riley_s1

<p>Check the switch on your lens. I can't remember if that will change your exif but worth a try.</p>

<p>Shooting jpg fine on a D300, my 'shots remaining' counter reads 369. I typically get around 550-600, sometimes slightly more, on one 4 gb card.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies, everyone. The rubber body covering is moving around a bit - possibly that's the cause of the problem. Although Eric and Matt make a good point - I wouldn't mind if the front dial stuck out a bit more from the body. Anyway, I'll see if Nikon can take a look at it. Thanks again.</p>

<p>This is the strange thing - the rest of the camera is completely clean. And I don't think I'm pressing too hard - when changing the aperture I use a pretty light flicking sort of motion. I'm pretty mystified by this. Maybe just moving it around will help. Anyway, thanks.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

Recently I've noticed the sub-command dial on my D300 needs a bit more of a push than it used to - it feels like there's some dust or gunk stuck in there. Does anyone know if it's possible to clean inside? Thanks!</p>

<p>Another Canadian here as well - that part of the Youth Criminal Justice Act as far as I am aware only applies to published photos - you can take as many shots as you want of a minor charged with a crime, but you can't publish them. What city were you in?</p>

<p>I do all my editing on a laptop (an Asus that's a bit less powerful than the laptop you're looking at). It deals with pretty big raw files and large photoshop files no problem. I would definitely recommend a laptop - true, you can get a more powerful desktop for the same money as an equivalent laptop, but (for me, anyway) the freedom you get from not being always stuck at a desk is definitely a huge bonus. And anyway, anything in the $1500 realm is going to be plenty fast enough.</p>

<p>You could also tape a piece of unexposed, developed slide film over the flash - that should cut down on most of the light from the on-camera flash, while still letting through the IR light that triggers the remote flash.</p>

<p>UVic isn't a bad school...but it's not a great one either. Terrific parties, beautiful campus, lots of rabbits running around everywhere, but academically as far as I know it doesn't have the best reputation. For arts that doesn't really matter as much, as your portfolio is really going to be what counts, but you might want to take a look at what kind of work UVic art students are putting together before making a decision. Having said that, it's a terrifically fun school and in a great, friendly (and warm) part of the country.</p>

<p>Emily Carr in Vancouver's a good school, but super artsy and conceptual. If that's your thing I definitely recommend it. A lot of the students there seem to develop a similar style, so again you might want to check out what kind of work they're producing. Every year they put together a viewbook of the graduating class' work - I'm sure if you contact the school they'd send you one. Emily Carr does have excellent facilities - large colour and b&w darkrooms, lots of different equipment for students, and a pretty serious digital lab.</p>

<p>Ryerson in Toronto doesn't offer an MFA in Photography, but does have one in Documentary Studies, which (I think) can be done with either photography or film. Ryerson's one of the better photo schools in the country so I'd definitely take a look at that. Also supposed to have great facilities, though I can't say personally what they're like.</p>

<p>Concordia in Montreal has an MFA in photography. I've heard good things about the photo department, and Montreal is a fantastic city with probably the largest and most varied art scene in the country.</p>

<p>Otherwise, take a look at NSCAD in Halifax and ACAD in Calgary. Not too sure about them - Calgary isn't the best city for art, but the Halifax scene is definitely getting bigger.</p>

<p>Victoria's great in the summer, but kind of quiet. Not sure what to recommend. Definitely worth taking a day or two to visit Vancouver, which is a short ferry ride away (actually, the ferry ride is very pretty and well worth the trip by itself).</p>

<p>Good luck and hope you make it up here to the great white north.</p>

<p>Duct tape and zap straps.</p>

<p>I'd be more concerned about reliability. A Rebel is a plastic piece of junk compared to a 5D or 50d etc. and it will certainly fail before other, 'professional' cameras. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I'd feel irresponsible shooting something as important as a wedding with just a Rebel.</p>

