Jump to content

john_ashby2

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    181

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by john_ashby2

    confusion between DX and FX lense Focal length

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>However, as others will probably chime in, it isn't as simple as that.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Why not :). It's a crop factor not a change in focal length. So if you compare a 200mm on a DX body to a 300mm on an FX body, you won't have the same depth of field and you won't have the same background compression.</p>

    <p>I find it funny when cheap point and shoots talk in 35mm equivalents.</p>

    SanDisk Extreme III or IV for Nikon D700?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I got an Extreme III card last year with my D90. Except for playing around, I've never used the continuous shooting mode long enough to fill the buffer, even in raw mode. And as long as you don't fill the buffer you'll never a difference between slower memory or Extreme IV. So, the answer to your question is that it depends on the kind of shooting you plan to do.</p>

    <p>The only place I notice a benefit is downloading files from the card to the computer. 8 gigs on a 2MB/second card could take over an hour. Other than that I may as well have saved $80 and bought UltraI or II in a 16 gig card.</p>

    PS versus LR

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>I am not comfortable using lightroom because I don't like the way it integrates your pictures into its catalog. I like my pictures to remain self-contained files where if I want I can put 10 edited raw files on a CD and 2 years from now load them into CS5 and have my edits in tact. I realize LR has a sync mode to keep the sidecar files updated, but it just doesn't give me a good feeling. I want my software to work on my images not incorporate them.</p>

    <p>I do use bridge extensively for my prescreening and then loading the files into ACR to work on them. I really don't see what LR gives me over that. But then I read people like Jon post how much LR speeds up their workflow. I don't see how, but I really want to know because it feels like I'm missing something. </p>

    <p>One feature I'd really like is to be able to tie several raw files into a single huge DNG type file. For example if I'm taking 5 pictures of each group shot, I'd rather end up with 1 file that incorporates all 5 raw files. Almost like a psd file with 5 layers but even if that would work for raws, it's too cumbersome.</p>

    Have you got the Lookbook?

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>@Nicole - thanks for the link. It does look useful. The price seems really steep for what you get though. And there's so much talent at this site I usually look here for inspiration. </p>

    <p>The lookbook gave me an idea though, do you think the photographers here would mind fellow photographers printing their work to show clients the look they're going for?</p>

    Is VR really needed for the 70-200mm/f2.8?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Handholding a 200mm lens on a DX body (like the D40), you shouldn't use a shutter speed slower than 1/300th of a second (without VR). The D40 can't even sync the flash that fast. Using the lens indoors in dim light, at fast shutter speed, without a flash is going to cause problems.</p>

    <p>On a tripod, you don't have that concern.</p>

    Selling the Disk!

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>This is a business, and if you don't give the customers the product they want, they'll find someone who will. In 2009 people want to use their pictures online. And it's not enough to offer a web resolution disk because then they feel they're getting a crappy quality substitute for the real product.</p>

    <p>And as far as quality between pro labs and costco. That really doesn't matter to the average person. I can show someone a picture taken with my D90, and even point out how razor sharp the detail is, the way you can see every strand of hair, the detail in the shadows, etc. And they'll stand there and tell me they don't see the difference from a $100 subcompact point and shoot. This kind of person won't care if the print comes from mpix or walmart. And for better or for worse, that's the customer.</p>

    New Nikon D40 Body just need lenses

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>I'd suggest the 50mm 1.8D. I got my D40 second hand (less than 1K pics on it. yay!) without the 18-55, but with the 50mm.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>I got my 50mm 1.8D brand new around 1992. I use it on my D90 and it's still a fantastic lens. I just don't think I'd use it with a D40 because the manual focus would drive me crazy without a proper split ring focusing screen. I commented on that to a Nikon rep and he said it's no problem because the in-focus light still comes on in manual mode. I also have the 35-70mm D series kit lens from the same era but I never use that one because I've got the 18-200. I guess the moral is buy fast primes, you'll get more years out of them.</p>

    <p>Out of curiousity, how do you know it has less than 1k pics on it? The lens doesn't have a counter.</p>

    what's a >$1000 DSLR good for?

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>To the contrary, the extra MP also gives me far, far more flexibility in terms of composition after the fact.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>I considered that when typing my post. I'll crop a little to clean up shots a bit, but I very rarely have to do a large cropping job to 'extract' the image I want. I can't really picture even pushing the shutter release knowing I'll need to crop away most of the image. </p>

    <p>I remember in the 35mm days printing the whole frame including the spockets so I could proudly show I wa prining my uncropped composition.</p>

    <p>With a cheap little P&S I think it's common to shoot first and crop later.</p>

    <p> </p>

    How to NOT get burned on Facebook

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    In this day and age people want to show off their pictures online. As far as they're concerned, it's not any different from inviting friends over to view their album in the 1970's. Everything is online today. To expect them to advertise for you when they're showing their pictures is just not realistic.

     

    Just understand that this is the service people want when they hire you.

    what's a >$1000 DSLR good for?

