aldrich

<p>Hi All,</p>

<p>I've mentioned around here that I switched to Mac about 6 weeks ago. I recently discovered a bit of a pickle. All of our business cards and our website feature the font "B650-Deco" found in Printmaster. From what I can see, the font does not come with Printmaster for Mac, and I am unable to find it. I'm hoping someone here knows how I could use it on Mac. Not looking forward to changing the font, I've received many compliments on it.</p>

<p>Any help is appreciated. Thanks!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>My wife and I will be visiting New Orleans for the first time this coming Friday 12/11 through 12/14. We know all the popular tourist attractions to see, but I'd like to venture out to some lesser known spots in the area that are worthy of some shots. Does anyone know of anywhere? We will be staying at Harrah's Casino and will likely be on foot, but may have transportation at times.</p>

<p>Thanks for any tips,</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>P.S. While areas still in devastation from Hurricane Katrina are of interest, I'd like to consider other areas first. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks Rebecca. Currently my wife and I share a 2 TB external linked through our N+ router for wireless backup of photos and music. I use a 320GB passport drive as a Time Machine on my iMac for additional backup of my own photos, music and documents. My wife uses her own 250 GB passport drive as a Time Machine on her MacBook Pro.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Hi D.B.,</p>

<p>Did the permission repair, then verified the disk to check for repairs. Amazingly, four volumes were missing (again, I've only had this computer for a month). I restarted from the install disk and repaired the disk successfully, and now everything seems to be working fine.</p>

<p>Is this a common occurrence with Mac? I made the switch to avoid this kind of thing...guess I'm just cursed no matter what I use. :-)</p>

<p>Thanks again for your help! Hopefully this problem won't happen again.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I just switched from PC to Mac a month ago. All was well until suddenly my copy of Photoshop CS4 stopped opening PSD's, DNG's or NEF's...when I try to open any of those file formats, the program freezes and I need to do a "force quit." JPG's still open and save perfectly, but I shoot RAW and work off of DNG's, plus I have quite a few NEF's from the last month that still need to be converted.</p>

<p>Has anyone else encountered this? Google searches have not brought a solution. I've also tried resetting the settings upon launching the program by holding opt/command/shift while launching.</p>

<p>Running a 20" iMac (March 2009 version) 2.66 GhZ Intel Core2 Duo, 2 GB 1066 MhZ DDR3 RAM, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard.</p>

<p>Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you all so much!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>It's been nearly four months...I bought a house and had to get used to all the yardwork and the like. </p>

<p>I'll share a shot from a couple months back since I'm so backlogged now. Good to be back everyone! Great work!</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Crystal,</p>

<p>You need to calibrate your monitor most likely. My new iMac is nicely calibrated. I never could get my HP notebook's monitor right...even with a Huey. I always had to remember to make it look over-exposed on the screen to have it look good on paper.</p>

<p>To go along with what Alec said...before you question the lab, you must question your own setup first...a Huey will make a major difference, it's well worth the financial hit.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>The simple way to look at any lens in the future, Mike, is basically as such:</p>

<p>If you see two apertures on the lens, be it 3.5 - 5.6, 4 - 5.6, or whatever, it is as our colleagues described above so well. The larger aperture coincides with the widest angle on the lens, while the smaller aperture coincides with the telephoto end.</p>

<p>If you see only one aperture, i.e. 70-200mm f/2.8, you can safely assume that all focal lengths of that zoom lens can be used at f/2.8. This is usually preferred, and usually more expensive too.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>To paraphrase:</p>

<p>Grinder, Sub, Hoagie, PoBoy, Torpedo...or?</p>

<p>Doesn't matter, until you actually pick one, at which point you defend it like you invented it.</p>

<p>Example: It's a grinder. Subs aren't the same. Hoagies taste funny. Torpedos are for wimps who just talk about their food instead of eating it. Grinder. End of story. :-)</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>I have yet to find a useful photo app...now, when PN has an app...good comments will come, I'm sure :-)</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Jodi,</p>

<p>Wow...Thanks to Andrew for that catch. It was very late when I posted that...I should know better that the 16-85 is DX...sorry about that :-(.</p>

<p>All I could suggest would be the 12-24 or 14-24 but they're far more expensive...I think you'd go over your $3000 then...</p>

<p>Jodi,</p>

<p>My suggestion for your $3000:</p>

<p>Nikon D90 (<strong>Body Only</strong>): $1000<br />Nikon SB-600 flash unit: $250 ($1250 total)<br />Nikon 50/1.8 AF-D: $150 ($1400)<br />Nikon 70-300 VR: $700 ($2100)<br />Nikon 16-85 VR: $650 ($2750)<br />Remaining $250 for filters, software, a bag to hold all this gear (and then some!), or other hodgepodge.</p>

<p>This gives you all focal lengths from 16-300 covered with the 50/1.8 as a fast/low-light lens. All lenses are fully functional on the camera, and the SB-600 is a versatile flash unit that can be wirelessly controlled off-camera with a D90. Also, they're all Nikon products. Practically guaranteed compatibilty for future bodies.</p>

