dakotah_jackson

In working on individual images on the computer I am trying to figure out a few

things. One is the sharpening. I work on the image, resize, crop, brightness and

whatnot and then have the sharpening options. The intended repository is the

CD/DVD for storage and to transport the files to the lab for printing.

 

Since the photo lab will be printing them do I sharpen them before putting them

on CD/DVD or do I put them on with no sharpening and the photo lab does it?

 

I think I am better doing it so all the lab does is size it and maybe apply

whatever small sharpening they may need for the print size chosen. In trying to

talk with the photo lab types in our area most are not photographers but machine

operators with little photo knowledge. It seems to me that leaving decision

making to them may be counterproductive.

 

Is there a preferred method for doing this? Am I better doing everything I need

to the image and then saving as TIFF/Jpeg in 'final form' so the only thing the

labs need to do is small setup tweaks for their print machinery?

Am looking at upgrading printers and the Fuji Pictrography 4500n, Epson 4800 and

HP Z3100 all come into play here as possible candidates for the larger prints I

want to do.

 

Using the makers Glossy papers does anyone know of a comparison or info site

that gives the cost per 8x10 or 11x14 print from these printers? I am taking

into account 'normal' paper costs at a solid supplier plus the ink/material cost

to make a final print... assuming you don't keep having to do it over because of

glitches. Just the cost in materials/inks and not the cost initial/amortized

cost of the printer.

 

A site reference or link with this type of info and comparison is always welcome.

"go to your local camera store and try it out"

 

What great advice. It is only a 5 hour drive (good weather) to the nearest camera store that has Canon gear. They don't have much in stock but 'can order what you want'. Given that method of getting lenses and bodies I can order it myself from NYC and pay less and still have the same level of service as I have now.

 

Not everyone lives in the city, big or small, and has access to a camera shop. Not everyone who has a nearby camera store has access to more than one copy of a lens at any time. The days of going to the camera shop and trying a half dozen copies of a lens and picking the best performer are long past for many of us or are nonexistant.

 

I have refrained from purchasing some lenses for this specific reason. I can't get to a store where they have more than one of the specific lens I am looking for. How can I check them out and find the best performer without a choice? If getting a good copy is a crapshoot I can order from the big Eastern places a lot cheaper than paying for 10 hours of driving to check it out before buying. Even sending it back is cheaper than the drive. Too bad quality control for so many products is not what it should be.

My old 1920's vintage Deardorff doesn't need futzing around with to work properly.

These are sold to be used yet we have to do makeshift shims and screw around with a product that doesn't do the job it is supposed to do. What is wrong with this picture?

 

As for the ASININE message that does not want me to use multiple questions marks as "one is enough". What kind of crap is this? The question mark police? Better you get a spell checker working than this kind of stupidity.

"A man taking videos of children in a park without any kids of his own, and not interacting with the parents? That would be someone I'd keep an eye on."

 

"He accused the photographer of using his police skills to stalk and photograph his and other peoples kids. He also spoke of computer software being able to morph childrens heads onto other bodies ect."

 

"when the father of the girl who had just been photographed caught the eye of the off duty cop, the cop beat a pretty hasty retreat."

 

The reactions speak more of paranoia and the mindset of those parents and suspicious of everyone else than of the guy with a camera.

If I can see it I can photograph it. Nothing wrong with that at all. Those who have a problem with that are the 'creepy pervs' and their minds are way below gutter level.

(Slavery was banned in 1863....)

 

Try explaining that to AP and other news organizations. Slavery is alive and well in the PJ world.

A set of ceiling strobes like we use in a High School gym will solve your problems. Big Metz 60 series flash units in the corners will put out enough bounce light even with black ceilings if you can't put up ceiling units.

Lets see... 5D, 1DMarkIII, 1DsMarkII: and you switch to a system that has NO full frame capability at all?

 

Now you can't figure out what lenses to buy and ask on this forum.

