joe_avallone

<p>Hi, I know this question was posted a while ago, but I am also interested in an opportunity to assist in shooting a wedding with an experience photographer. I would work for free as well. I am an amateur and have had a few experiences shooting in a church type setting but nothing professional. I am located in Northern NJ - Morristown area. My Equipment is listed below. Please let me know if anyone would be interested.<br>

Nikon D700, SB800, Nikon 18-35mm, Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, Nikon 50mm f1.4, Nikon 85mm f1.8</p>

Thanks everyone for the advise on my lens issue. I think I will probably try the teleconverter and see how it looks for those occasions when I need the extra reach. I know the Nikon teleconverters only work with AF-S lenses, so I am going to try either Kenko or Tamron. Any advise?

Thanks for your advise Matt. You are correct in that you need to determine your needs, priorities and expectatations. It is a question of image quality vs. convenience (carrying one lens and a teleconverter vs. carrying two large lenses).

Thanks Shun for correcting my title. Matt - I am using a Nikon D300 lens, but do want the ability to blow images up to 13 x 19 and therefore would prefer not to crop. One thing to mention is that for indoor sports, the 200mm range should be Ok, but it is really for outdoor sports that I am looking for that extra range and therefore loosing one stop of light isn't as big of a problem outside.

I own a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D lens (new version with tripod collar). I

would like a little more reach for kids sports and also like the flexibility

that a zoom gives. I would like others' opinions on whether to use a Kenko Pro

1.4 teleconverter with my existing 80-200mm f/2.8 or to just purchase another

Nikon lens such as the older 75-300mm f4/5.6 or the newer 70-300 f4/5.6 non VR

version. I mainly want to use this lens for indoor and outdoor sports. I know

that using the converter will reduce my f/2.8 lens to more of an f/4.0, change

my zoom range from 80-200mm to 112-280mm, and reduce image quality. So I guess

my question is how large is the difference in image quality between those two

options? Thanks in advance for your help.

Thanks Ellis. I know the Epson color mgt path is convoluted. I will try some of the options you gave. At this point I would be happy with something close. I thought using even an inexpensive calibrator would bring me at least close to the naked eye, but it is obviously different. I think that in the printing process it is using the color mgt system from the software as well as the printer. Thanks again.

Hi. I am new to the Apple world and so far not as happy as I thought I would be. I bought an Imac - 2 Ghz

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with Mac OS X version 10.4.10 software. I came from a PC with Windows XP

running Photoshop Elements 5.0. I am now using Iphoto '08 version 7.1 and Photoshop Elemens 4.0 for

Mac. Unfortunately I am running into a couple problems. Number one - I cannot get my prints to mirror

what is on my screen even after buying and installing a Huey calibrator. The photo's are darker and more

saturated than that on screen. I have tried using various options within the color management area, but

the same result. I went back to my PC and everything looks as it should. Also, not all paper is able to be

selected for printing, like the Epson Fine Art Paper. Lastly when I try printing out of Photoshop the paper

orientation printing is off and only part of the picture prints on the paper (at least 4x6, didn't want to

waist 8x10 or larger until I know I am not wasting it). I have seen many other issues posted and was

wondering if anyone has a solution. I tried calling Apple and Epson support and neither seem to be

familiar to this issue all though I see it posted if various forum threads. Sorry for the long message, but I

am sure you can appreciate my frustration. Thanks.

Thanks. Would you recommend staying with Windows XP vs. Vista through Dell

I know similar questions have been asked many times before, but I am looking

to purchase a new computer. I currently use a 4 year old Dell PC with

Photoshop Elements and primarily use it for Photo Editing, Organizing as well

as a home office with MS Office (Excell, Word and Outlook). My photo's are 10

MPs and are either JPEG or RAW. I have a cable modem, an Epson R2400 Printer.

 

I am considering going to an iMAC, but at $1200 (which is the top of my

range), I would only be getting 1GB of RAM, 250GB HD etc and would have

limited software options. If I stay with PC, I can get a very powerfull

machine & reload some of the same software programs.

 

I know MAC's have drastically less issues and work much more efficiently, but

you can buy a much more powerfull system and have many more software options

with PC. Please let me know your thoughts.