michaelwalter

<p>I have (had) an account at Flickr. I like this site better. I like your idea. Very generous of you.</p>

<p>This is a timely conversation.<br>

Yesterday I got a new PC for photo editing (Windows 7-64bit). I got LR3.5 installed and CS3. I began importing my photos into LR. 2011 went fine, 2010 went fine. When I went to 2009, it imported the photos and then proceeded to draw colored lines and swipes all over them. When I hold the cursor over a picture in 2010 or 2011 it says "NEF" or it says "JPG". When I hold it over photos in 2009 it says "NEF + JPG". Coincidence? I used to shoot RAW + JPG. Now I just shoot RAW. 2010 was when I started using LR. I tried opening the photos in LR and they were corrupt. I tried opening them in CS and they are fine. Phew. At least I can revert to CS if I need to deal with them. <br>

What could have happened? Did CS do something to the original files that LR can't read? I am very confused over this.</p>

<p>To add to my misery, last night my 1TB USB drive started heading south on me. I loaded LR3 and some of the photos had patches of color and streaks all over them. I managed to get everything backed up by using another USB disk and the C: drive on the laptop (which is now full). I had begun backing up to a second drive with 2011 stuff (when I import). I may have lost some stuff from 2006, but I think I salvaged most of it. I had seen this before, but I wrote it off as a bad SD card. However, this time the photos were already on the disk. They were wedding photos, but I had already backed them up for the bride and burned a DVD of them, so I am ok there.<br>

Time to buy, I guess. The 100GB drive on the laptop is way too small.</p>

<p>I will admit that with my budget, getting "professional grade" anything is out of the question. I would love a d3 or even a d300, but I like my d90 and it will do for now. The most I have ever spent on a lens is $650. I protect it like a jewel. I never take my laptop "in the field". I say all of that because getting the most I can squeeze out of a dollar is important to me. I am a doctoral student and money can be a bit short at times. <br>

I noticed that Best Buy has a desktop (I have a monitor from the old system) for about $350 that has 6GB of RAM, a 3Ghz CPU and 500 GB of disk. Plus, you can get an HP tablet with this system for an additional $150. I am thinking about that quite a bit.<br>

This weekend I am going to hook up a monitor to the laptop and try editing a few photos and see how it goes. If I am still not satisfied, then it's off to BB.</p>

<p>Walter, it was (is) a combination of things. The drive started flaking out. Plus, it is old. The processor is slow and it only holds 512MB max of memory. Way too little for things like photo processing. I bought the laptop from work because I could get it cheap. It does have a VGA port, and I still have the flat monitor from the old PC so I will attach it when I do any future processing.<br>

The thing I hate is that it only has 2 USB ports on it. I have to use a mouse. I just can't deal with the touch pad. The chichlet was even worse. So, I attach my card reader and load the RAW files to a desktop folder. Then I unplug the mouse and plug in my 2 external hard drives and fire up LR3 and import/backup to the disk drives. Then I have to unplug my backup drive and plug in the mouse. THEN, I can start editing. I have a 4-port extender, but it only seems to work when it wants to.</p>

<p>It would be nice to have a desktop with a ton of hard drive and only one external backup disk and plenty of USB (2.0) ports. Well, Christmas is coming. :-)<br>

I'm sure there will be plenty of sales coming.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a flat monitor, so there is no cost with that option. But, as you say, today's prices are so cheap for so much I have to wonder...</p>

<p>I will give that s hot. Thanks.</p>

<p>I used to have a desktop that I did my photo processing on (LR3). It went South so I started using my laptop. I am having concerns. It seems that the angle with which I am viewing the screen has a remarkable effect on brightness, etc. </p>

<p>Do any of you exclusively use a laptop for your PP? I thought I might get some feedback before I go an buy another desktop PC.</p>

<p>Well, the AF-C was the issue. I'm amazed at how quickly you folks came up with the problem. :-) For the time being, it is set on AF-S as I am not doing any "motion" shots.</p>

<p>I have a guide. I think I may have set if to AF-C after watching some "guru" on YouTube extoll the virtues of it.</p>

<p>I do believe it is set to AF-C. Nice catch, folks! I will change it when I get home.</p>

<p>Maybe I misread something. I was using my new (well, new to me) D90 yesterday. I would push the shutter release halfway and it would focus. Holding the shutter release I would recompose the frame and... it would refocus! I think it should hold the focus as long as the shutter release is being held halfway down, right? I do have the focus point set to the center point.<br>

