robert_wilson11

<p>That's good but does she have a photo.net account?</p>

<p > <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10408626-36.html?tag=nl.e703">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10408626-36.html?tag=nl.e703</a></p>

 

<p><br />We've been back for about three weeks and I've nearly finished culling and cleaning up the 2,506 images we brought back. For any who may be interested, here is what I learned.</p>

<p>Regardless of skill level or equipment, Alaska is a photographer's dream. My wife with her beginner's developing interest in photography took some of our best shots with her PowerShot SD1100 IS. There was even a blind woman with her husband and guide dog in our group. It was a lesson in humility to see how obviously she relished every moment of the experience. I recommend the trip to anyone.</p>

<p>After some consideration, I decided to tote just a little more luggage and I did take all four of my lenses. Thanks to all who offered that advice. When leaving our stateroom, I would simply mount the lens best suited to our anticipated activities and leave the other three behind.</p>

<p>The 28-80 was taken as a spare only, against the possibility of some misfortune occurring to the (insubstantial seeming) 18-55. As anticipated, the 28-80 was never mounted.</p>

<p>The 100-300 was taken to shoot wildlife on one specific excursion and, without it, I would have returned without any wildlife shots at all. I could have used a better lens, but the venerable 100-300 was infinitely better than no long lens at all. Fortune smiled on us the day of the wildlife excursion with brilliant sunshine allowing fast enough shutter speeds to make hand holding the 300mm very workable.</p>

<p>The 18-55 proved to be all the good things I've read about it and more. It was the lead dog of the team and was mounted at least a majority of the time. We are both absolutely delighted with the versatility of the lens and the quality of the images it produced. I finally learned why folks use lens hoods though. I lost 20 or 30 nice shots to flare with this lens and will not shoot in sunlight without a hood again.</p>

<p>Finally, my love affair with my 28mm f/1.8 only deepened. The 28 saw almost as much use as the 18-55 and definitely produced the best images of the lot.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all who helped us to plan this absolutely wonderful trip.</p>

 

<p>No purchaser reviews at B & H ?</p>

<p>I noticed the article offered nothing in the way of an explanation for the results they claimed to have observed.</p>

<p>Might we suggest they try handholding a heavy 300mm or longer lens for, oh, say a 1/2 second or so exposure time and compare the results to those obtained with the same lens and exposure on '3.3 pound' tripod?</p>

<p>I too have lots of nice shots I couldn't have taken over the last fifteen years without my $39 light aluminum tripod.</p>

<p>Similar display for registered copy of PhotoShop Elements 6 under System Info on the Help menu. However, if the OP never registered his copy after receiving the serial number he may well be out of luck. Indeed, the fact that he's getting a license expired message may be because the software was never registered in the first place. Agree the real lesson to learn here is register your software and keep track of the serial numbers. Good luck and I hope you can locate that serial number.</p>

<p >Kevin - How clever; you win! Let me know when you start another thread. Right now I have to go finish up some work in PhotoShop.</p>

<p>I still believe that the Humpty Dumpty model most accurately describes human communications. In fact, when we use words they DO mean just what we choose them to mean. The fact that our use of language is shaped by our individual experiences means that our communications must be imperfect.</p>

<p>If our purpose is to learn from each other, it seems to me that we need to try to understand the meaning behind each others' words rather than to quibble over definitions. Being 'right' in a difference of definition doesn't help me to understand what someone else is really trying to say. In face to face conversation, don't we tend to respond with words like, "How do you mean that?" or "I'm not sure I understand; can you explain?" Perhaps we haven't the patience to type or read all the verbiage that supports spoken conversation. Perhaps our defenses are higher in these impersonal forums causing us to snatch at opportunities to score 'gotchas' against each other by finding fault when we should be looking for meaning.</p>

<p>Maybe we could learn more by trying harder to understand each other.</p>

<p>When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.</p>

<p>Time to close this one yet?</p>

<p>Kevin - I find your posts on this issue thoughtful and well reasoned. </p>

<p>I believe your windmill in this controversy is human nature itself. Lewis Carroll covered the same ground in 1871 when his Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." </p>

<p>The utility of definitions in resolving conflict depends upon the propensity of the antagonists to agree on them. With sincerity, good luck.</p>