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>For me the hgh price is justified if the camera has at least 20mp and a full frame sensor.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Why? The extra megapixels will only help when you're printing large posters. The rest of the time more pixels means each pixel is physically smaller. Smaller pixels means less photons strike it for a given exposure, and that translates to more noise. Up to 16x20 printing, you're getting better image quality from a 12 megapixel camera than a 24. </p>

     

    what's a >$1000 DSLR good for?

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>For me the hgh price is justified if the camera has at least 20mp and a full frame sensor.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Why? The extra megapixels will only help when you're printing large posters. The rest of the time more pixels means each pixel is physically smaller. Smaller pixels means less photons strike it for a given exposure, and that translates to more noise. Up to 16x20 printing, you're getting better image quality from a 12 megapixel camera than a 24. </p>

     

    Photo Co-op idea

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    I'm not clear on why you talk about a *couple* of empty servers and thousands of dollars in overhead to launch. For what

    you've described a VPS costing $20-30/month would be more than enough to get things rolling to the point of hundreds of

    active photographers. Even if you plan to float it for a year you're only looking at $300 for the hardware side of things.

     

    Things like development costs and technical expertise are independant of the fact that you have servers sitting idle. And

    any setup work can be done in a little piece of a shared hosting plan for free so having the servers now isn't an asset at all.

     

    I'm not saying I don't like the idea, just that I don't see where you're pulling numbers from and it makes it seem like there's

    not even the framework of a business plan.

    website galleries

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p><em>PickPic. $1200, one time cost, totally worth it. Also, Pictage --- $200/yr or $100/mo depending on how much you want to do with it. </em></p>

    <p>One time cost is almost always a scam whether or not the owners intend it that way from the start. Once they build up a client base, they're stuck supporting them indefinately and the only revenue stream is new clients. So their own monthly expenses are always growing and as they mature, the income can't keep up. </p>

    <p>Also, why would you pay so much to either company. It's just not that expensive to have your own custom design made by a web designer, which will be much better than that $100/month plan, and then you can keep it online indefinately for about $5/month.</p>

    website galleries

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p><em>PickPic. $1200, one time cost, totally worth it. Also, Pictage --- $200/yr or $100/mo depending on how much you want to do with it. </em></p>

    <p>One time cost is almost always a scam whether or not the owners intend it that way from the start. Once they build up a client base, they're stuck supporting them indefinately and the only revenue stream is new clients. So their own monthly expenses are always growing and as they mature, the income can't keep up. </p>

    <p>Also, why would you pay so much to either company. It's just not that expensive to have your own custom design made by a web designer, which will be much better than that $100/month plan, and then you can keep it online indefinately for about $5/month.</p>

    Non-Compete Question

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p>Definately don't give her any access to your computer under any circumstances. Who knows what she can do to in, including deleting your other things, adding a backdoor, damaging other things, etc. It was illegal for her to put the software on there, so if you talk to a lawyer see if you can use that against her without hurting yourself.</p>

    RAW files: to save or not to save?

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>A better question then is why bother storing 3 copies of the properly processed JPGs? 1 on-site, 1 off-site makes sense. And same for RAWS, 1 on-site and 1 off-site.</p>

    <p>Have you ever shot a wedding where every shot was a perfectly exposed JPG? I don't think so. So at least you have the flexibilty that if you take the perfectly composed shot only to find it improperly exposed, you can still fix it in RAW. So even if one thinks they're a perfect photographer, shooting JPG still says they're a hack.</p>

    <p>As far as colour corrections to match the printer. These have to be done at some point, saying you're not the one handling the printing doesn't really solve that it only shifts the problem to someone else. And even with a properly calibrated monitor the output won't match perfectly with what you see. It's just reality. And even compensating for the printer won't make it perfect but it helps a lot.</p>

    RAW files: to save or not to save?

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p><em>What makes RAW/DNG more archival than JPG?</em></p>

    <p>I agree with Patrick that the original post is probably the stupidest question ever asked here.</p>

    <p>First as has been said, storage space is very, very cheap these days so what possible reason is there not to archive the RAW files? Second, the raw files don't get modified, you have the full original information and a sidecar file of the processing work so no matter what happens you can always go back to the best image the camera was taken care of. Third, it's absolute stupidity to store you images in an 8-bit workspace simply because you make last minute color corrections to match the printer. Don't you? If you're only storing JPGs, you're throwing away color range as you do the final adjustment. I always work in a higher bit-space and use photoshop to output a set of images for the printer. Then after printing I can delete those files and keep my RAW or PSD originals.</p>

    <p>As for people who only shoot JPG, for all those reasons and many more (even something as basic as no longer even having 8-bit images if they correct levels and white balance), they have no business even thinking of shooting a wedding. There's so many old-timers from the film days who went out to buy a digital camera and they simply have no clue what they're doing. They get okay results and think they're still photographers when they're hacks.</p>

×
×
  • Create New...