Since I am not the original owner, I have no warranty on it. So, use multiple focus points, use the AE/FL lock, or send it in for repair. Does that about sum it up? Or, is there a menu setting that I overlooked?</p>

<p>I still have a Rollei (with the German(?) lens) with the flash. It is silver. It was a great little camera. I sent it to a guy in California for an estimate to bring it back to life. If I remember correctly, it was about $300. Too much to spend on it in today's economy.</p>

<p>I hate it when I am getting setup for a shot, either perhaps kneeling or on the tripod, and somebody just steps in front of me with their cellphone and takes a picture.<br>

I shot a wedding last year. I was sitting in the aisle in an attempt to get the couples walking up the aisle after the ceremony. Guess what? As soon as they started their walk, a hand comes out from a pew, holding a cellphone, taking a movie, right in the middle of my shot!<br>

Two weeks ago, I was asked to get a group shot for a 60th anniversary party. I got the group assembled and stepped back far enough to get the whole group in. I was down on one knee and ready to shoot. And then, up walk two gals in front of me, each with a hand full of P&S cameras and start taking pictures! They knew me, they knew I was trying to get the picture, and yet...<br>

Arghh....</p>

 

<p>If you decide to sell the D90, I might be interested. I have an old D80 that is reaching to end of its life, I think. My budget is not huge, but my interest is.<br>

You could email me at pasvorto at gmail dot com</p>

<p>Again, thanks all. The budget is pretty fixed. I sold the 18-200 to a coworker. I was never happy with what it would do inside without a flash. From the discussions, it looks like I need to be looking at the 17-50 or a 24 (or 35) prime. Is there much difference between the 35mm and the 50mm that I already have? It's only 15mm.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the input. I have some research (and thinking) to do now. Great responses all.</p>

<p>As mentioned, my goal is to have a lens wide enough to get people pictures at family events, where a flash is impractical and the rooms are not that big. Even with the 50mm, I find myself left with a lot of head shots. The zooms would be nice, but to maintain a constant 2.8 (remember, no flash), don't they get a bit pricey?</p>

<p>I have a D80 and a Nikon 50/1.8 and a Nikon 85/1.8. I find that these lenses are too "long" when taking pictures of people indoors. I am thinking of a wide angle lens. I have a budget of about $500. What I want to is be able to take pictures of people without having to be 20 paces from them (rooms aren't that big). I was thinking of something in the 14mm range. However, my father-in-law who has been shooting film for decades thinks that at that length I risk getting a fish eye effect and I should be thinking of the 24mm range. But, using digital that puts it at an effective range of 36mm. Maybe he is forgetting the crop factor.<br>

I had an 18-200 4.5/6.3 lens and dis not really like it indoors. The 18mm was not a bad length though. However, as you can tell, I prefer prime lenses.<br>

Anyway. you know my camera. You know my budget. You know what I am trying to do. Is 14mm too wide? Will the difference between 24mm and 50mm be good enough?</p>

<p>Try this link</p>

<p>http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=150&topic_id=11212#11213</p>

 

<p>Doesn't R09 mean there are 9 remaining photos?</p>

I am looking forward to using the 85. I really like the 50. What I really nEeed is to just shoot more. It is amazing how quickly you lose your "feel" for the camera. BTW, I always shoot RAW + Normal Jpg.

I will deal with the WA issue, probably after the holidays. I will have a better handle on the finances by then. On the up side, I have a colleague who is interested in the Sigma 1-8-200 for $300. That will defer a lot of the cost of the 85.

<p>I think I will sell the 18-200 and buy a prime-ish wide angle lens; something under 24mm. That should hold me for a while. I used to take bird photos, but don't do that anymore, so a long telephoto is not necessary at this point.<br>

Thanks for all of the tips, folks. I had had electrical trouble with the camera before and sent it to Nikon for repair. I was thinking that maybe it was doing it again. But, as was pointed out, slow glass, mixed with my lack of experience turns out to be the culprit. I'm glad i didn't have to wait for film to be developed before I saw the bad photos.</p>

<p>Okay, I discussed it with the wife last night. After being accused of being cheap, I had another go at EBay. I wound up buying an 85mm/1.8D lens from Cameta Camera. I have always had good luck with them. I will either sell the 18-200 or save if for landscape (at the high end) or wide angle (at the low end). Not sure yet. So, my "working" lenses will be the 50mm/1.8 and the 85mm/1.8</p>