<p>Stephen - I found the basic course here</p>

<p><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/7835975/US-Navy-Course-NAVEDTRA-14209-Photography-Basic">http://www.scribd.com/doc/7835975/US-Navy-Course-NAVEDTRA-14209-Photography-Basic</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>As with many beautiful places, there is no best time of day. The light will be changing constantly and present interesting scenes throughout the day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But if my only choice were morning or evening, I'd choose evening.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nobody has offered anything in the way of answers to either of these questions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin - As to your first question, I still believe that the answer lies in the same rational that fires the controversy over race relations: Distinction means discrimination means unfair discrimination means suffering for the distinguished. The answer to your second question seems to me intuitively obvious: The vehement oppostion to such a filter by the photoshoppers as expressed in this thread would equate to their reduced participation which would result in a financial loss by site management.</p>

<p>My comments are offered with the qualification that I cannot claim membership in the "pro-alteration camp". The way I use the term, by the way, the example you provided (like this thread itself) is very interesting and required obvious skill and vision but has little to do with photography. </p>

<p>Make an all-day excursion of taking the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway up the mountain to Mount San Jacinto State Park. Make another all-day excursion of visiting the Living Desert Wildlife & Botanical Gardens. As with many beautiful places, there is no best time of day. The light will be changing constantly and present interesting scenes throughout the day.</p>

<p>Considering the inside track that so many of the responders seem to have on metaphysical truth and for as many as have referred to Ansel Adams, has anyone actually checked with him to learn just how he feels about all this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is so offensive to the avid photoshop "artist" about the proposal of a filter or functional distinction being made available on PN for those who want it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kevin, whatever it is, I suspect it might be similar to the passions that are aroused by any notice that different folks have different ethnic heritages, religious beliefs of pigmentations of skin. Noticing a difference, to some, is the first dangerous step down the slippery slope of unfair discrimination. So the thinking might proceed: First we distinguish between photographers who use PhotoShop and those who don't and, next thing you know, we're saying those who do really aren't photographers after all! Sorry, all you manipulated images, you'll have to sit at the back of the gallery.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can't tell, what difference does it make?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After studying the entire discussion again, I see that my first response was wrong. I should have said:<br>

If you can tell, what difference does it make?<br>

No, that's not right either. Let's see, how about<br>

What difference does it make?</p>

<p>If you can't tell, what difference does it make? IMHO, art exists on two independent planes, artist and appreciator. The artist uses his medium to express himself. The appreciator finds meaning in the result. Any congruence between the two is coincidental. Think of the paintings created by primates and pachyderms and praised by human critics as masterpieces. Were the artists expressing themselves? Certainly. Did the critics find meaning in the art? Absolutely. Were the artists' expressions correctly interpreted by the critics? Not likely. If you can't tell, what difference does it make?</p>

<p>Jeff - Thanks again. Absent some compelling new revelation, I'm likely to try the Transcend cards.</p>

<p>Jeff - Thanks for the lead. I checked Amazon and found the sub $30 price was for 'bulk packaging'. While I was there, I also found the Transcend card for under $30 which is rated faster (class 6 vs class 4) than the SanDisk card. Does anyone know what the 'bulk packaging' means? Especially, does anyone have experience with the Transcend cards?</p>

<p>I've been using the SanDisk 4GB Ultra II SDHC Cards with my XSi ever since I got it a few months ago and I really like them. I'd like to get some of the 16s for my Alaska cruise in May but they're still kinda pricey (about $64 at B & H this morning). If the price doesn't relax considerably between now and then, I'll probably make do with some of the 8s instead. And thanks but, no, I'm not taking my laptop and, no, I'm not going to buy an auxiliary storage device. So, does anyone have an informed guess when the 16s might start getting cheaper?</p>

<p>Thank every one for taking the time to respond. I probably will rethink the entire proposition although I am much more likely to consider the purchase of a new, more versatile lens than to abandon my proscription against taking more than two. I remain committed to taking my sweetheart 28mm f/1.8 and to leaving behind the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 which I can't hold satisfactorily without support anyway.<br>

