isaac_hopkins

<p>I've done this extensively with the Nikon 5000 ED and an 8 core Mac Pro. I can't speak to the imacron at all.<br>

Here is how I have it setup:<br>

I use NikonScan for windows XP running inside Parallels, I do a fairly generic scan profile in other words I batch it. for color slides (E6) i scan at 16 bit in batches, usually one roll at a time with the SF-210 slide feeder. I turn on MILD digital ICE and no other settings setting an AdobeRGB color profile, unless the slides are really old, then I use GEM mildly. That is it all other settings are turned off. I set the crop area to the entire sensor. I then write the files out to a folder on my mac hard drive (part of parallels setup)</p>

<p>I do all post processing in lightroom and photoshop on my mac, for each picture I usually do a crop, a white balance adjustment (if necessary) and then I sharpen. This goes quickly in Lightroom, photoshop takes a little longer. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that when you are scanning, you are really taking a picture of a picture, so I consider at least basic post processing essential. </p>

<p>I've also seen people use a slide copy lens on a full frame dslr to get something equivalent, personally I found the 5000ED to be quicker and easier, but my collection is archived in such a way that It was trivial to add 36 slides to the scanner and let it run, take 20 minutes when the scanning was finished and start over. Did this for ~10000 slides. I wasn't selling these to stock photo agencies, but for archival, so you may want / need more post processing / sharpening, all digital rules apply once you've digitized them. </p>

<p>I would expect very similar results with the IMACON</p>

<p>For my purposes the Nikon 5000ED scanner was quite good, I've had some slides scanned by noritsu scanners and the Nikon 5000ED and once basic adjustments were made in lightroom I couldn't tell the difference.</p>

<p>Isaac</p>

<p>Kingsley, <br>

A number of people have chimed in to say you need to outsource or learn, yet few have commented on how to get started learning. I've put together the list of things I tell family and friends when they complain about their digital photos. This is a quick guide intended to provide the basics and improve the quality of the digital photos. Everything here can be greatly expanded upon with better tools and more effort, but I've found that for most people that just isn't necessary. I try to get everything done 'in-camera' if I can, but that isn't always possible. </p>

<p>The shortcut to digital processing, (shouldn't take much more time than sorting slides.) There are a lot of people who will disagree with what I'm about to say. But this is aimed at an introduction to digital processing. Something to get the basics done. It leaves plenty on the table if your interests and time commitments lend themselves that way.</p>

<p>Shoot JPEG. I know there is more data in raw and can help later on, but for older computers JPEG is certainly 'good enough' If you feel you want to do more with low light situations or need to coax that last little bit, then choose to invest the time into RAW processing.</p>

<p>JPEG means in camera processing, there are a handful of picture controls that you should set on camera. I shoot lots of Velvia slide film, and like to crank up the color saturation on my D80, if you want a more neutral look you may want to leave color alone. (make sure to use sRGB for now, you can always do more later when you want to get fuller colors and want to learn about color management). I find that I leave my D80 on -2/3 exposure compensation nearly permanently. Other than that treat it like slide film, (DO NOT BLOWOUT the HIGHLIGHTS) and experiment. Today I shoot my N80 and D80 interchangeably, 300mm lens becomes a 450 on the D80. With the D80 for the really long and really wide lenses and the N80 for most all the stuff between 35mm and 300mm, and the D80 I get 10mm - 35mm and 300mm+</p>

<p>Learn to use your histogram while out shooting, the D80 has an excellent three color histogram. Pay attention to how the plot of the histogram corresponds to the images you see on screen. Generally if the peak of the lines on the histogram are shifted to far to one side or the other (the line is 'clipped') then you are overexposed or underexposed. (I use the histogram every time I change light conditions, I don't ever use the live review.)</p>

<p>If you can profile your computer screen, you should. But, you need a hardware colorimeter, often you can borrow one from someone. You really only need to do this once, or maybe once a year. If you cannot do this and find that prints don't match what is on screen this is the first place to look.</p>

