peter_berger

<p>Underlying the statement 'GIMP is free' is the the thought that one's time has no value.</p>

<p>My take on this is <a href="http://tleaves.com/2008/09/17/breaking-news-canon-5d-mark-ii/">here</a>.</p>

<p>Summary: This is a credible reply to Nikon's D90/D300/D700 triad, and certainly exceeds even the most pie-in-the-sky

expectations I'd heard for the 5D Mark II. I can't wait to see actual photos (and videos) taken with this.</p>

Roman,

Why in the world would you want to use Adobe RGB? What is your target visual destination? What's the endgame you

hope to achieve here?

My summary is that unless you're very careful, have a very specific outcome in mind, and control all steps of the pre-press

and printing process, using Adobe RGB simply introduces more complexity and risk into your workflow for an uncertain and

marginal benefit.

-Peter

Josh, I think you're going to love the 17-55 2.8. It is stunning. Clearly as good as the L-iest "L" lens Canon has to offer.

Richard: thanks for the tip about the menus. I'll note that in the errata for the article. Ric: likewise with the exposure

controls. I wish I had seen that page in the manual when I started shooting!

<p>Hi. I'm a long-time Canon shooter who recently had the opportunity to spend a month with a D300 and the 17-55 f/2.8 lens. I wrote up

my experiences <a href="http://tleaves.com/?p=1105">here, in an article called "From Canon to Nikon"</a>.</p>

<p>Please note I am <em>not</em> in any way trying to start a flame war or investigate the question of "which is better" (which is an

insensible and unanswerable question, anyway). Rather, I'm trying to address the specific question: what things should someone who is

switching expect to have to adjust to? What are the <em>differences</em> in user interface and the like that the Canon shooter should

expect to confront if she or he decides to switch systems?</p>

<p>I hope this can spark interesting and civil discussion on the UI and philosophical differences between the two systems. I'd be especially

interested to hear from any Nikon user who has tried to switch to Canon what UI issues were particularly difficult (or conversely enjoyable) for

them.</p>

One important difference is backup workflow. The Mac has Time Machine, which in my mind is reason for any photographer

to prefer the platform. It's not a substitute for off-site backup, but it's another layer of protection, and it's approximately zero-

effort.

Sorry, I misread your question. The answer is "You won't see any visual differences at all. The main difference is that your

camera will shoot faster."

A minor is not competent to sign a model release or, frankly, to hire you to take photographs of him or her. If it were me, I would require a

parent's written consent before the shoot, and a parent's physical presence during the shoot. Without exception.

You say you've already decided against the Rebel, so far be it from me to argue with you, but just allow me to suggest that the

implication of "light" is "...and you're more likely to be carrying it when the perfect shot comes up."

Just my $0.02. I see a lot of photographers talking about "light" and "small" as if they are some sort of detriments. To my mind, they

the Rebel's greatest assets.

<p>Morgan, there's an existing (recent) thread on the 50/18, <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-

forum/00Q4OE">right here</a>. It's required reading.</p>

<p>On the down side, the 50/1.8 is a bit long for working indoors. You'll have to work. On the up side, it is hands down the

best bargain in photography at the moment, and at times will let you take pictures that simply wouldn't be possibly with any

other lens for under $100. There are plenty of other lenses that are as good or better -- but not for the price.</p><div></div>

Er, obviously I meant "When wide open it is indeed _soft_."

Also, I meant to attach this photo:<div></div>

The Canon 50/1.8 is the best lens bargain in the entire universe. At $80, there's almost no excuse for not owning one.

When stopped down to f5.6 or so, it can be tack sharp. When wide open it is indeed sharp, but can blur backgrounds like

nobody's business, and take photos in what is, effectively, nearly complete darkness.

HP, that's a pretty bad photo to use as an example of effective street photography.

There's no gimmick here. If you want to be a photographer who shoots candids, you're going to have to be willing to, as another poster said,

get into people's personal space.

You want a Fujitsu ScanSnap. Small desktop profile, works on Mac and Windows, super-fast, gives nice results on old

photos, and comes with an awesome set of software. It's NOT a flatbed scanner, but a feed scanner, but as long as your

photos aren't literally falling apart, it should work fine.

It's comparatively expensive. It's also worth it.

Can you post a sample photo that is representative of "not enough sharpness"? There's no intrinsic reason for the XTi to not produce "sharp"

photos. It could be the lenses, as others have said, but it could also be technique, which a new body won't change.

I do have the impression that newer bodies may focus better than the XTi, but if your lack of sharpness is from, for example, motion blur,

that's not going to help you at all.

I've said this before, but: <a href="http://tleaves.com/?p=699">Just Use sRGB</a>.

Anyone who advises you to do anything else without knowing the specifics of what you're

shooting and the intended output destination is lying to you.

I use Aperture on a 17" MacBookPro. It runs great. Make sure you have enough memory

when configuring the machine -- I have 2 Gb.

And while it's of course nicer on an external 30" display, it's very usable on the 17"'s built in

screen.

<p>This is a controversial question which people argue about perennially here.</p>

<p>My opinion is best summed up by <a href="http://tleaves.com/?p=699">this

article</a>,

which can be summarized as "If you have to ask this question, the best thing to do is to

just shoot sRGB." The person who observed that if you are shooting RAW the

decision of color space is largely deferred.</p>

<p>If you are shooting exclusively photos of a goldfinch perched on a sunflower in a field

of

dandelions, then you might consider looking into a more aggressively complex color

management workflow. For more quotidian subjects, I'll suggest that by working any color

spaces other than sRGB you're just introducing

more risk into your workflow for an uncertain and marginal gain.</p>

I plan on doing some tripod shooting in the near future where I want to change the shutter speed between

shots (for purposes of merging images to make high dynamic range images. Are there any remotes that

let me adjust camera parameters like shutter speed, or are they all simply shutter releases? If not, would I

be able to make this happen via shooting tethered? My motivation here is to avoid having to touch the

camera at all to avoid accidentally bumping it, even a little.

I know I could simulate this somewhat by just using "bulb" exposure and holding down the shutter release

on the remote for different lengths of times. But I'm hoping to achieve a more programmatic and rigorous

solution.

If it makes a difference, I'm using a Rebel XT/350D.

Thanks!

This is the one thing that I am intensely jealous of my Nikon-owning friends of. They get

wireless flash with the entry-level D70, but Canon wants me to pay them another $200

(minimum) and carry around another piece of equipment.

If they'd offer a body with this functionality integrated, I'd sell my 350D today and buy that

instead.

I'm not a Leica owner (or basher), but from a disinterested perspective, that article

<em>does</em> read like it was written by an apologist. "Oh, no, see, they <em>totally

meant</em> to build a camera that completely mucks up the color reproduction in common

use cases" is not a reasonable reading of this situation.

Most software treats the RAW as inviolable, as if it were a "digital negative." There are

technical reasons for this (a "RAW" isn't really viewable as such until decisions are made

about white point, levels, etc) The adjusted photo will be saved in some other format,

typically a TIFF or a JPG.

Comprehensive image management programs (eg Apple's Aperture, Adobe Bridge, etc.)

will store the metadata about certain types of edits, such as crops, so that when you look

at the picture again later, it has the proper crop. I've never used Picasa2, so I can't say

whether or not it does this.