With that in mind, I have been looking at the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Both have IS and are priced within painful reach. I know I can't use them if I ever go full frame again but, the more I use my Rebel, the less likely that seems. I like the 17-85 for its USM, for the fact that I know that I can hold the 85 without support and it's about a hundred bucks less. I like the 18-200 for its slightly larger aperture and its longer reach although, again, I'm not sure I could hold the 200mm satisfactorily on my crop-frame Rebel without support.<br>

Sorry to be so much trouble but does anyone have any thoughts about these or any other Canon EF lenses I should consider?</p>

<p>My wife and I will embark on a cruise of the Alaskan Inside Passage in May and I plan to take my Rebel XSi. I am NOT taking my wife along on a photographic expedition; I am taking my camera along on a vacation with my wife. I expect that there will be lots of landscape opportunities, some wildlife opportunities and a great deal of walking about taking snapshots of interesting things in a place I have never been and may never return. I will not buy any new lenses for the trip and I will not take more than two.<br>

I am still undecided which two of my four lenses to take. They are:<br />Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM<br />Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS<br />Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM<br />Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM<br>

Because of its superior image quality, the versatility afforded by its relatively large aperture and its very handy size and weight, the 28mm f/1.8 is almost certain to be my first choice and may well be my walking-around lens. Conversely, because of its limited application as well as its size and weight, the 100-300mm will be left behind. My real decision lies between the 18-55 and the 28-80.<br>

Both lenses seem to me to offer about the same image quality. The 18-55 is easier to handle and I guess the IS is nice but the two factors combined don't mean as much to me as the 28-80's USM which I really like. The most important trade-off seems to me to be the focal length. (And yes, I'm considering the approximate 1.6 crop factor.)<br>

Without it, I suspect I would sorely miss the longer reach of the 28-80 whenever I have a shot at wildlife opportunities. On the other hand, I have a nagging worry that I might regret not having the wider angle of the 18-55 for the anticipated dramatic scenery. But I'm leaning toward taking the 28mm f/1.8 and the 28-80mm anyway.<br>

The 28mm f/1.8 would be on the camera most of the time and would be used for most of the landscape shots. When wildlife or other long length opportunities are anticipated, the 28-80 would be worn. If landscape opportunities arise while the zoom lens is mounted, the short end of the 28-80 would still be available. Besides, the handy little 28mm f/1.8 in its protective case could probably be slipped into my daypack in case it's really needed.<br>

It seems to me that the superior image quality of the 28mm f/1.8 would be more important than the wider perspective of the 18-55, even for landscapes. I can't ever remember looking at a great landscape photograph and wondering how much better it might have looked if only it had been shot with a wider perspective lens. I recall reading that most of the world's great photographs, and I assume that includes landscapes, have been taken with normal prime lenses.<br>

So thanks for letting me think in print. Any comments will be welcome.</p>

<p>Sarah - Like Bill and JDM, I keep separate cards for each camera and, like JDM, I rename the files after they're copied to the PC. But instead of ImageBrowser I like a slick little freeware program called ReNamer. ReNamer has a very intuitive GUI that lets you build sophisticated sets of rules to rename groups of files about any way you can think of. ReNamer also lets you save the rule sets to be used again and again. I have a set of rules defined to rename the files from each of our three cameras. If you want to try ReNamer Google will find it for you.</p>

<p>Robert - I'm taking my EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens to Alaska in a few months so I've been trying to test its capabilities (as well as my own). It just happens that I shot the attached a few days ago. It's not a great picture but it WAS taken at 55mm with the lens in question. The railed walkway on the other side of the lake is about 500 yd away. Taken at 55mm, ISO: 200, f/16, 1/90 sec. hope this helps.</p><div></div>

<p>Les - Thanks for the tip about using ICE in Fine mode rather than GEM; I'll try it.<br>

Vinh - Thanks for your informed response about the availability of reasonably priced, good quality point and shoot cameras. I did not mean to imply that there is direct positive correlation between camera price and image quality; if you inferred that from what I said, I apologize. The point I really wanted to make, and I stand by it, is 'if you want good pictures, use a good camera'. <br />And your point about finding a photo finisher who maintains their machines and chemicals is well taken. Unfortunately, I didn't do that with my wedding pictures. Those precious images were fading away in my archives and if I had delayed scanning them long enough, they could have been unrecoverable. So I'll stand by my other point as well: If you're planning on digitizing your film archive, don't procrastinate.</p>