<p>Download Picasa, it is free, made by google, and will run on nearly any computer. i.e. you don't need to upgrade yet. You can adjust white balance (filters), cropping, red eye reduction, and gradients. without any significant investment in time. (2 - 3 hours). These are the basics of digital editing. There are better software packages that do more, but this will get you a long way toward what you were getting with film.</p>

<p>I rarely spend more than a minute or two working on photos in the post processing stage. Mostly I am deleting junk and spending a minute or two fixing the white balance, light / dark, saturation, and cropping. I would estimate for 75 photos, I spend 30 minutes culling and cleaning up. I probably would aim for 1 great and 10 - 15 good photos and delete the rest. My 'good' and 'great' rate is twice as high on film, and ten times better on medium format. Even though I know the bias, having to pay a couple bucks per frame really makes me only snap the best photos. whereas I perceive the cost per fram to be free with digital. (I've been paying for that since I got my first digital camera)</p>

<p>Develop a workflow just as you would with film, the steps will be different, but you can improve it much more quickly on digital. i.e. shoot, download process, make adjustments to camera can be a 2 to 5 minute process. </p>

<p>Finally, if you have to spend money, get an external disk to store a copy of your photos, you can often find these for around $50 at the major retailers. I have two that I swap in and out so that I always have one at home and current and one at my office in case my house burns down.</p>

<p>Spencer,<br>

I think it depends on what you want to photograph. There are amazing rock formations, incredible vistas, loads of great mountain ranges, desert. </p>

<p>I'm sure you already know the big ones, monument valley, Grand Canyon, Arches, Death Valley. I'll throw out some others that haven't been mentioned. Channel Islands, Saguaro, White Sands, Petrified Forest, Madera Canyon, Kitt Peak, Mojave, Joshua Tree, Kings Canyon / Sequoia.</p>

<p>I would suggest going to Tucson, AZ. You can check out the Ansel Adams Collection, Madera Canyon can be phenomenal, Saguaro National Park, Many of the Missions, Mount Lemon and Kitt Peak can all be done within an hour or two drive from Tucson. My wife and I went last fall, flying into phoenix and then driving to Tucson for 3 days, 4 to 5 days would've been much better. <br>

Unfortunately many of the places on your list are just way too big to do in a couple of days, many are also ridiculously popular thus you spend a lot of time sitting in traffic. If you don't take a few days to hike the grand canyon then you've missed many of the smaller details that are equal to the grand vistas in my opinion. </p>

<p>My second bit of advice as someone who does 7 or 8 three day trips a year. Don't bite off too much. When traveling primarily for photography, I can get two things per day, with up to four hours for travel and downtime in between. That isn't much particularly if you have to hike a bit to get the really good stuff. Pick a place and then ask for 6 to 8 things in that place to photograph for a couple of hours. Look up on travel wiki, and the forums for advice. If you might want to go to Arizona, check out Arizona Highways for ideas. </p>

<p>Presumably you'll be flying. Carry all your camera gear carry on if you can. When given a choice try to do less, you'll enjoy it more. </p>

<p>Joe,</p>

<p>Back to the original question, the answer is a very strong 'it depends.' I primarily shoot hand held and print 6x9 at 11x14 generally. I've never had the pleasure of people looking at this size print with a microscope. I can say that many people find the handheld shots just as pleasing. Now over the user I've developed several techniques to help stabilize the camera to improve the shot. With that in mind I'll share a few things:</p>

<p>It doesn't matter how sharp the shot is that you didn't get. </p>

<p>You need to know your limits and the limits of your equipment. So use a couple of rolls of film to experiment. </p>

<p>In bright light you should be able to use good technique and get a very sharp image at 1/250th or better 1/125 with a faster film such as provia 400x. if you are swinging the camera around wildly then you might need 1/5ooth in the same situation.</p>

