steve_johnston9

<p>I am looking to start a blog, mainly to promote my website. I have noticed that some photographers rather than, have their blog on their main website have it on a separate site like Google blog, that links from their main website. What is the point of this? My thoughts are it makes more sense to have it on your main website, as so to increase the keyword density and have regularly refreshed content to improve your Google ranking. What the benefit of having a separate blog ?</p>

<p>Why would a 7D be faster than a 50D, my understanding is that the buffer size is around the same.</p>

<p>Currently I need to buy a new camera, as I undertake some commercial work and require a backup. I currently shoot with a 500d. Despite it being a Rebel in general I have been happy with the performance. However one frustration I have is how quickly the buffer fills up and shops shooting. Buying Xtreme SD cards hasn’t seemed to help. I noticed that both the 50d and 60d have double the buffer size of the rebel.<br>

But am I correct in saying that CF is still much faster than SD, pound for pound. Ie. given the same spend on an SD card or Compact flash card ?<br>

7D is more money than I have to spend at the moment so isn’t an option. Also I know certain features where dropped from the latest version of the xxD series, and am away of the loss of these features.</p>

<p>Specs mean nothing, my £10 scanner the same spec as professional scanners. Anyone on this forum prepared to help? </p>

<p>How does a Kodak Professional HR500 compare to Nikon <strong>Coolscan 5000 ED</strong>. Is it better or worse, I have moved town and used to have my slides scanned by the Nikon, the only pro lab in town here offers a Kodak Professional HR500 scanning service.</p>

 

<p>I remember reading a thread on this forum where one of the responders mentioned that he had sold quite a few stock images through his photo.net page. Where buyers had seen his images and wanted to licence them.. I haven’t got round to doing my page as yet, but I Just wondered has anyone else had this experience</p>

<p><strong>Theres a couple where the colours been pushed and pumped a bit but what youre missing here is that most of it has been done in pre-production - shot in good light. Dont assume everything can be achieved in post production</strong><br>

Do you mean natural light or portable studio light ?</p>

 

<p>What sort of post production is used to get the effect of these photos?<br>

Do you know what sort of post production is used to get the effect of these photos:<br>

<a href="http://www.stuartfreedman.com/galleries/reportage.php?galleryNum=1">http://www.stuartfreedman.com/galleries/reportage.php?galleryNum=1#</a><br>

I have tried increasing vibrancy, and other manipulation, but have so far been unable to get these effects.</p>

<p>Hi currently store my film in a drawer. However having recently bought a lot more film than i am going to immediately shoot, I am considering fridge storage. Is there a temperature that the fridge must be at. Is there any potential damage from fridge storage ? Also freezer storage, is it not likely the film will get wet after freezer storage</p>

<p>Just got my first images through alamy QC (second times a treat!) . I have read some good articles on stock photography including the one on photo.net. I have also gone through the process of meticulously keywords my photos. My question is, is there any tools on alamy to see what categories sell the most, and what categories are most searched for but have least supply ?</p>

<p>I regularly look at photos on the internet. Something that struck me was how medium format cameras seemed to be able to generate a very shallow depth of field in portraits, with cameras that only have lens that are F4 apeture. Something that would require at least a F1.8 on a cropped digital camera. Is this your experience of the format and why is that ? </p>

<p>A friend of mine had for a sitting at a portrait in his home. They photographed him and his family, in a room in his house, then took the photos and superimposed a white background, like from a studio. It looked like it was done in a studio. How did they do this, surely there isn’t someone sitting there doing it in photoshop? It was so precise and the proofs were on the website within the hour. Is it likely there used a third party tool? If so what tool ? </p>

<p>thanks stuart that's brillant</p>

<p>Will the plustek give better results? and allow scanned negs to be reproduced at A4 with good results.</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/introduction.html" target="_blank"><br /></a></p>

<p>No but I might for the D5</p>

<p>Am doing a lot of research into which scanner to buy. From previous posts, on this forum I was considering the Epson V600 however I came across this review :</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003KPVQYG/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk"></a>http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V600/V600.HTM<br /> that was less than positive for colour scans. Is this a rogue review ? Would the CanoScan 9000F be a better option ?<br>

I am looking to scan, so That I can produce A4 Prints. I also want to scan crossed processed negs.</p>

<h1></h1>

<h1>I have a load of 35mm negatives to scan and have been looking for a scanner for some time. I have narrowed it down to the above to scanners. Which will give better image quality and will these produce a good print at A4? Can either of them deal with cross processed film? </h1>

<p><strong>If these are the 1st shot from each roll. Or do are all the picture look like this?</strong><br>

Both rolls</p>

<p>from second roll</p><div></div>

<p>Got these back from the lab today. Not had an issue on the camera before. The film was from two kodak max 200 rolls, both with the same problem, and these were low res scans. I bought the kodak was from a drug store, as I had run out of film and my nearest supplier was closed.<br>

Two rolls both the same issue. Do you think its the film, lab or camera ?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Is there any benefit in fiddly around with the DPI figure ?</p>

<p><strong>Are you sharpening after you downsample?</strong><br>

No, I take it from the question that I should be doing this. Do you have a recommendation as to how much ?</p>

<p>Some of my images just seem to lose there “bang” when I downsize them to put on the web. They look fantastic at full screen size, but when I reduce them for the web they lose there bang. Now I understand the files are smaller so lose detail, but other photographer’s website’s seem to be able to retain the sparkle, and display at a size similar to what I wish to display at. I have saved as 12 in terms of JPEG quality in CS4, am I missing something ?</p>

<p><strong>Ilford say it is ISO 1000. It will depend on what they have set the DX coding to. Can you set it manually?</strong><br>

No, it's a fully automatic camera. Is there anyway in telling what the DX code is set to ?</p>

<p> I am going to be using Ilford 3200. I will be using it with a Yash T4 that automatically calculates the exposure based on the DX coding of the film. The real asa value for the film I understand is nearer 1200. My question is will the camera calculate the exposure based on the 1200 value or the 3200 value? If its based on the 3200 value I will need to push the film, to get the exposure the camera has calculated for ?</p>