<p>Don't waste money on the kit lens, it's DX only. All the lenses above are full-frame (FX) lenses, so two or three years from now if you want to go full-frame (FX), you won't have to replace a lens, hence you can just buy body-only yet again, saving you money for even more toys!</p>

<p>Good luck to you!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Sunil,</p>

<p>Hard to follow Shun and Lex, the masters of Nikon knowledge and wisdom in perpetuity throughout the universe! All I will say is that the 50/1.4 AF-S works flawlessly on my D60, my brother-in-law's D40, and on a local colleague's D700. If I had to choose between the 35/1.8 and the 50/1.4, I would still take the 50/1.4. The trade-off for DX use is the need for extra room betweeen you and your subject for things like full-body shots. The benefit is you are covered if you go FX down the line. It is my cornballish prediction that eventually, DX sensors will be no longer, hence why I sold my DX lenses (except kit lenses) and have only full-framers now. This is in part because I plan on obtaining a D700 soon, but I really do feel that as technology progresses, DX sensors will go the way of APS film. We'll see though...but I'm very happy with my choice of the 50/1.4 AF-S. It delayed my getting a D700 by another few months, but you know the old saying of bodies vs. lenses...</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Service catalogs - We print them ourselves with color laser HP.<br />Xmas cards, Thank You cards and the like - we custom-create them in Photoshop and order them from Costco.<br />Business Cards - Mail-ordered from Staples.<br />Client Prints - Depends on size and finish desired.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Hi again,</p>

<p>I just found what I was looking for. It appears the price of a new one has jumped to $449...a refurb with kit lens is $374.99.</p>

<p>I'm going to say get the refurb, just make sure it's in perfect working order inside those 90 days. You can use the $75 you save on something like an SB-400 flash, a filter or two, or use it for gas money to drive around taking pictures with your new DSLR!</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Meem,</p>

<p>Perhaps I am searching wrong, but I do not see any refurbs on Adorama. What is the price? I believe you can get a brand new D40 for around $425 at Adorama...if the refurb is $375 or more, I say it's worth the extra $$ to get it brand new. Less than $375? Jump at it and either way, enjoy it!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>One of the downfalls of posting earlier in the day is that there are so many more to comment on later and I can't get to them all! But I'd like to say that <strong>Don Harper's </strong>shot is very patriotic and touching. Thanks for sharing, Don!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Hi there!</p>

<p>A regular at PN, but my first post in the Sports forum. This may belong in the business forum, but I figure sports photographers know sports business, so here goes.</p>

<p>Could anyone give me some advice on getting some business from local schools in my area? A couple years back when working in Massachusetts, a co-worker was also a high-school cheerleading coach and gave me a gig shooting the team portrait and individual portraits of the girls in uniform. It was a blast and they loved my work. Unfortunately, I have left the area and work and live in southern Connecticut, plus the mother/cheerleading coach has moved on and is no longer involved with the sport in Massachusetts.</p>

<p>Obviously, I do have the shots from the 2007 cheerleaders. What else would be helpful in trying to land some work in school sports? I'm looking for either a contract to cover sports for a year, or even just one team for one school. Something to supplement the weddings and occasional portraits in my part-time photo business venture.</p>

<p>Happy to provide any additional info on request. Thanks for any advice!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>To <strong>Sanford Dickerson:</strong></p>

<p>If you e-mail me your photo, I will be happy to do whatever I need to so your shot makes it to the thread today (giving you full credit of course). Then I will give you a step by step on whatever might be wrong so you can do it successfully next week and on! Don't give up just yet, we're here to help our fellow photographers!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Wednesday again already? YAY!</p>

<p>Everyone has fantastic shots this week! Some of those that stuck out for me are:<br />Matthew Brennan - Love the streaks of yellow on the bird, and fine detail!<br />Arash Hazeghi - I enjoy the lighting in your shot. Well done!<br />Richard Armstrong - That's just plain cute!<br />Elliot Bernstein - Great action shot!<br />Colin Mangan - Definitely some smoke innuendo I see there :-)<br />Sanford Gerald - Very detailed and ugly chompers :-)<br />Looking forward to seeing the rest of the day's submissions. Excellent work everyone!</p>

<p>This week I'm sharing a shot from a recent wedding. The bride's son was hamming it up a bit for me while the groom was getting dressed.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p><div></div>

<p>I would have had the same information, but as an addendum, it's a shame Nikon took commander mode out of the D40...with it's superior 1/500 flash sync, it would have been a real advantage even today over a D90, with the relatively insignificant matter of resolution put aside.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>I think many are confused by noise. Especially at ISO 800 and up, the D80 has significantly more noise, IMHO. Many confuse noise with sharpness.</p>

<p>FWIW, I think our D90 handily defeats our D60, and both are newer image technology than the D80.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>I'm with Steve Robb. I'm always filling the viewfinder with a gorgeous shot, and when I hear "I'll take an 8x10." I choke on air. I leave room all around.</p>

<p>I think the D60 is 95% coverage. As long as I am always thinking "possible 8x10" I do OK.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p><div></div>

<p>I have 10'x20' (3mx6m). I start at ceiling level and extend out about 10 feet from wall...subjects stand about 6-8 feet from wall. Works for me.</p>

<p>If you are doing headshots only, the smaller piece you describe is more than adequate.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>