ted_raper1

<p>In general, prime lenses do give better results than zooms, mostly because they are less complicated and easier to make quality-wise. In particular, since you are using Nikon equipment, the autofocus 50mm 1.8 prime is generally regarded as one of Nikon's best lenses. On your D60, the effective focal length will be around 75mm, which is probably not wide enough for street photos and just long enough for portraits. There are always other focal lengths - 20MM wide, 85mm, etc that would better suit your street/portrait needs. Primes are generally faster than zooms as well (larger max apertures) which enables photos in lower light.</p>

<p>Sounds like a focus issue to me - the D60 won't fire the shutter if you have it set to AF and it can't lock focus for whatever reason. Try manual focus and see what happens.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Tamron 90 2.8 (newest version). It's an incredibly sharp lens, a true 1:1 macro. The autofocus tends to hunt a lot, at least on my Nikon D200, but who uses autofocus for macro anyway? Last time I checked they could be had new for around $450.</p>

<p>I agree with Mark - the D60 will not fire the shutter if the autofocus is unable to lock on for whatever reason (too dark, too close, etc). Try doing the same shots in manual focus and see if that doesn't cure the problem. </p>

<p>It really kind of depends on what you want. Cameras (mine are Nikon) these days do allow you to set the image parameters when shooting, so if you are satisfied with what the camera does after you tweak all the settings, by all means shoot JPG and save yourself some processing time. But if you want total flexibility during post, RAW is the way to go. You can always do some experimenting - shoot something as JPG and then switch the camera to RAW and repeat the shot. Then do your processing and see what happens.</p>

<p>I went through this debate when a member of a co-op art gallery a few years ago. The traditional painters, printmakers, etc. were constantly on the photographers for printing "manipulated" images (which they considered to not be photographs because a photograph should capture an image "as is"). I finally asked the painters if they took advantage of modern paints, techniques, etc. to produce their paintings, and they all replied that they did. The intent is to produce a piece of art, whether it be a painting or a photograph, and to NOT take advantage of modern methods is kind of living in the past (which is fine if that's what you want to do). So modern photo editing programs being used to manipulate a photograph to make it reflect the photographer's vision is no different than a painter using modern acrylic paints instead of oils. In the gallery, the compromise was that on the photos I had for sale that were digitally manipulated, there was a disclaimer on the back "this image has been digitally manipulated" so the buyer would not confuse it with a traditional, printed-as-is-from-camera photograph. That seemed to satisfy everyone.</p>

If you only need a "liitle" more reach, check out the Nikon 16-85. It's smack in the middle quality wise between cheap consumer lenses and the pro stuff. I have one and it gives good results - not very fast, but it does have VR. Mine was about $600 new, but you should be able to find a used one in the $500 range.

<p>My Canon 8800f gives good results (I scan 35mm slides) and I can make decent prints from the scans up to 8 x 10. It really depends on your budget and the intended use of the scans. When I need a slide scanned for a bigger print, I take it in and have it done by the pros with drum scanners.</p>

<p>As noted above, clean the sensor when you start to notice the dust spots on your photos. I change lenses as little as possible, and NEVER outdoors in windy/dusty conditions. If I have to do a lens change in the field, I'll try to do it in a sheltered area, and not when the wind is blowing, and certainly not when there's dirt blowing around. If conditions are that bad, I don't change the lens, I'll just "zoom with my feet". </p>

<p>Second recommendation for those two books - "writer's' and "photographers" market. They are full of just the information you need. Try to get the most current versions, as they update them at least once a year.</p>

<p>Lens question - I need a cheap telephoto for very occasional use that is more compact and lighter than the 80-200 2.8 I already have. I can either get the old "plastic fantastic" 80-200 4.5/5.6, or a new 55-200 VR. Any experience here with which of these two has better IQ? I do like the idea of VR but it will cost me twice as much, and I stress that it will be for VERY occasional use. I've heard good things about the old 80-200 (I'm using a D200), but in general I'm hesitant about buying such an old lens.</p>

<p>How do you - what tools - selectively darken parts on an image in PSE7? Just started using it and can't figure this out. Say you wish to darken the background and leave the foreground object as it is - is this a layer technique or something else?</p>

<p>People determine what is "obsolete" with their dollars, whether it's computers, TVs, or cameras. Of course our older equipment will still work, but when new technology comes out some people just have to have it. My own attitude is that I have certain equipment that works for me - does exactly what I want it to do - and I feel no need to replace it just because there is a newer model. <br>

Having said that, if I were going to make an exception it would probably be for a camera. I do think the newer model cameras are superior to my older ones, and while they may not help me take a "better" photo, they probably will make it EASIER to take the same picture. I currently use a D200, fine camera, but yeah, old technology. I'll likely upgrade in the next year or so to something newer, but I'm keeping my 3 year old computer and my 1 year old flat screen TV until they die.</p>