 

No one can help you other than to wait until you switch brands again and take your cameras and lenses off your hands while you look once more for the silver bullet.

This does not happen with film and real prints from negatives.

If you don't know what you are doing and you can't set up a situation to practice the techniques you want to use why are you photographing weddings?

 

"You buy a camera, you are a photographer. You buy a piano, you own a piano."

 

It takes a lot of work to do fine photography. A lot more is involved in being professional than owning gear and charging to use it.

Sell or give them the DVD with all the images and make sure each has your copyright notice on it. Each and every image with the copyright notice as part of it so that if printed it has to be worked on to remove it. Register the copyright formally with the US Copyright office and you put yourself squarely in the protected land of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act which makes it prima facie evidence of intent to commit a crime by removing the copyright notice and make prints. Then you can have the FBI give them notice while you are entitled to $10,000 per image (think that is the amount, will have to re-check as it has been awhile since I read it) in Statutory damagers when they copy or print from the images you have copyrighted. A LOT cheaper to have you print them. But, if they go ahead and remove your copyright notice and print them you can have the feds go after them all, including their lab for printing them.

 

You will make a lot more money this way than in doing normal weddings and selling prints.

Send me $15,000 and I will get you one within 24 hours. personally delivered to your door.

I don't have an access problem for them. A ton of lakes nearby where I can set up blinds, small tents, wade or boat for the photos. Am looking for info on the numbers for North Dakota and am not having much luck with the National Refuge people nor the Game and Fish guys. They all know a lot about ducks and geese and other stuff people shoot but apparently not much about non-game birds.

 

As for the chicks on the parents backs, one image attached.<div></div>

Have do do some passport photos for a bunch of people. Have a nice Epson 2400

printer to do the prints with. Will the Epson glossy photo paper withstand the

225 degree temperature the passport folks say the prints will be subjected to in

mounting?

 

I know the local shops where I have lived in the past have used Polaroids in a

dedicated camera. I don't have it but do have the digital stuff. Will it work

without problems? The passport folks I have talked to don't know much about it.

Am in the Dakotas and the attached is one of the Western Grebe 'rushing' photos

I have come up with. The sight of these guys dancing across the water pleasure

at its best, especially with the camera on hand.

 

Does anyone know how long they do this? Does it go on after nesting?

 

Then, I am in the Dakotas and am trying to find a ballpark figure on the number

of Western Grebes that come into North Dakota, where they migrate from and

whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing.<div></div>

Have some nice photos in file sized up to 9mb. Have to get them to some editors

and they say 'email them' as attachments.

 

Problem is that with the sizes I have (and that is what they want) my email

doesn't work. I have them as TIFF files and do the attachment to email thing in

the emailing program and after 45 minutes they are still 'attaching'. Same thing

an hour and a half into it. Never seems to end. I tried converting one to a jpeg

to see if it was better but even with a 1.6mb jpeg it never finished 'attaching'.

 

If I can get them to attach our computer speed is 24kbps at the fastest. Often

it hovers around 2. (two) No faster stuff available where we are.

 

Any way to get this stuff on email without taking 10 hours and having the

computer shut you off during the long times?<div></div>

If you are going to sell B&W to them I hope you aren't using the color and convert method. Real B&W is done by hand and the paper used is not RC nor the color/B&W crap that is on the market. It takes time to do it well. You choose your film and either do it yourself or work with a solid B&W lab who can produce prints worthy of the effort you put into the job.

Greg Jansen wrote: "Lately have been using the Fuji equivilent to the Kodak stuff becuase it's cheaper. Like the Kodak best."

 

If you like the Kodak film better why are you using Fuji film? "Because it is cheaper"??? is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard.

 

Use the film for the quality, not the price. You are shooting yourself in the foot with thinking like this. Use what does the finest job and charge accordingly. Get away from the $200 wedding mentality!

You have just established your worth to these guys. You will work for free and give away all you have done.

