mikemason

<p>Two top-end graphics cards are total overkill. Get a single, mid-range modern card such as the GTX 560 or 570. It will do fine.</p>

<p>Spend more on a large solid state drive. Get a 240GB drive such as the Intel 320 series. The Intel actually comes in a 300GB version, which is a great size and Intel are highly reliable drives. If you're using Lightroom or Photoshop, make sure to configure 'scratch' space on the SSD. Install all software on the SSD. With 300GB, you might be able to get your photos on their, if not, programs like Lightroom let you split the library/catalog (needs speed) from the raw photos (doesn't need speed). So get a 2TB spindle drive as well.</p>

<p>24GB of ram is pretty ridiculous. 8GB would be fine, 12 if you're feeling fruity, and 16 as absolute maximum.</p>

<p>You don't need a top of the line power supply. Get an 800W modular supply.</p>

<p>Your CPU is out of date. You want a Sandy Bridge. I would suggest an i7 2600. Don't bother with overclocking, it's just expensive and you don't need it. You can get a cheaper motherboard too, maybe spend $150 or so.</p>

<p>Put the saved money into better monitors, paid-for copies of software, that kind of thing.</p>

<p>If you're just trying to get your family to buy you a gaming rig, you have an awesome build. Except for the CPU, which is out of date.</p>

<p>I wonder how many of those 20 buyers actually want the lens. If I saw an item listed at $250 below the going rate and was confident I could resell it, I might well buy it. The OP has realised he's about to give $250 away to a smart reseller and wants to change his mind. Nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p>As a legitimate buyer who wanted that lens, I'd be thrilled to have $250 knocked off the price. I also wouldn't be terribly upset if the seller withdrew his offer and told me he'd realised it was underpriced. I might even offer more money straight away. Those 20 people recognize a bargain. </p>

<p>I have a Nikon D80. I'd like a meter that doesn't behave quite as erratically (blowing out highlights just because there's anything dark in the scene anywhere, for example). The irritating thing is this is just a firmware fix!</p>

<p>In terms of a hardware change to the D80, I'd like a couple of stops more sensitivity, as I often find myself wishing for more depth of field.</p>

<p>Sounds like I want a D90... I'm holding on for the D90 replacement, though, the D80 is fine as long as I babysit the exposure compensation.</p>

<p>C X, I understand where you're coming from. I'm a computer nerd for a living and this definitely makes me more comfortable with the gear side of things than the artistic side. As someone else said, if buying a new camera will invigorate you and you understand that it's only temporary, and it's not putting you or your family in the poor house, it's not the end of the world. Buy a new camera if it makes you happy.</p>

<p>Two suggestions. First, if you don't currently own an f/1.8 lens, get one now. Canon sells a 50mm f/1.8 "plastic fantastic" for $100 and the wide aperture will open up new creative opportunities for you, not to mention low-light shooting in museums etc.</p>

<p>Secondly, as someone else suggested, get a compact take-everywhere camera. I have an S90 for this but you can use anything. I'd suggest something like an A1100 -- has all the usual modes a photographer would really want and is about $200. Take it with you everywhere. When something catches your eye, spend the 30 seconds to take a shot. If you find yourself with time to kill, waiting for the bus or whatever, and you don't see an image, force yourself to <em>make</em> an image.</p>

<p>Finally I want to point out that full-frame is not a panacea. If you want to shoot wider on your XT you can get a 10-22 lens (and soon an 8-16 from Sigma). Full-frame will provide about one stop of ISO and some image quality improvement, but <strong>only</strong> if you are printing huge <strong>and</strong> everything else about your technique is impeccable. For the vast majority of shooters crop sensor cameras are cheaper, lighter and just as good. There are a lot of people being taken in by the allure of full-frame -- don't become one of the people posting on here complaining that their $4k setup isn't doing what they want!</p>

<p>Haha! I love the Eagle/Stars and Stripes comp but yes, we are Canadian.</p>

<p>This has been a really useful exercise for me -- I'm seeing many more elements in the original image after having folks express their opinions. I agree that the brown spot in front is distracting and I think a tighter crop is probably the way to go.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your suggestions and edits!</p>

