michaeljlawson

<p>Don't think of it as "Looking Better" on the LCD. When shooting RAW, think of the LCD image as a potential result after processing the image, if you use the same settings as the ones Canon applies by default in the Camera. If you use Canon's DPP program, these settings will be applied to your RAW image as a starting point. If you use Adobe, no settings are applied by default, and you have to choose how to process them, but the same result and potentially better results than the LCD screen image are a possibility depending on your processing techniques.</p>

<p>Mendel, I think it's more likely at this point an infection on your PC that is hijacking the photo.net ads. Try going to http://www.malwarebytes.org/ and click on the "Download Free Version" button on the left. Run a full scan and see if it picks up anything, this great little program finds a lot of ad-ware stuff that Norton doesn't register as an actual virus.</p>

<p>The xxx@photography.com address just forwards to whatever address you have set up on your photo.net personal information page but if you set up a contact form at imagepro, it uses the email address you put in the imagepro site info page. See Jin's response here: http://www.photo.net/imagepro-help-forum/00Tzox for more info on possible issues. It is currently working for me.</p>

<p>If you upload it after you comment it will stay in the thread, keeping it relevant for future use. I am guessing that if you link it from your gallery, then decide to remove that photo from your gallery or change it, the thread will contain a bad link and may lose it's usefulness for future viewers of that thread.</p>

<p>Morton Arboretum is right down the street from where I work and a great place to go. Many of my wildlife shots and landscapes were taken on the grounds at Fermilab in Batavia: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/visiting/index.html </p>

<p>If price isn't a primary consideration, I would go with the 600mm and a 1.4x extender. Get better reach and IQ than your 100-400 with the 2x, and retain the 2x when needed. With the 5DMII you can user higher ISOs. Is the one stop advantage of the 2.8 going to make that much difference for you and your type of photography?</p>

<p>EDIT: I see Scott has similar thoughts, but beat me to the submit button.</p>

<p>Thanks for the update Josh.</p>

<p>Thanks for the correction Lex. Being a wildlife "natural light" with occasional fill flash kind of guy, I knew I should have held back on this one. That's what I get for having a slow day at work and believing what I read. Makes more sense now that you fill in the details.</p>

<p>The Strobists ( http://strobist.blogspot.com/ ) recommends kits like these: http://www.mpex.com/page.htm?PG=Strobist%20Kits , and they also sell backdrops http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/2,510.html. I have not personally used any of their equipment, but have heard nothing but good things about them on the web.</p>

<p>Christa, a few Amazon stores appear to have some, but you can get an XSi from B&H cheaper (649.95) than a new XTI (699.00) on Amazon (and the XSI has a better kit lens).</p>

<p>On KEH the 6.3MP Rebel is selling for about 175.00-200.00 depending on condition, so don't offer more than that. They also offer a 10D in the same condition for 275.00. Do you know the person selling it? Any condition guaranty? If you buy from KEH you have a reputable dealer to work with, will you have the same options with this person?</p>

<p>Hello, It appears that at some point you have set the image caption to appear by default under an image when you view it larger. Is there anyway to make this an option or for me to turn it off on my ImagePro site? I have frames with titles on my images, and the caption don't always match. Will I have to go and re-caption all my photo.net pics and re-import them to ImagePro, or am I missing the switch where I can simply turn this off?<br /> Thanks, Michael.</p>

<p>You mean like Canon 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4(s)? That fit's your current range at f4. You say you know they have a couple, but not a whole line...how many do they need?</p>

<p>Correcting under exposed images can cause this, but so can a lot of other post processing changes. A sample that has nothing done to it other than being converted from RAW to JPG and re-sized for upload would help us help you.</p>

<p>Any reason why you aren't considering repairing the Tamron 28-75, or replacing it with another one if it's not cost effective for you to repair it? I ask as it's one of the next lenses on my "to buy" list. Do you miss the wide end that the 17-xx gives you? Did the Tamron 28-75 lack in providing acceptable image quality. Price wise it falls right between the other two you are considering.<br>

If I had to choose between the two you are looking at I would go with the Tamron 17-50 for the f2.8. It's why I want the Tamron 28-75, I find myself in many low light situations where f2.8 would make the difference of getting a shot or walking away empty handed.</p>

<p>True James, the eyes to fall into the cross-hairs of the thirds, and the tip of the nose does fall across what would be the lower line of the image if you drew the lines for the thirds. Maybe that's why it works even though the subject itself is centered.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's one from my collection that is a fan favorite. It breaks all the rules of composition, subject is centered, no fancy angled crops, but it tends to illicit a reaction of fun\laughter\smiles. In my opinion because it gets that emotional responce from so many people, the photo works, even though it breaks the rules.</p><div></div>

<p>Sure they could. It's all about price and available market for such a lens. They already have a 24-70 f2.8 (no IS) and a 24-105 f4 with IS, and a 70-200 f2.8 with IS. Canon's site lists them at about 1350.00, 1250.00, and 2000.00 USD respectively. I could only guess where such a lens would fall, but you get the idea.</p>

<p>There is a "request name change" link in the top right section of your my workspace page.</p>

<p>I previously posted this question last weekend in the Imagepro forum, but only got one response so I'm hoping someone here might know more. I am trying to customize the CSS code for my ImagePRO site. I have the fonts changed on all the tabs the way I want except for the tab that is currently active. I can't get the font or the font size to behave like the non-active tabs. I believe I am altering the correct section of CSS code, as I have added an underline to the text of the active tab, and it shows up. Anyone have an idea how to get the active tab to recognize the font changes like the other tabs have? My site is <a rel="nofollow" href="http://michaeljlawson.photography.com/" target="_blank">http://michaeljlawson.photography.com</a> if you want to see what I am talking about. The biggest problem is that in some browsers (like ie7) the link name shortens when the font size changes, causing links to shift around and messing with the menu bar layout.<br>

Also I would like to over-ride\remove the 2 tone blue jpg file that sits behind the top row of the nav bar. I have used Firebug in Firefox to find where the code that creates both of these things exist, and if I disable them temporarily in firebug I can get it to behave exactly as I want, but no luck in finding out how to make it happen with the custom CSS options in Imagpro. Thanks, Michael.</p>

<p>Still working on mine but you can check it out here: http://imagepro.photography.com/michaeljlawson </p>

<p>Another member also started a thread about Image Pro sites in the Image Pro forum if you want to check it out here: http://www.photo.net/imagepro-help-forum/00Tt5U</p>

<p>No obvious interview questionnaire that I can see. Must be in the download somewhere? All the links on the right go to mailboxes, the links on the left go to other websites, click on the "On-Line" version of the magazine and I'm still forced to download a PDF...I gave up.</p>

<p>When I flew SouthWest about a year ago they let me take my tripod in a cary on, but their website said no mono-pods. I suppose it's easier to use a monopod as a weapon. Best to call your airline to verify, they seem to follow different rules. If I were to do it again after some of the thing's I've read, I wouldn't try to carry it on. To much of a hassle since you never know if the TSA agent feels like letting you pass or putting you through the cavity check because of it.</p>

<p>Hello Stephen. I would start with the "Learning" tab at the top of the page and choose your subject (in this case Macro). Here is the direct page link: http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/ , then let us know specifically what information you still need.</p>

<p>Thanks Bob</p>