<p>Breathing, timing, stance are very important and can improve things greatly. It isn't much different than rifle shooting in this situation. If you can lay down, steady the camera against the side of a tree or top of a fence that will improve things greatly as you are getting a monopod in that situation. </p>

<p>Kneeling down so that your elbow is on your knee can help as you are getting better stabilization in one dimension that way. </p>

<p>If you know you will be hand holding use a faster film or higher ISO to get a little more shutter speed.</p>

<p>It is considerably harder to do on ultra wide (rotation) and telephoto situations (shake) ideally you would be shooting a very fast normal lens with a faster film. </p>

<p>If you think that shake might be a problem take two or three shots of a subject often times one of the three is very sharp. </p>

<p>With that being said I can only suggest that you try it out. I don't think you would be able to sell the tripod. But you might be surprised.</p>

<p>Oftentimes I've had to make do. (Not lugging around a tripod on a 14 day back country hike.) </p>

<p>You can even improvise and create a fence with a bit of rope strung between two posts or trees. </p>

<p>You can attach rope to where the tripod goes and stand on the rope with your feet. This will steady the camera (as long as it is kept taught).</p>

<p>Finally remember why you take photos in the first place. If it is only to have the sharpest photo around then get the biggest baddest tripod you can afford and never take your camera off of it. If it is for some other reason than bear in mind that a tripod is only a means to an end and oftentimes you can get acceptable shots without it. </p>

<p>Michael, There are two things you are looking for. Both are easy to test with equipment you already have. <br>

1. Field of view, what is acceptable will be dependent on how many people you want to photograph and the size of the room. <br>

2. Aperture size, do you need f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.8, f/3.5? remember that ISO 100 at f/1.4 is the same as ISO 200 at f/2, which is the same as f/2.8 at ISO 400 and f/4 at ISO 800 and F/5.6 at ISO 1600. So in terms of exposure it is easy to see how fast you need. </p>

<p>I suggest you do a little experiment. You say you already have an 18 - 200 mm that covers the range you are looking for it is just not fast enough. So set it at 20mm and take a few typical shots with flash, see if you get the perspective you want. Then set it at 35mm and see if you get the perspective you want. You can look at the exif data to see which shots you liked and that will tell you what focal length you need.</p>

<p>Now you can determine how fast a lens you need. Get a subject in a room with typical lighting and a cheap tripod. Keep adjusting your ISO with your 50mm lens and see what works. Ignore Noise, ideally you will be shooting at ISO 100 or 200 even indoors. </p>

<p>For me the difference between a 20mm and 35mm and a 50mm in a smallish room is enormous. Also thedifference in look is enormous. A 20mm is going to elongate features like noses. There is a reason that portraits are shot with the 85mm and longer lenses they are shot with.</p>

<p>Personally I invested in a good flash for indoors and some time to learn to use it. When used properly flash should look very natural and for the purposes you describe I'm very happy with the 18 - 200mm. and 35mm f/2 on a D80. Finally you can calculate field of view using the calculator found here: <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html</a></p>

<p>Nobody has really covered it yet, but I was wondering if you've scanned any of the film that you are planning to take. Not all film scans equally well. I would strongly encourage you to burn 10 rolls and work through the entire workflow before you go and tweak now. </p>

<p>Take pictures, develop pictures, scan pictures, print pictures. or if optically printing</p>

<p>Take pictures, develop pictures, print pictures.</p>

<p>Scanning brings it's own set of issues and you don't want to find out you have major problems with any part of your proposed workflow after taking 50 - 60 rolls.</p>

<p>Isaac</p>

<p>Toralf,<br>

I think you have to ask yourself why you are scanning. A flatbed may be a great way of getting an okay proof quickly, but it will never give the quality of a dedicated film scanner. In other words you could scan them all with the flatbed for speed, creating a digital index. Scan the frames you really need high quality again on your Minolta.</p>

