tomwatt

<p>If you dig back into your photo history, you'll like recall that the early military photographers were assisted by the military explosives experts, because of the funky chemistry in use.<br>

If you start mixing chemicals, you can make a real, nasty mess fast (recalling the times the building had to be evacuated because someone playing with their chemistry released cyanide gas, or the potential disaster from 50+ gallons of concentrated stop bath the lab used to have on hand).<br>

Awareness and proper caution is always a good plan.<br>

Going overboard and over-reacting is not.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>As Salvador wrote, to a certain extent a computer is just a computer... over the years I have watched some brands come and go, some brands go from bad to great to bad again. And operating systems do the same. I have watched my students crash both MACs and PCs with equal ease.<br>

Personally, I marvel at the way the free market and competition struggle to sort through the winners/losers in a fast-paced hi-tech development curve.<br>

I have used workstations only for the past decade+ with good success. Better parts, better build, but bigger price tag. Unfortunately, like onions and underwear, some parts of a machine are just generic, and it's not always possible to have really great components without paying a big premium. For the most part, it seems like the best way to fly is to do a partial build of your own machine... get a chassis with the processor and motherboard you desire, and build up from there. Many of today's machines barely even require a screwdriver - if you can plug in a lamp, you can build up a machine. Although laptops not so much.<br>

Operating system? I'm still steamed that Desqview didn't survive the tussle. I really liked DesqviewX - stable multitasking on an i386 machine that could run Windows in a window, and didn't blink when Windows crashed.</p>

<p>Excellent sleuthing Justin!<br>

I love the LoC... great resource (and already paid for).<br>

The Polk image is a Brady d'type but granted, without contacting the library staff, the most detail you'll find is "pre-1992" copy negative listed for most of these. (database info listed at MARC record link associated with the image)</p>

<p>Definitely go for some kind of waterproofing... bag, case or something.<br>

The thing about winter conditions, as opposed to heavy rain, is the water isn't liquid, and doesn't penetrate into the camera so easily.<br>

I lost a film Minolta to shooting in a rainstorm that way. It just wasn't the same after that, regardless of all the cleaning, drying and such in the aftermath.</p>

<p>Library of Congress has a portrait photograph of James Buchanan taken iirc while he was president.<br>

I suspect that might have been the "first" sitting president "photograph" although Lincoln certainly had several photographs taken... but then the camera and images became popularly accepted around that time.<br>

As far as grammar goes, given that the site has international visitors, some of whom have issues writing in English, maybe it would be gentlemanly to correct without rebuke? Unless you were unclear on the intended meaning? My foreign language skills really stumble around in the dark when it comes to attempts to express myself; as a result I tend to be less critical of others so long as their meaning comes through.</p>

<p>In preferential order:<br>

<strong>EF 24-70mm f2.8 L</strong> - more than half my images are made using this lens.<br>

<strong>EF 100mm f2.8 Macro</strong> - although in hindsight, I wish I'd gotten the 180mmL instead<br>

<strong>EF 135mm f2.0 L</strong> - a nice size for walking around and shooting<br>

<strong>EF 17-40 mm f4 L</strong> - on a 5D makes for nice "get the whole landscape in frame" situations.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Haley, to be able to take acceptable photos and get decent prints of them is a process... a lot of learning, understanding of the use of the equipment and pure trial and error are involved.<br>

There is no substitute for the experience, and the only way to get it is to shoot. 100 images a week for a while is a good place to start... eventually you'll get there.<br>

As far as making prints, you can always invest in a printer. At least that's my preference. Immediate gratification and all that. But it comes at a cost. You pay for all your mistakes, and sometimes learn the hard way. But if you have images that are of low resolution, there is no way to create a higher resolution out of that... you can't invent data out of thin air unfortunately. A digital drawback.<br>

A class might help (but this is coming from someone who is a faculty member, so it's natural that I see that as an answer), in that you not only get instruction, you also associate with others who are trying to do the same thing. Can cover a lot of ground quickly that way.</p>

<p>One way you could subtly address this is to make certain you have some nice, glossy, glare-prone glass over everything noteworthy. Flash bounce will kill most of the photographers' results.<br>

If you're trying to protect original ideas from theft, you're probably fighting a lost cause. Even Raphael used to sneak into the Sistine Chapel late at night - to steal ideas. You cannot copyright ideas, only the execution.</p>

<p>As I read through this, I keep coming back to an oddity... it seems Haley that you are primarily interested in making prints of your wedding photos, no? And the ones you are trying to print from the D90 you have from the disc your wedding photographer supplied?<br>

It seems clear to me that your photographer provided you a set of photos for online viewing/sharing, but not a set for print output. And that you need to either arrange for a print package from the photographer or purchase the higher-res images for print output.</p>

 

<p>The neatest feature of the previously-mentioned Tenba's is the 360-degree zipper... you can remove the top flap completely, or "hinge" it at any point of your choosing. Very handy.</p>

<p>It appears to work - smart filters applied per channel in LAB - for me.<br />CS4. I would recommend that you download the trial version and satisfy yourself that you get the appropriate results before plunking down the cash for an upgrade. But I walked through a per-channel blur for A and B, plus a smart sharpen for L. Attached is a 100% segment of an image taken with a very noisy little Canon SD P&S in dim forest-floor lighting.</p>

<p>What you describe wanting to do is a little advanced, but reasonable. LAB can create a disaster faster than anything I can think of - the equivalent of spilling an ink bottle on your drawing board. But it is also very powerful for tweaking and adjusting things that are difficult to get at otherwise. Not for the faint of heart.</p><div></div>