 

Two free weddings and then they do it to someone else.

 

How about they pay you for two weddings and then you give them two free ones among the next 10?

 

If they want you shooting for free they can let you do so, look at your work and see if the two of you are compatible while not selling the free work to the couple.

 

If you really think this is a good deal then I would like to buy your car. Course I want to drive it for a year free before paying...

Have a 30D and am looking at this lens for being comparable to a 70-200 on the

EOS 3. Anyone have experience with how fast it autofocus is with it compared to

the 80-200 f/2.8 Canon lens?

 

I understand Sigma quality varies so am prepared to send back for a different

one if it the first or first few aren't quite up to snuff. Same as I have had to

do with a couple Canon lenses.

 

We are located where there are no stores with a four hour or longer drive

distance so getting to a shop to try one or more than one is not in the cards.

 

Thanks in advance.

It is good of you to post this. One suggestion from a slow internet connection. Post your conclusions in writing. Having to wait more than 45 minutes for the photos to download just doesn't cut it. We don't have reliable fast internet service here and when I hit this type of post I don't look at the photos as they take way too long to download.

The Sigma camera presents an interesting package. Have been looking at it but not being able to use my Canon lenses has kept me away from it. Any chance of Sigma making it in a Canon mount in the future?

 

Would be nice to see this sensor in a much larger size for even better quality images.

 

In the testing at the website in the post above. Has the author compared them by cropping the Canon image to the exact size of the Sigma file in addition to upsizing the Sigma files?

 

I like the idea of getting more information on/in the electronic file. Keep hoping for really sharp images from the digital cameras and that has me looking at the SD14. (I am used to 8x10 and larger contact printing - that is my comparison)

Looked at the work of a few friends using 30D cameras. One shoots it in B&W mode

while the other shoots in color and converts in photoshop. They both share the

same printer and computer so that variable is pretty much taken care of though

their work habits might make a diference, don't know.

 

The prints they have produced in B&W look good but the ones shot in B&W from the

beginning appear sharper than those reduced to B&W in photoshop.

 

Is there a difference or are we seeing things?

Go to http://www.birdsasart.com and check out the information on this topic as provided and discussed by Arthur Morris, most published bird photographer around.

 

He is a Canon contract shooter and is excellent. He has taken Canon to task for not having some stuff Nikon has and is objective in his comparisons and information. Per Arthur Canon still beats Nikon in the number of fast AF lenses for use in bird photography. No contest. He leads workshops and regularly works with co-leaders who shoot Nikon gear in the field so he has hands on experience with the top gear in both systems.

 

Reality for now is that Canon is way ahead of Nikon in the number of lenses that will keep up with most birds in flight.

Checked with the lab I have used in the past about getting some prints done from

8x10 Velvia chromes. Usually do them on Ilfochrome/Cibachrome or on Fuji

Supergloss type R. (has been awhile)

 

The lab informs me they have junked ALL the enlargers and now can scan the

chromes and print digitally onto 'real photo paper'.

 

I shot these on 8x10 Velvia for a reason. I like the printing on Ciba/Ilfochrome

for its saturation. Now they can't print it as I have done for years and tell me

'no one does it that way any longer, they are all digital'. Why use the top

tools that give me the look I want just to have it screwed up with scanning and

output I am leery of? I know what I get/have got with chromes and prints. Now

there is another layer of electronics in the way and no guarantee it will give

me the quality I shot 8x10 for with these buildings/architectural work.

 

Going directly from a chrome to a print is an excellent way to work. The

original is there for reference. No technerd to 'interpret' what I want. The

saturation is there, it is obvious and printing to match the chrome in intensity

is an easy thing to do using this system. Now we put a scan in the way and all

the attendant computer junk/interpretation/baloney in the way. Sharpness is a

big concern. Why stick another layer of obfuscation in the way of a simple,

clean, sharp, saturated 30x40 to 40x60 inch print?

 

 

 

Where do I get real photos printed now?