john_w.1

<p>Congratulations Noah, I'm 1.5 years ahead of you, and thats a nice set of equipment. I have a little over half of that equipment, and its done some great services for me. <br>

"Live each year so that when you get old you can relive all the years and enjoy them again." -<em>Unknown </em> (Not sure where I heard that)<br>

Happy Birthday and enjoy all that equipment!<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>Yes, it is a Pentium 4. I was looking at some computers and saw that some of them had about a 2.6GHz processor with 2 to 4 GB of RAM. This made me start thinking about upgrading the memory in mine and save the money for a new computer, and maybe put it towards more lenses or something.<br>

Thanks for all the help!<br>

-John</p>

<p>Patrick, I see what you mean. That looks awful compared to what it looked like when I followed the instructions in Robert's link.<br>

-John</p>

<p>Also, there seem to be <em>billions</em> of colors with velvia that don't seem to be there with digital, although it can look similar.<br>

Here is one of the few shots that I have gotten to look like Velvia.<br>

If this doesn't look right due to the 8-bit JPEG, I will post a TIFF file.</p>

<p>WB: 4700k<br>

Shadows: 15<br>

Contrast: +50<br>

Saturation: +40</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the advise. I got to looking at the computer I am currently using, and found that it has a 2.6GHz processor, 250Mb RAM, and 20GB hard drive! No wonder it works slow! A friend of mine that has a business upgraded his system and gave me 2 of the older computers sevral years ago, and this is one of them.<br>

So, since it has a decent processor, should I just increase the RAM and the hard drive?</p>

<p>The only software that I use all the time for image processing, is Adobe Photoshop and Bridge, and sometimes I use Proshow Gold, which has no Mac version. So changing to Mac wouldn't be that big of a loss.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>I first thought that these were digital, but the more I look at them, the more they look like film. From the colors, I'd say they were probably Fujichrome Velvia, or Fujichrome provia. That look is so hard to get with digital. I'm not a portrait photographer, but I have, on rare occasion, gotten that look with digital. The way I did it was; in adobe camera raw, I put the shadow around 20, the contrast around +50, and the saturation at about +25 to +45. For outdoors, I set the white balance from 4600k to 5300k.<em> </em> On the camera, I use an enhancing filter along with a polarizer.<br>

Hope that helps. If you would like, I could post one of the few shots that came out looking like that 'look' to see if that is similar.<br>

Good luck!<br>

-Jon</p>

<p>I am needing a upgrade in computers. I currently run Windows XP professional, and would like to stay with PC. I use Adobe Photoshop CS2 (probably upgrading soon also) to process 16MB/16bit/10.2MP RAW files from my camera, I sometimes merge 4-12 images together for a panoramic and save them as TIFF. So, my biggest file size is around 200-300MB.<br>

Now, I know nothing about the insides of a computer, and the only part I can name and point out is the power supply. :-) I do understand about RAM, CPU, and hard drive though.<br>

So question 1) Should I stay with XP or get a computer with Vista? I hear that Vista has quite a few problems.</p>

<p>2)What brand? I'm not partial to any brand really, but I want a consistent smooth quick working computer with not very much down time.</p>

<p>What size processor? How much RAM?</p>

<p>I have a Western Digital 250GB passport that I store all my images on, and I really wouldn't want to load up a computer with thousands of images and no way to take them with me somewhere!</p>

<p>By the way, I don't really want a laptop. They're small and portable, but I can't stand the screens on them. The screens don't seem very consistant, and the brightness seems to very depending on the angle I look at it.</p>

<p>I'm open to all suggestions.<br>

Thanks for the help (in advance)!<br>

-Jon</p>

I have a K10d and K100d super, and the difference in SR is amazing. With the K10d, I can get sharper pictures without SR while hand holding it. When I turn the SR on, it makes the movement worse. With the K100d super, the SR reduces the movement.

While shooting on a tripod, I have noticed that if the subject is moving, the SR clears up the subject, and makes the background blurred. But if everything is very still, I can't see any difference at all.

So, maybe the people that wrote the manual were thinking that if the camera was on a tripod, than everything would be very still. Which, in this case, would be better to turn off SR.....to save batteries?

GREAT!! I always love the look of fujichrome. It seems that the 400F has more of a blue color. I shot 2 rolls a year ago, and haven't been able to find it cheep enough to get any more, so, I settle with Velvia 100F another fine film.

Looks great though. I don't think it needs any PS!