<p>I had the exact same problem, with the same camera and operating system. From what I read, it's not uncommon for Vista to without apparent cause stop recognizing USB devices - it also stopped reading one of my external hard drives at the same time, and then my cd drive. Truly a fun time.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, after talking on the phone for a couple hours with both Microsoft and Asus (my computer manufacturer) tech support, the only solution seemed to be to reinstall Windows, which did solve the problem. I'd recommend that if nothing else works.</p>

<p>Vista blows.</p>

<p>try The Lab - they're also excellent.</p>

<p>Well, true enough, except that both parties would have to have agreed, in writing, to participate in the show. Obviously the 'judge' is completely ridiculous, and you're right that the photographer didn't get much of a chance. But that's the unfortunate thing about informed consent...you pays your money and you takes your choice.<br></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not so amused with miscarriages of justice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a TV show, not a real court. The only legal authority the 'court' can exercise exists because the parties involved have a signed agreement to abide by the arbitration (if you can call it that) provided on the show.</p>

<p>That's definitely the more important question. Try the yellow pages?</p>

<p>Quebec has different and very specific laws regarding publication of photos of identifiable people.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think there was a case in Quebec some years ago, when a street photo of a girl was used to illustrate an article about homeless people, and the girl sued and won as it misrepresented her, and in fact she was just sitting on the steps outside her house.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The case you're referring to is <em><a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html">Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa</a> </em> . To comply with the <em>Aubry</em> ruling, the Canadian Press says, for photos that will be published (if the photos are just going to sit in a shoebox, you're a lot less restricted), you must obtain permission from people who are identifiable in your photo, unless one of the following conditions applies: (I'm quoting pretty much verbatim from the 15th ed. of the CP Style Guide)</p>

<ul>

<li>The people are incidental to the picture (they're in the background or otherwise not the focus of the image)</li>

<li>The identifiable person is not the subject but is one of a group in a public place (e.g. a crowd, a protest)</li>

<li>The photo is part of coverage of a legitimate news event that the subject has a role in (e.g. a trial). If you're shooting news photos, people cannot ask you to not take their picture. Or, they can, but you don't have to listen. Of course, it's always good to be polite. </li>

<li>The subject is a public figure (e.g. the mayor, a celebrity)</li>

<li>The subject's success in his or her profession depends upon public opinion.</li>

</ul>

<p>And that's how not to get sued in Quebec. Or at least, how to not lose if you do get sued.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>More like a Five Hundred Dollar difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oops, clearly I'm blind. That price was for the D90 with a 70-300. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>

<p>Tri-X in D-76 is about as classic of a combination you can get, and gives just gorgeous tones. It tends to be a bit grainier than newer films, and in my experience reacts very nicely to higher contrast filters when printing. Fantastic stuff. Good luck.</p>

<p>How about a D300? Unless you need that extra frame-per-second and the SD card capability, the D300 is exactly the same camera, and substantially cheaper ($1319 US at KEH for a 'like new' used D300, v. $1939 for a new D300s at Adorama). At $1319 it's also only about a hundred bucks more than a new D90.</p>

<p>TL, DR.</p>

<p>If you don't have Photoshop, Picasa is free and can do <a href="http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/picasa/ss/resizemultiples.htm">batch resize</a> of whole folders.<br>

Gimp can too, but I remember it being fiendishly complicated to get the batch processing to work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I think Photoshop is making us lazy.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't really matter, does it? We're all still taking pictures one way or the other.</p>

<p>Polapremium.com sells 600 but it's ludicrously overpriced.<br>

Supposedly we should be seeing new polaroid film from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_film#Impossible_Project_Integral_film">Impossible Project </a> within the year - also going to be very expensive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is worth considering that if Tanya's business does get off the ground and expand, then fairly soon she will be in a position to buy photos from professional photographers.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Where have we heard this before? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_com_bubble">Oh yeah.</a></p>