their own work. It would help in seeing where they are coming from, other than that it is just an opinion and if they are telling you how you should take the photo, maybe they should being willing to show they know what they are talking about.

It is a critique not an opinion. Opinions should be rated and critques should be limited to posters who have work for others to see. This allows us to rate the critique as being valid and not, ratings I do not care about. Just my opinion.

Definition Webster online:

critique

n 1: an essay or article that gives a critical evaluation

2: a serious examination and judgment of something;

v : appraise critically;

How can one evaluate, examine and judge or appraise without knowing something about the subject and being able to prove it? Would not want to go before a judge who had never judged or even read the law. Get your house appraised by someone who cannot read or write.

Critique, post and prove you know what you are talking about, other than that rate because your critique is meanless. Seems simple to me.

Maybe I am too new here?

Max, Just a thought. My brother has had cannon cameras his whole life and I have used Nikon professionally starting 1972. We both now shoot digitally. Seems to us, that with similiar settings and lenses, it comes down to the photographer.

You will get different opinions, but most are just that opinions and may not be set in fact, but they do have merit. I did change some of the defaults on my D50 and he changed them on his cannon. It is hard to compare unless like us we shot the same subject at the same time and then argue about which is better. I am a firm beliver that Nikon ed glass is much better than cannon and yesterday he agreed after blowing up some pictures. Some will agree some won't.

He does not post photos anywhere. Says he does have time (retired from GM).

Samantha, I used to shoot weddings for a living and then on the side of my commercial photo business. I shot with Nikon F, F2a and F4. I recently purchased a D50. Even though I had not shot for a few years it only took a couple of weeks and a couple thousand shots to get into the digital groove. If he is computer literate, the cost is almost nothing unless he prints.

First question, does he still have his film cameras or does he want a digital slr?

Second, does he have lenses that will fit a dslr?

Third, is it for you later and if he has lenses would he let you use them or let you buy them?

If he has a Cannon set up and lenses, consider a cannon. They make good cameras .

If he has Nikon, consider the D50, D70 and maybe the D80. My older AF nikkor lenses work great with the D50, some focus slower but quality is good. I am biased to Nikon, made my living with them.

He may surprise you, I never thought I would sell some of my Nikon sets and go digital, but now I am shooting alot more and enjoying shooting again. Alot less work and equipment to carry.

Just my opinion