<p>Isaac</p>

<p>@Ed<br>

On the 400, My thinking was that I might not be able to get a fast enough shutter to stop action of someone on the halfpipe. Particularly if it is overcast. Also, it is fairly likely that I will at best be able to use a monopod, but probably handheld, so I was looking for speed. My lens is relatively slow at f/5.6. Not being there, I wasn't sure if the ISO 100 was fast enough in most situations. <br>

@Brooks<br>

Thanks, I'll try metering off of the back of my hand. </p>

<p>@Ray<br>

I've shot digital before and for the most part I thought the shots came out terrific. But in digital it is easy to float between ISO 100 and ISO 400. I'm new to film and loving every roll of it but I wasn't sure if the ISO 100 slide film I've been shooting would be fast enough. I was also concerned about dynamic range, if there would be too much contrast, A problem I ran into in London on a thinly overcast (bright) day. Every single shot had a blown out sky and perfectly exposed subject but it ruined many of the pictures IMHO.<br>

<p>Mostly I'll be taking family shots. But I like the challenge of trying to setup and shoot the guys and girls in the terrain park. A lot of them like to show off and pull some nice tricks. I'm also trying to understand the difference of what looks really great in slow motion video and what looks good as a still photo. <br>

Really I'm trying to enjoy my two favorite hobbies at the same time.</p>

<p>Isaac</p>

</p>

<p>I'll be travelling out to wyoming for a ski trip and having recently upgraded to film, I wanted to try out some film photography of skiers. Specifically skiers in deep powder and in the terrain parks. I've used a Nikon D80 and 70-300mm VR lens in the past. I will probably use mostly a nikon N80, 35mm f/2 and the 70-300mm f/5.6. Light will probably be midday snow or sky backgrounds. </p>

<p>I'd love to have slides to display, but all frames will be scanned with Nikonscan and a Nikon Coolscan 5000.</p>

<p>Is ISO 200 slide film going to be too slow for this type of scene with this equipment?</p>

<p>If not, does anyone have a recommendation of a slide film?</p>

<p>Anything I should keep in mind for this? I recognize these will be contrasty scenes and was looking at shooting either the Fuji Sensia 400 H or the Provia 400X for the action shots. </p>

<p>I'm open to shooting print film if it would help me get the stop action effect I'm looking for.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help.</p>

<p>As I'm sure many others have pointed out, it is hard to say which is the better solution if we don't know what you'll be doing with it. </p>

<p>That being said I have the D80 and the 18-200. Here is what I've found:<br>

The 18-200 is a fantastic lens, if you only want one lens. It is the ultimate compromise. It isn't particularly sharp, it isn't fast and it doesn't have the best contrast. However, if you frequently shoot where you won't have multiple bodies or don't have time or can't switch lenses, I don't hesitate to use it. For example, taking one of those bus tours in london, I was so glad I had this lens, I was able to get every shot I wanted to, instantly zoom in and out, focus is fast.<br>

Pros:<br>

Big zoom range, mostly fast enough, mostly sharp enough, sensor stays clean, you don't lose the shot, fooling around with the camera.<br>

Cons:<br>

expensive, not the sharpest, not the fastest.</p>

<p>I don't think I would ever buy the tamron, mainly because I don't find 17-50 (eff27 - 75) to be that useful. My 18-200 is usually in the 135 - 200mm range or at 18mm. But that is just how I shoot.<br>

For my money, I'd take the 70-300mm VR and the 35mm dx together over either of these lenses, and I'd put them on a D40 or D5000 not the D90. </p>

<p>-Isaac</p>

<p>I know you asked about ACR, I'm not sure how lightroom and ACR interact - or if they do. In lightroom if I have a file1.nef and file1.jpg in the same folder, it actually does this for me when I import to the lightroom catalog. I'll see a file1 RAW+JPG with the develop settings already tweaked. I'm not even suggesting you use lightroom, just saying that it looks like this is a problem Adobe have already solved. You might contact Adobe directly and see if they have any suggestions. It actually even does this with my Nikon Scan files, so I don't think it is reading camera info out of the Exif, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>--Isaac </p>