<p>Hi everyone, thank you so much for your comments and wonderful edits!</p>

<p>I think I'm leaning towards a monochrome rendering because the colors, as Jeremy noted, don't add that much to the image. The blue area top-right is actually Mum's sweater and I did have a go cloning it out too. I'm not that great with Photoshop (Elements) and I can tell that I've cloned something out -- maybe that's just because I know it was there but it certainly bugs me.</p>

<p>In future, taking a little more time over the image, I'd make sure to remove distracting background elements and shoot the image a little cleaner (maybe with better light so I don't have to use ISO 800 -- acceptable but somewhat noisy on my 3yr old camera). I'm very happy with how this exercise turned out, thanks again for your input everyone!</p><div></div>

<p>Our second baby arrived and I am shooting away trying to get some good stuff. She was asleep on a nice little cushion so I took a few frames. This one is shot on my D80 with the 35mm AF-S at f/2.5, 1/60th, ISO 800. I am reasonably happy with the composition -- perhaps I should have used my 50mm instead of the 35mm for a little more background isolation.</p>

<p>My question is how YOU would process this image. I shot RAW and processed in Lightroom. I adjusted the white balance slightly warmer than it really should be, she looked a little blue otherwise. I spot-healed a couple of blemishes and applied a touch of negative clarity. I cropped slightly and applied a small post-crop vignette. I left the noise reduction sliders at their defaults. Overall I haven't done anything drastic, I've just gone for a "nice" rendering of the photo. It feels fine but a little middle-of-the-road. I'm interested in how other people might interpret the image. Maybe a black and white conversion? Maybe more of a "glow" effect? Maybe more punch to the colors?</p>

<p>Here is the<a href="http://mikeandmichelle.ca/raw/MikeMason-DSC_0277.NEF"> original RAW file</a> (8MB) if you're interested in processing from the original, and here's a <a href="http://mikeandmichelle.ca/raw/MikeMason-DSC_0277.jpg">high-resolution jpeg</a> (400KB) if you're not into the raw conversion thing. Neither have any edits applied.</p>

<p><strong>Edit:</strong> Of course, if the image totally doesn't work for you and you think I could improve the shot in the first place, I'm very happy to hear that kind of critique too! Thanks!</p><div></div>

Crumpler do really nice non-camera-baggy camera bags. I have a five and six million dollar home and they're both great.

Get a fun color other than black for exta effect.

<p>Rocky - you've had great responses here from seasoned pro's and I think I can only add two things. First, I think your work is above average for a first timer's "rate my shoot" photography. I'm always pleased when someone posts work this good as a first effort. I thought your shots were technically well done and pretty decent, although the veteran response has been "yeah yeah, too much wide-open shooting, not enough story" so I have learned something here myself.</p>

<p>The aspect I found lacking was any full-on passion between the couple. There were lots of "cute" shots but nothing hinting at more. This might be your direction, or the couple not being comfortable, but I'd suggest adding a few PG rated kiss shots. David Wegwart's suggested patter might get you this.</p>

A tip for the person using xcopy: there is a newer tool called robocopy that can do incremental backups and even deal

with renamed or deleted files. Free, from Microsoft.

I also use CrashPlan to back up between machines in my house, but then my photo collection is only 150gb or so.

Crashplan can back up online to a friend's computer too, and you can "seed" the backup by taking a hard drive over to

them physically. After that it's just incrementals going across the Internet.

<p>The Nikon D80 won't make use of a card faster than 10MB/sec, it's limited by its internal electronics. Rob Galbraith's <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8531">D80 test page</a> has more detail. I have some Sandisk Ultra IV cards that are somewhat wasted on the camera since they can go faster.</p>

<p>Class 2 is very slow so if you're shooting fast you'll fill the buffer and have to wait for the card to write. With a fast card I regularly fill the buffer and have to chill out, but your shooting style might be more considered than mine.</p>

<p>Since you have bought 8GB cards with plenty of space I would recommend using RAW+JPEG normal. You can use the jpegs for now and when you are more comfortable with a raw processing program in future you can re-process your best shots from raw and get a little more out of them.</p>