<p>Um, in 40 years of photography I have probably purchased at least a dozen cameras and 30 or 40 lenses. Never gotten a "bad copy" of anything. Never dropped a camera, either (actually I did once but managed to stick my foot out and prevent it from hitting the floor). Every bad photo I ever took was related to the "mark one cranium computer" so maybe I have a bad copy of that. I wonder if KEH would take it as a trade in on a new one.....</p>

<p>Sarah, I have been exhibiting photos in galleries for many years. Here are a few tips:<br>

Generally it is not a good idea to just walk into a gallery with your book. I usually send an email query or go in person first and talk to the owner.<br>

Check out the gallery first - make sure what you want to exhibit fits in with their philosophy (don't take modern abstract photographs into a gallery that specializes in old world prints and paintings, for instance)<br>

Make a book with your artistic resume and about a dozen of your BEST photos that you can show a gallery that has potential interest.<br>

MOST IMPORTANT - make absolutely sure that your book has the best quality photos and is neat and professional. One thing that will turn a gallery owner off immediately is sloppy work.<br>

Once you do get accepted to a gallery, follow their rules and procedures for exhibits strictly. Gallery owners do not enjoy an adversarial relationship with an artist. Always be on time for meetings, etc.<br>

You can sum this up in two basic ideas: show only your best work in the application process and be thoroughly professional. Artists have a bad reputation for being "flaky" and by being professional with the galleries you will go a long way towards dispelling that perception. </p>

Had the same dilemma - I like to have a camera with me at all times - but as J.C. says, it's just not worth it. Leaving a camera in a hot car is a BAD idea, not to mention that it may get stolen. I solved the problem by getting a P&S (Panasonic Lumix FZ28) that I carry around with me in my briefcase.

<p>Rene, I had an 18-105 and sold it. It had two problems I didn't like: vignetting and too much distortion. I sold it and have since purchased the 16-85. The IQ is about the same but the 16-85 doesn't vignette. It has a very slight amount of barrel distortion at 85mm (which I only noticed in some shots of the horizon at the Grand Canyon) but overall is a much superior lens to the 18-105. Not too heavy, either. I used it on a D200.</p>

<p>Another vote to agree with Douglas. I carry the same filters - a polarizer, and a couple of ND graduated ones. Mine are Hoya multicoated. I've found that the polarizer also helps cut down (a little bit, anyway) on blown highlights in high contrast shots.</p>

I agree with August - film forces me to be more disciplined than when shooting digital. I own four digital cameras and one film camera. When I first started shooting digital, I fell into the trap of shooting tons of exposures, on the theory that it cost me nothing....and I could just delete the bad shots. So my shot discipline went out the window. Then I went back to film and remembered that I had to pay for all those shots! Shot discipline returned, and even now when I use the digital cameras I am much more careful about composition, exposure, etc. And besides, I just love the look of a good Kodachrome 64 photograph (yeah, I know it's gone). My ratio now is probab;y 75/25 digital to film, but I find I actually ENJOY shooting film more. Call me a romantic, I guess. I also still own an old fashioned Dual turntable and hundreds of records.

<p>You might also consider looking at some Panasonic Lumix cameras - they have many different models and they consistently score very high in DP Review's group tests. In fact, of three or four group tests, the Lumix cameras were the top rated cameras in at least two of the tests.</p>

Just returned from a vacation out west - Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, Colorado River, Bryce Canyon, Zion, and Valley

of Fire in Utah. It was HOT - as in 118 degrees at Valley of Fire. Anyone going out there any time soon needs to be

prepared for some seriously hot weather. Take hats, sunscreen, comfortable clothing, and heed the advice of the

park rangers - try to do your hiking early in the morning before it gets too hot, and take plenty of water with you.

<p>I just got back from a vacation in the American Southwest - Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce Canyon. I took my D200 and a Panasonic Lumix FZ 28 with me and shot hundreds of pictures with each (used the Lumix when seriously hiking). I have reviewed some of the photos - and by far, the D200 photos are better. The Lumix is a fine camera, and on a few occasions I took the same photo w/both cameras, and there is just no comparison. The DSLR (as we all already know) photos are so much better in every way. So I'd say take both, but any serious stuff I'd do with the SLR.</p>

<p>If you've decided you do need a DSLR, I second the recommendation for a Nikon D40 with the lit 18-55 lens, which can now be had for well under $500. But DO go to a camera shop and handle any camera before you buy it!</p>

<p>Good point from Debbie about point/shoot cameras, too. I have a Panasonic FZ28 that is very lightweight, has plenty of auto and scene modes, a huge zoom range (28-450 or something like that), and image stabilization. The learning curve is not steep and it can function as a P/S or as a manual camera, users choice. And cheap, around $300. The image quality is very decent as well.</p>

It's hard to say which aspects are important, because different things are important to different people...if you are new to photography, an SLR (I assume you mean digital) with auto/scene modes and a kit lens would probably be best for you. Any modern camera, regardless of brand, will "take great pictures when travelling around the world". I suggest you go to a camera shop and handle some different cameras to see which one feels best in your hands, and to see that its controls are not too intimidating to you.