<p>Thomas, <br>

I would argue that it isn't fair to argue artisan vs technician. You cannot be an artisan without being somewhat of a technician. You can however be a technician without being an artisan. You can't sculpt, draw, compose, write, or photograph without some technical capability. <br>

<em>"It would seem that 2 individuals who set up on a tripod with similar lighting & vantage, and then use </em><em> </em><em>similar settings would get essentially similar photographs."</em><br>

In This scenario there is not much room left for artistry, as the time, place, lighting, and vantage point have already been chosen. All of those things are decisions that the artisan has to decide. This is where photography is different than other mediums. Photographers have to go out and find their images, or create them in the studio, but your above scenario doesn't seem to allow for that. I would also expect that a room full of high school art students could come up with many different interpretations of a scene, despite having all of the above choices decided for them. </p>

<p>So if you're asking if 'artisans' simply pull the shutter, then the answer is no, that is the technician part. Artisan's decide the time, place, lens, exposure, vantage point, subject, film, paper, etc. Technicians clean the lens, put the camera on the tripod, unload the bag, load the film. Both are required.</p>

<p>Even an event like the Olympics 100 meter race can produce fairly different images based on the photographer. Even with the same view, time, place, etc. Timing of a particular shot can be hugely important. What is the emotion captured? determination? focus? fear? excitement? All of these can flash through a runners face in just a second or two. which runner did you focus on? the winner? the second place finisher? One of the reasons there are 800 cameras down in those pits is that there are so many different pictures to take, and you might only have one second to take them all.</p>

<p>To answer your OT, "what difference would the artistic sentiment & vision brought by one photographer bring to a photograph that the lack of sentiment & vision would hinder?"<br>

The lack of sentiment and vision would hinder everything about the photograph. Instead of provocative and touching it would probably be a flat muddled mess. Everyone gets lucky once and awhile though. </p>

<p>My photography club recently did a project. Each member chose one subject, we then took a photo of that subject each day for a week. The photos turned out excellent, the photographers learned a lot. I couldn't believe the variety in the shots. Same subject, same photographer tremendous variation.</p>

<p>I would like to congratulate the OP and posters to sticking with it and exploring the topic. In many forums this would've degraded into a flame war. The OP admitted that the OT was intended to be provocative and that his thinking is confused on what constitutes a 'great artist.' Perhaps for him photography has produced no great artists. But I disagree, I think Photography in the last 100 years has produced AT LEAST as many 'great artists' as painting or sculpture.<br>

<br /><br>

I found it interesting that the OP brought up scientific method, because it was so clearly not used. Instead of hypothesizing what traits make up a great artists, the OP seemed to come up with a couple of great painters and then tried to think of comparable Photographers. The OP seems to meander toward this idea he kind of has about what a great artist might be. But he never quite gets there. He has some examples of great artists But his examples don't really follow from his ideas on what a great artists might be.</p>

<p>I'll summarize what I've gleaned of the OP's ideas on great artists.<br>

1. "Communicates strong sentiment to the viewer"<br>

2. "completely dedicated to a search for manners of visually communicating their innermost feelings and artistic ideas"<br>

3. "decades of that pursuit and difficulty of recognition, eventually ostracizing them from their social communities and artistic communities"<br>

4. "despair and loss of confidence"<br>

5. "treatment of mental hospitals"<br>

6. "incredible suffering in the name of art"<br>

7. "communicated the essence of life, it's beauty and ugly aspects"<br>

8. "unexpected and ground breaking manner"<br>

9. "interrogate the soul of the viewer"<br>

10. "dedicated in their intentions"<br>

11. causes viewers to be "seized with uncontrolled emotions"<br>

12. "Intensity of creative process, requiring days and days of intense thought and experimental iteration"<br>

13. "reject the commisions and try to express my inner self and issues"<br>

14. "profound intent" </p>

<p>Or in my own words the romantic ideal of a great artists is a deeply talented, tortured soul who is inwardly directed and hostile to commercial intent, capable of producing dramatic works, but is also a dramatic work.</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly reject this notion. If I listed my own traits of a great artist they would be:<br>