<p>You might want to change cards at certain points during the wedding even if they are not full. That way, even if a card goes bad, you have images on the other cards that are safe. I've never had a card go bad, but I just shoot for fun.</p>

<p>Whilst "cramming more pixels" into a particular sized sensor will make noise and IQ worse, everyone seems to be assuming that the pixels are the same pixels. But they're not. Canon has moved to "gapless micro lenses" (whatever the heck that means) with this particular camera. So in some cases in order to get better high ISO performance you also have to upgrade to however many pixels they're cramming onto the sensor. Could they put less pixels on the sensor and get even better performance? Sure, absolutely, but the assertion "more pixels on the sensor means worse pixels" is not always true.</p>

<p>Eric, if you're looking to use your Nikon speedlights with a portable then you're looking at a different use case to me. I wanted a go-everywhere camera with quality that didn't totally suck and I'm willing to put up with a couple of (quite minor actually) foibles to achieve that.</p>

<p>If you are buying a Mac, please please please don't pay the Apple tax on the memory. Buy a machine with 2GB, throw away the memory and install new memory yourself for a fraction of the cost. Installing memory is really really easy and there is no way Apple should get away with how much extra they charge. Same with hard drives, just buy whatever 320GB option they give you as a system drive, then add your own drives for storage and scratch space.</p>

<p>The graphics card will also make little difference for your purposes, since you aren't running games on the machine. Just get any old card and you'll save yourself some cash.</p>

<p>Canon has not only made an affordable 18 megapixel camera, they've expanded the base ISO to 6400. Regardless whether resolution or low light performance is important to you, Nikon does appear to be falling behind. If neither of those things is that important, Nikon's 12MP/3200 ISO cameras should be fine.</p>

<p>I'm still using a D80. I'd like better high-ISO performance and a meter that doesn't blow out people's faces in contrasty scenes, but even at 10 megapixels it's more resolution than I need. Unfortunately I'd only just bought the D80 when the D90 was announced, so I'm waiting on a D90 replacement before I upgrade. If Canon's apparent market lead causes Nikon to push out a 12 - 15 MP, ISO 6400 DX format body, I'd love it and be thankful to Canon.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned they were hoping for a Nikon LX3/S90 competitor. Why wait? Just buy the non-Nikon brand. I have an S90 and am very happy with it. The controls are fine (better on the Canon than any other compact, in my opinion) and the lens is fixed, so brand is unimportant.</p>

<p>The S90 is a go-everywhere camera, the G11 is too big (for me) to carry everywhere. If I'm going on a planned photo mission I take the SLR.</p>

<p>I've been pleasantly surprised with the S90. IQ up to ISO 800 is very nice. It seems to be about in the same category, noise-wise, as my nearly three-year old D80. That's quite an accomplishment (or maybe an indictment of the D80!)</p>

<p>Since the S90 and G11 have the same sensor, you're really choosing between them based on form factor. If a G11 is portable enough you should choose it -- the controls are better and the lens maybe a little sharper. If you desire a take-everywhere camera then go for the S90.</p>

<p>Sharpness looks less than wonderful, hard to see on a web sized image.</p>

<p>Honestly with that much cloud movement I'd guess you're taking too long to take the shots. Are you touching the camera in order to change exposure compensation? Try setting your camera to automatically bracket at -2/0/+2 and then use a remote to take the 3 shots in quick succession. You'll have much less cloud movement and if you avoid touching the camera at all, much better sharpness.</p>

<p>Some cameras can even be set to fire off the bracketed sequence with one "go" command from a remote. I'm not sure if my camera (Nikon D80) does, I just use the standard 3-shot bracketing and hit the remote three times in quick succession.</p>

I think the store has given you crummy service and you should push

them to do better. If they refuse, buy the external drive - you need

backups anyhow.

Some stuff does Indeed run faster on a Mac. OS X has superior Unix

virtual memory management, it thrashes less I find. win7 is catching

up, but I still prefer the feel of the Mac. mac was also first to offload

graphics compute to the GPU allowing faster Photoshop effects like

previewing a filter full screen. Windows has this now too, but it was a

Mac exclusive for quite a while.

