jp-images

<p>I had to replace my laptop and the new one came with Windows 8. My XT wasn't recognized and Canon had no new drivers for it. It kept saying Windows 8 had drivers native. After researching, I couldn't find a solution. Then it hit me. I changed the connection type on the camera from <strong>PC Connection to Print/PTP</strong> and then Windows 8 recognized it. I have been able to get it to download RAW and jpg images without a hitch. One of the solutions I found was to buy a card reader. I ordered one on Amazon before I thought of that and luckily I was able to cancel the order. No need to spend more money or buy a new camera or card reader.</p>

<p>Does anyone here use Paint.NET for Digital Darkroom processing? I am surprised at how extensive it is and how many plugins are available to make it more usable and all for free.<br>

I also use Gimp 2.6.111 and it works just as well and its also free.<br>

How does Adobe market Photoshop with so many free and very much user-friendly programs out there?</p>

<p>Another solution is to diversify. What you identified as your market is tourist oriented photography. Try stock photography. As in most areas, there are probably millions of subjects that stocks photography companies are screaming for. In an economy like this, stock works because corporate customers can get a similar image for much less. I hear of photographers using istockphoto pretty successfully. You may sell your image for cheaper, but you are likely to make up for that or even exceed that with volume sells. Get the book, How to Sell and Resell your Images by Rohn Engh. I think it is in its 5th Edition now. </p>

<p>Ok, not a lawyer but some things to consider.</p>

<ol>

<li>The low sum they paid would keep the case in small claims court. No lawyers needed.</li>

<li>The fact that if it goes to court, she is the filer (plaintiff) and she would pay court filing fees. </li>

<li>At best, she would get the $250 back, but not the filing fees. SMC's are usually only able to renumerate provable costs incured by the plaintiff if they even win.</li>

<li>Contracts are usually enforceable where they are signed if they had not yet been executed. They are enforceable, in some cases, where they were executed only after they had been. </li>

<li>Once more, I am not a lawyer. These concepts may be different in your state. Check with a trusted attorney. Some of this information can be verified at the SMC clerks office. Prepare to shell out at least a c-note to get that attorney consult to defend your contractual right to keep the $250. Also change the contract to not provide even a possiblility of a refund. That can be either a gentlemen's agreement or just a surprise gift to the bride if all else works out. Like a previous poster said, having that in the contract implies an obligation on your part to attempt to book that date and therefore obligate you to refund the money. If the bride gets crappy and you decide not to refund, then you would be in violation of your own contract. Deciding to provide the retainer should be your personal choice and not a requirement. As written, you may be required to prove attempts to book that date. How do you prove that? Place an ad in the local paper notifying the general public that you are available? </li>

</ol>

<p>You might be better suited to use your attorney consult money to hire one to write a comprehensive contract. I only have releases and no contracts since I do not do weddings or other paid events. If so, I would send you a copy. </p>

<p>You would be surprised how many amateurs will see something a serious amateur or semi-pro or pro shoots and they will got out an emulate it and send it up to one of these sites. All just to piss off the real photographer. They can't be creative on their own so they look at what someone else is doing and then emulate them and give it away just to have their images used somewhere. The only real gratification is seeing their name and image somewhere.</p>

<p>Has anyone ever tried to use the HDR engine in Black and White?</p>

<p>I know this will likely be the minority and least popular post, but I would consider doing something else for a living. Keep photography as an intense hobby or something. I enjoy photography and always dreamed of getting that one good, million dollar shot. So I set out every weekend and day off I had trying to do just that. It became a second least favorite job. I put the camera in the bag and left it in the closet for while and one day, the bug hit again, now I shoot purely for the fun of it and if I get that million dollar shot, great, if not.. so what.. I have fun shooting the camera. I may take the NYIP course just to enhance my skills and further the hobby. But in no way would I do it as a career move. Not on your life. I work in surgery and I love it. I grab the dlsr and shoot whatever is available and I love it too.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to see all those 50's model vehicles and take pictures of the average Cuban citizen and get a real idea of what living in a third world communist state would be like. Hope you take some hi-cap SD cards with you.</p>

<p>I find this ironic, CNN, the organization that has no problems with trampling other freedoms is reporting this story about infringments on the freedom of the press. Even Carrie Prejean has the right to freedom of expression yet CNN has not recognized that. You don't have to agree with anything anyone says. But to ridicule one, you risk the rights of all, including your own. I believe in the free press for one and all, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and all the newspapers. All in all, when you trample the rights of the press, you set a dangerous precedence. Remember Nazi Germany, Remember Cold War Russia, Remember Modern Day Russia, Look at North Korea. All fine examples of a tightly controlled media. </p>

<p>I would do more street if there wasn't such a stigma. Sometimes, the activist side of me wants to just to set the record straight. Kind of makes a man wanna create a fake Press Pass or ID just to show people and ease their narrow minds some....no advocating it, just understanding it...</p>

<p>When Dorothea Lange took the picture of the Migrant Mother, the story was the Depression and Dust Bowl. You can see the anguish on the mom's face. You can see the despair and desire to rise above. When Rothstein took the photograph of the man and his two kids running to get inside from a dust storm, the story is how the land has been punished and how the earth is punishing back. You can also ask the one question I have never heard anyone ask, Why did the father leave the younger of the two sons behind? These photographs have al become iconic of the Dirty Thirties and were even useful in getting the plight of the Southern Plains told to the East Coasters. All photos tell a story, the real question is, is the story even interesting?</p><p><b>Image removed. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos that are not yours.</b>

<p>I can't imagine why a regime would think it prudent to kill its own civilians. Every tyrrant that ever perpetuated such atrocities have been toppled. When will people realize tyranny fails. I, too, agree that these images should be shown. Obviously the images of the tortured and slaughtered Jews and gypsies from the 1940's did not deter tyrrany. It is likely these too will not deter tyrrany. Look at Darfur. But at least now, these folks, tortured, slaughtered and nearly wiped out will be remembered - even if we do not know their names. They will also get some semblence of justice, even if their torturers get better toilets.</p>

<p>If I can weigh in, I would suggest not doing photography as a career at all. I would go to medical school or law school or some other BS career school and make your money doing something else and keep photography as a hobby. This way you can use your other career to take holidays away and go visit places like Yellowstone or Africa and go on photography safaris and come back with really excellent images and it will all be fun. If you take on photography as a career, it will cease to be fun and you will spend more time on the administrative side of things and not nearly as much time behind the lense. Just my $0.02 worth.</p>

<div></div>

<p>LOL, I didnt. I don't know what happened to the rest. What I meant was that PS has not really evolved much other than the newer User Interface. Yes, some features were improved and some added, but all in all, you still can not enlarge a jpeg file very much without artifacts. Color enhancing and white balancing isnt nearly as seamless in PS as it is in Gimp. You have to download actions for these in PS and these aren't nearly as accurate. Gimp's features as very spot on and it is free. I just think that for the price, Photoshop certainly should have improved it far more than it has. A sleek GUI is nothing without a real motor under the hood. I downloaded PSCS4 and was severely disappointed in it. No more new features that CS3 doesn't have. If I was going to pay that much cash to get the registered version, I would be pissed to find out that a free photo editing software was available that did everything PS does and more! And it does a lot of these things natively so you don't have to create or download actions or scripts the way you do with Photoshop. </p>

<p>I have been a Photoshop user since CS. I have also dabbled with Elements since 3. In all that, I have n

oticed that the G