A. Creates profound, emotionally vivid works, 'Touches the soul' of the viewer/listener. (Obviously)<br>

B. Master of his craft. (Back to the roots of the word 'artisan') evidenced by continually produced great work.<br>

C. Transcends the primary medium. </p>

<p>I think 'C' is the part that makes good artists, great. A great artist needs to be able to touch more than just people who would observe the art anyway. To use a sports analogy, Michael Jordan isn't a 'great athlete' because he set records in basketball. He is great because he got people to pay attention to the sport of basketball, he was an ambassador for sports. A 'great artist' must become an ambassador for art. One doesn't have to be alive to do this. </p>

<p>IMHO great works of art only require 'A'. Great artists meet all three criteria. While an artists personal experience, charisma, ability to overcome rejection and mental instability may produce great rewards with respect to 'C', it isn't a requirement. Personally, I've never been touched by a painting the way I've been touched by a photograph. For me, music, photography and poetry are much more likely to touch my soul. But just because I personally have never been "seized with uncontrolled emotion" while looking at a Van Gogh, doesn't mean he isn't a great artist. </p>

<p>Honestly, Ansel Adams has managed to touch me in a way that few paintings can. It is a personal thing. For me, Ansel can convey the emotions I feel when I'm in a place like Yosemite Valley, looking at "God's art." He is also one of the most well known and well liked (by non photographers too) out there. Many of his pictures took many months to conceive and shoot. Others only seconds. His technical skill and mastery were very good. Do I think he is the best photographer ever? No. But I think his artistry was sufficient to put him in the conversation with Van Gogh or Munch.</p>

<p>I think that many people overlook many of the creative aspects of photography. By first lumping all photography together, two by overlooking the subtlety and skill present. Many landscape photographers for example might be driving someplace and say, that is a great shot, I'd like to shoot that after a snowfall, or in the autumn. They do their planning and setup, visualizing the image many months ahead. Other times there are fleeting moments and we rush to capture them. </p>

<p>Many 'art world' types, IMHO, are unwilling to consider art that was created for commercial purposes. Yet many sports photographers have an uncanny ability to capture the intensity and determination of an Olympic event. Too many people say, but I see the intensity in the runner too, I could've taken that photograph. But seeing and capturing the intensity are two completely different things. </p>

<p>If you've read this far, I hope I've been able to provide some clarity. Personally I have been taught that most things are self evident, but frequently, I'm too impatient to look at the evidence. </p>

<p > </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Phil,<br>

When Burning, I've found much better success making an .iso disc image first and then burning and finalizing that image to the dvd. You'll have to look up how to do that with your software. You do not need to do the whole process twice, just the final burn from iso twice to get two copies. Quality of blank dvd's can vary quite a bit. You may have a bad batch. Or it may be that you have a bum dvd reader. </p>

<p>To answer your questions more directly. . .</p>

<p>DVD when appropriate precautions are taken, can be an appropriate media, however there are many caveats.</p>

<p>There should be no difference in dragging a folder vs dragging individual files. However, I would not recommend dragging and dropping using the windows explorer interface. I would recommend building a project in roxio. </p>

<p>Do you know that your DVD writer can write ok? and can read OK? Do you know that the DVD's you are using perform acceptably with the particular writer you have? </p>

<p>This is one area where windows tries to be everything to everybody, and in doing so has failed to make this an easy project.</p>

<p>Since I think it is relevant here I'll explain the backup solution I use. After years and years, and many failed restores, what I've settled on is a backup solution where i have three external drives. One firewire, and two usb. They are all the same size. I store all of my pictures on the firewire drive, and that is where I edit them in lightroom. On a mac, I use cron to synchronize one usb to my firewire drive nightly. This protects me against drive failure. Once a week or so, I take the USB drive at home to work with me, store it in a file cabinet, and bring the other one home, it will then be synchronized to the firewire. It leaves me with a copy in at least two locations all the time. It is constantly updated and verified. It is in the same directory structure as my 'live' drive, so if I need to restore something I know right where to go. It is universal, I can access these files on any computer any time. Costs are not very much, as large usb disks are quite cheap. <br>