Much as I love to hate Windows, Win7 seems pretty decent and Mac

not quite worth the price premium.

<p><em>Photographers are so good with photoshop you cant believe half of what you see.</em></p>

<p>In this competition you are required to submit original RAW files, as well as your finished image, so that the judges can see how far you have manipulated the image.</p>

<p><em>It's misleading to imply that full frame bodies have <strong>no</strong> advantage over APS-C sensor bodies though.</em></p>

<p>I fully admit that full-frame sensors have advantages over crop sensor cameras, advantages that you outlined very well. I said "please stop spreading FUD" because I object to the assertion that crop sensor cameras imply someone is not a professional.</p>

<p>The way this thread has been taken over with discussion of sensor formats, field of view, compression/distance, etc, shows you just how easily us photo nerds like to get into a techie discussion. This kind of thing really has no place in trying to convince the buying public that they need a pro photographer instead of an amateur. Steve Harris put a lot of time into his article, there's some great content there, and I really just wanted to give a little nudge towards the non-camera-nerd aspects of his piece. Good editing is as important in writing as it is in photography.</p>

<p>@Steve Harris:</p>

<p>It's great that you took the time to write an article like that, but I think dwelling on equipment and technical details is the wrong thing to do.</p>

<p>You're incorrect about APS-C versus full-frame cameras. Please stop spreading the full-frame FUD. There are plenty of professionals using the smaller, lighter cameras and there are APS-C bodies built ruggedly enough for professional use. There are plenty of wealthy amateurs wandering around with full-frame bodies, f/1.2 primes and f/2.8 zooms -- just check the Canon or Nikon forums for a daily post from someone who wants blow $5k on a system.</p>

<p>If your article is aimed at non-photographers the amount of technical detail will just make people's eyes glaze over. You should focus on key points. Capability of equipment is <em>likely </em>to be much better when using a professional photographer. They will have backup gear for if something goes wrong. A professional will have experience of finding the best shots and knowing when and what to shoot. Post production to make images pop. Liability insurance, etc etc. These are the points that you should emphasize; I think multiple paragraphs of gear-head stuff that only photographers will understand misses the mark.</p>

<p>I have the D80 and the 50mm 1.8, as well as the 35 1.8 AF-S. I've not found much difference in sharpness between the lenses but find both need to be closed down to f/2.8 for "killer" sharpness. I find both are great even at f/1.8 if the subject is a few feet away and you have some latitude in depth of field. For a close-up portrait I'd want more DOF leeway. 50mm on the D80 at f/2.0 with the subject two feet away gives you only a third of an inch.</p>

<p>Is the shot RAW or Jpeg? I find my D80 gets noisier and softer at or above ISO 800. Processing from RAW definitely helps. Auto-ISO is fantastic -- for this kind of a shot I'd have had the camera set to auto ISO with minimum shutter speed of 1/100th.</p>

<p>For studio work you can even use a cheap zoom stopped down and enough flash lighting to keep the ISOs low. The 18-55 at f/5.6 should be pretty decent. I love using my 50mm at about f/11 with flash through an umbrella, gets me a really detailed close-up Schoeller style portrait.</p>

<p>If you're using Photoshop CS4 with a graphics card that supports OpenGL some features will be GPU accelerated. <a href="http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405745.html">This page</a> lists the features -- looks like some of them you <em>only</em> get if you have a compatible GPU. <a href="http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html">This page</a> also has a general overview of GPU acceleration in Photoshop.</p>

<p>You'll be fine on a decent laptop with 4 gigs of ram and a dual-core processor. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>B&W with minor tweaks to the default greyscale mix, cropped to remove her hands (does this now look weird with his but not hers?) highlight recovery, black point raised a tad, contrast and clarity boosted, sharpened her eyes.</p>

<p>I think I still want to do something with her hair but I'm not sure what. Maybe sharpen it a little too.</p>

<p>Edit: I played with a vignette but it made her arms look different shades. There's no vignette on my image and her arms <em>still</em> look different shades. I might try to fix that somehow too.</p>

<div></div>