dane_strom

<p>Allan,<br>

I'm from the San Juan Islands, just east of Victoria, and here's the info you need:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sanjuansafaris.com/southern_resident_whales.html">http://www.sanjuansafaris.com/southern_resident_whales.html</a></p>

<p>The K and J pods, which are the resident pods, arrive in the area in mid-April, so this should probably line up well with your trip.</p>

<p>And here is the latest "whale news" from the Whale Museum on San Juan Island. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.whale-museum.org/museum/press/news.html">http://www.whale-museum.org/museum/press/news.html</a></p>

<p>It mentions an orca vs. grey whale attack near Whidbey Island from yesterday, so they are in the area already. You should probably have good luck seeing them if you go out on a whale watching tour.</p>

<p>Whatever you do, don't get into the water. Or eat the local seafood. Victoria dumps its sewage straight into the Straight of Juan de Fuca. ;-)</p>

<p>Go for the $175 Flashpoint tripod, as mentioned above. You will have no regrets. I use it, along with a Manfrotto 322RC2, with my D90/70-300 combo, and it works perfectly well.</p>

<p>If you have $600, of course go for something else. But if you can afford to spend about $300 on a tripod and head, go for the Flashpoint and a Manfrotto head.</p>

<p>I noticed a great increase in speed in all operations after upgrading from 32-bit CS4 to 64-bit CS4. Plugins now take maybe half as long to render their effects after you hit "OK." It no longer takes 20-30 seconds to open up a layer that's underneath 5 or 6 other layers of plugins, etc. Bridge opens quicker, files open faster. Everything just runs quicker. Noticeably so. This is with all files, regardless of filesize and RAM. 64-bit structure goes further than just being able to use more than 4 GB of RAM. If you upgrade from 32 bit CS3 to 64-bit CS4, the difference will definitely be noticeable. It was noticeable simply switching between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of CS4.</p>

<p>That being said, unless you really find it necessary to do things quickly (it sounds like you're not pressed in that way) I'd say it's probably is not worth the upgrade for that extra speed alone.</p>

<p>My D90 and 16-85 lens is a wonderful combination. I chose the 16-85 over the 18-200 because the picture quality was paramount to me.</p>

<p>And if they couldn't adjust the file (because it was too dark or couldn't be properly reproduced) then they should have had the sense to know that and not printed it. Or asked you to make changes. ;-)<br>

<br /> So basically, it sounds to me like it's mostly the paper's issue (i.e. someone on their imaging staff should have corrected the photo themselves or, if there's no one on staff to do that, they should have gotten in contact with you to say -- hey that's gonna print too dark -- can you make it lighter? or whatever).</p>

<p>Sorry, I'm not actually familiar with the specifics for photo requirements are here at the newspaper where I work, I'm just familiar with the process that's involved, so that's as much advice as I can give you.</p>

<p>Hmmm.... honestly, the newspaper should have taken care of any major problems for you, but they probably don't have anyone on staff to deal with that kinda thing. I work at a major US newspaper and it doesn't surprise me that the smaller, local papers don't have this kind of staff. These days, newspapers are more understaffed than ever. So I'm sure that folks here have recommendations for you for when you encounter these types of situations.</p>

<p>But when you're dealing with a newspaper that has an actual imaging staff, you shouldn't have to do TOO much more than your normal post-processing techniques when submitting pictures to newspapers as a freelancer.</p>

<p>One other thing, you might want to check other copies of the paper (preferably from a different location that where you bought the first one, so you can be sure of getting a paper from a different "batch"). The way that your photo printed might have been an error limited to a certain number of copies of the paper. Just a thought.</p>

<p>I've been through a number of plugins now and, though I've recently been doing all my post-processing within Camera Raw, the one plugin I've been returning to regularly for some time now is Nik's Color Efex Pro. There's really enough in there to keep you busy a long time, a really useful collection of tools. The graduated ND filter that's included is worth it for that alone... Viveza is also a very useful plugin. If you're looking to get started with just one plugin (that's essentially a big toolbox of plugins), check out Color Efex Pro.</p>

<p>Another strategy to help you decide: be sure and download the free demo version. Most plugins have one.</p>

<p>Tom,<br>

What about your post-processing: do you already have Photoshop? Photoshop plus tutorials on how to use it -- like Chris Orwig's stuff from Lynda.com -- is the first thing I would suggest. In fact, tutorials about all aspects of photography would be where I would start (aside from just going out and shooting as much as possible).</p>

<p>The first thing off the top off my head... would be to suggest a trip over to Santa Catalina Island.</p>

<p>Second to that, you might enjoy photographing some of the California missions, specifically San Juan Capistrano. You could find some nature-y shots there, not to mention something cultural and historical (there's nothing older in California than the missions).</p>

<p>If you can drive, fly or take a boat somewhere, you can find some true nature, but otherwise... Los Angeles is a vast blanket of suburbia from San Diego to Santa Barbara. I was just thinking earlier how lucky I am to live next door to the Colorado Rockies...</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>I just happened upon this page today about the Tamron 70-200. Not sure if it's really as bad as it sounds, but it would kinda make me think twice about buying one:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/tamron-70-200mm-f2.8-F001N700/for-nikon">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/tamron-70-200mm-f2.8-F001N700/for-nikon</a></p>

<p>Was up at Rocky Mountain National Park yesterday and there were still lots of green aspens. Snow was only at the highest elevations, above treeline. I would think that many of the lower elevation aspens will be good through next week.</p>

<p>Have a look at this, though these locations are all in the western part of the state. The week you are coming should be a good one for aspens.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.npcolorado.net/favorite_places/colorado_fall_colors.html">http://www.npcolorado.net/favorite_places/colorado_fall_colors.html</a></p>