This setup protects against these things:<br>

failed hard drive, I never lose more than one day of work due to hard drive failure.<br>

Catastrophic environmental disaster. If there is a fire, or a tornado, or a flood, There is always an offsite copy with everything current to within one week. Everything short of a nuclear disaster.<br>

It protects me for up to one week against computer virus' as they can't possibly infect something that isn't plugged in.<br>

It is easy to manage, I don't have to fool around with individual disks. and worry about which picture is on which one.</p>

<p>Once I configure the computer to synchronize my picture folders nightly, all I have to do, is remember to change the two usb disks out regularly. I could actually do this every night, but I am lazy, and once a week suffices.</p>

<p>Over the years I've used just about every dvd burning program with numerous drives, and numerous programs. Though many do I no longer used DVD as an archival medium. Blank DVD's seem to vary quite a bit by quality particularly long term archival applications. I've had many that failed to read properly after 3 - 5 years. I was never perfect in how I stored them, i.e. I might've left doors open where they might get exposed to sunlight, and I might not have kept them at a uniform temperature and humidity.<br>

<p>On the other hand I know many people who do use DVD and it seems to work well for them. I suggest burning the same content to two discs made by two manufacturers. You can tell the manufacturer by looking on the clear plastic part at the center of the spindle. The name brands may be different but that doesn't mean the manufacturer is.</p>

</p>

<p>Dara,</p>

<p>I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, I strongly suggest you find a local lawyer to advise you of the law. </p>

<p>I don't know what your contract says, but I would think that you are still obligated to shoot the wedding, until you receive written notice from the signer of the original contract. The terms or your contract will tell you what needs to happen. </p>

<p>I would think that if you've only received a verbal response from mom and then don't show up at the wedding, then you could be sued for breech of contract as the contract was with the daughter. I wouldn't consider verbal notification from someone I don't have a contract with to be notice of termination. </p>

<p>Good Luck,</p>

<p>Isaac</p>

<p>Even if you don't fly and drive, I would STRONGLY suggest renting an appropriate vehicle. Years ago, I broke an axle on a car outside of Jackson, WY. It took 3 days to get the parts and repaired. With a rental, if you have insurance, you can usually just get a replacement and be on your way.</p>

<p>my .02</p>

<p>Isaac</p>

<p>I use a D80, and I generally carry two lenses with me. the 35/2 and the 18-200, for pretty much the same situations. If you want to shoot basketball you will probably need something faster than the 18-200, and longer than the 35/2 the 105, may work, though it could be a touch too long. depends on how close you want to get I guess. </p>

<p>I'm curious what made you choose the D300. given that you seem to suggest you are strictly amateur, I'd recomend the D90 with the 18-200mm. should be about the same as the D300. <br>

I haven't found any substantial differences between my D80 and the D300 when I've borrowed one. </p>

<p>In good light, and if you are willing to accept the minor limitations, the 18-200 is fantastic for an all around lens. </p>

<p>I don't think you will be disappointed whichever way you go.</p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

Projectorcentral.com has a lot of reviews. There are subtle differences between the images, but resolution is probably more critical.

How you are going to be using the projector is probably more important.

Is it only for displaying photos? or will it double as a presentation projector? movie projector?

Will it be used in a darkened room? or in a public place with fluorescent lighting?

Is it going to be permanently mounted? or will it move around?

The brighter the environment the more lumen's you need in the projector.

Otherwise modern projectors are all pretty good. Mounting issues, as well as other issues like portability. are probably more important than any particular model.

I've used Epson, Panasonic, and Sanyo projector's all have worked very well. Resolution, mounting issues, frame ratio, lumen output, price, and reliability are all important issues.