leif_goodwin4

Ben

I did a quick comparison of Photoshop 5.0 and a PSP of the same era (was it 6?). The main differences I saw were

a) PS is significantly faster than PSP when performing CPU intensive operations such as sharpening and gaussian blurs of large files.

b) The PS sharpening algorithm is much 'cleaner' than the PSP one. By

cleaner I mean that it seems to do a much more pleasing and less noisy job.

I am sure there are other differences as I just scratched the surface. I concluded that PS is a pro product aimed (and priced) at people for whom time is money and who need high quality output. Part of the cost comes from the time spent optimising the algorithms for speed and quality. The amateur interested in scanning and manipulating family snaps probably would not notice the difference.

Does PSP have layers and channels? That is one feature of PS that really is superb. The ability to do high pass sharpening with a channel mask really is essential for getting the most out of a slide scan.

As someone has said, PS Elements is excellent. It lacks layers but otherwise has sharpening, curves, and lots else. It has some weird features aimed at the amateur which I are supposed to make it user friendly and which I don't like. Otherwise it is PS without the pro features. Better than PSP in my opinion.

Leif

What about the system? If you continue your interest in photography,

then you will want to buy more lenses etc. Pentax have a very limited

range. Canon a very large range (as do Nikon). So on that basis

choose Canon. FYI I own Nikon kit.

Forgot to mention that you can also correct for perspective

distortion in photoshop. The book "Silver Pixels" by Tom Ang includes

an example. Just scan the image and then apply the distortion.

Assuming you have a PC and scanner of course.

It isn't just in the US that people describe scuffed items as mint.

I, a UK resident, have on several occasions driven many miles to

inspect a mint condition camera body with absolutely no marks only to

find that the article in question was well used i.e. brassed, dents

etc despite being assured on the phone that the item was spotless.

<p>

I would say that lying toads do not know national boundaries. It's a

shame.

<p>

As an aside I have sold several items myself and have been astonished

when on each occasion the buyer asked me to mail the item to them on

receipt of payment. In each case they were satisfied that I had

described the condition fairly.

I can't really argue with the sound advice you have already had.

<p>

However, one question to Canon users. I seem to remember that

reversing the lens on a Canon requires an expensive ($500)

attachment. can anyone confirm this ? Can a Canon body be attached to

a microscope ?

<p>

(I hope this does not start one of those silly Canon/Nikon wars. Both

manufacturers produce excellent equipment.)

John, go here. It will tell you all you need to know.

<p>

http://www.photo.net/neighbor/one-subcategory?id=2

<p>

(Don't know what went wrong last time.)

John, go here. It will tell you all you need to know.

<p>

<<http://www.photo.net/neighbor/one-subcategory?id=2>>

Helpful hint: Always search photo net before asking a question.

For a helpful article go here 'http://www.photo.net/photo/where-to-

buy'. I am sure there was also a page containing the purchase

experiences of hundreds of people. Sadly I can no longer find it. I

can testify that B&H is a good store with quick and honest service.

Be careful as some shops appear to be crooked.

<p>

Leif.

A recent edition of the UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' has a

review of the lens including optical tests (lines per mm as a

function of aperture and focal length for a high and low contrast

subjects). The particular sample tested gave near prime quality at

50mm, and significantly less than prime quality at 100mm and 500mm.

It also weighs a tonne (~2Kg).

<p>

(If I recall rightly the lens was supplied by Sigma, and so must have

been cherry picked.) In addition, given sample variation in zooms, I

would take the tests with a good dose of salt.

<p>

Leif.