craig_big

Please forgive me in advance for being a little harsh. I happen to disagree with alot of what you said.

 

First of all, there is a whole world of different kinds of people out there that require different levels of photographic services at, and after, their wedding. For a growing number of people, that requirement is that you can work for under $1000 (or even less), and that you deliver an adequate set of digital images of a minimal quality level, and then you leave them alone. There are THOUSANDS of these people, and it is a HUGE portion of the market. The only photographers that will win their business are the ones that can offer a package that caters to their needs. In Idaho, remember, there's not alot of money, and some of these couples just can't budget any more money for photography. You can't blame these people for being young and poor and not having alot of monetary support from the Grandparents. These people don't always require a certain style, or even post production work...at all. They just want some competent photos they can share with their friends on Facebook when it's all said and done. I'm not saying you should do only this kind of work, but there is only so much business in the $3000+ range of customers. If you can't win enough of those clientelle to keep you afloat, then you might split the business into two segments. In one, you charge appropriately for full days of post processing and meticulous prints. In another segment, you charge for a half-day of shooting and a churn-and-burn CD of digitals. Finally, if you deliver a CD, don't watermark the photos. That just ruins everyone's day.

"But the i-5 750 is only four core." Huh? All the top-of-the-lines are 4-cores right now, including the i7's and the fastest Xeons. Do you have a recent press-release that we haven't seen yet?

"I don't think I should have to give them a refund because they approved the final design"

 

Exactly. This should be the end of the story. If you've been paid, and have completed your end of the contract, then just let that be the end of it. Send her a very polite email explaining your position. Use a tone that is almost too sweet. Seem to be slightly apologetic, without ever actually apologizing. But stand your ground. Don't give an inch, and don't redo work that she's already approved and paid for. The Groom's opinions are irrelevant, and even the Bride conceded as much when she was picking photos for the album. Don't let her pleas sway you over to performing charity work for her. Some people make bad decisions, and it sounds like this Bride made some bad ones. She made her bed, let her sleep in it. You shouldn't have to remake her bed for her, at your expense. Let her know you will make another album, but at the same price again that you charged for the first album. Consider it a "second" album.

Well, I saw the new wave of Canon ads this year: they are pushing all the new models which can take video now. It's pretty convincing. They almost have me believing that I have a use for shooting video. Of course, the spirit and application of videography is completely and utterly different from photography, but who's counting? Photographers are apparently just videographers who haven't upgraded yet.

A huge 36"x48" softbox will approximate the kind of large light source you'd get from a window, with the flexibility to set it up anywhere in the room. It would be pretty big for your use, though. You might look at a more reasonable 24" or even 18" softbox. These would give more control and take up less space. Clever use of mirrors and reflectors will allow you to fill in shadows without springing for multiple lights.

I don't know. These third party guys (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) seem to make their lenses in shorts runs of limited quantities, rather than in continuous production. The lenses always seem to run out of stock, regardless of how good or bad the lens is. Often, you have a better chance finding one in like new condition on the used market, rather than purchasing one new at any retailer.

How do you get 3GB of RAM in combo with the i7 860? That chip sits on the 1156 socket, and those all use dual channel RAM, so your total will be a multiple of 2, unless your PC-builder is ripping you off with a 2GB stick and a 1GB stick (a really low thing to do). You would probably be looking at 4 GB of RAM, if not 8.

 

Honestly, it doesn't make any sense to get a fancier processor and then sacrifice on the RAM. If you can't afford balanced components, then you must recognize your budgetary limitations. A better pairing would be the 750 with 4GB RAM at 1333 vs. the 860 with 8GB RAM at 1600, or something like that. It will cost more money to get into the better processor with more RAM.

 

In photographic terms, your question is like asking if it's better to get the Canon 50D with a Sandisk 64GB Extreme Pro 600x CF card or the Canon 7D with a Sandisk 8GB Extreme III CF card. The mispairing doesn't make sense. If you're going to pair cards, you need to pair the faster, higher capacity card with the faster, higher resolution camera.

 

Back to the computer question: since you are at your budget, you might stick with the i5 750 chip, but save your money and get 4GB RAM instead of 8. For most uses, the extra 4 is just money down the drain. If you needed another 4GB RAM, you'd already know it.

I have just recently seen excellent reviews that have indicated that the resolution of 35mm film is undefineable by digital standards. It could conceivably continue to yield additional detail up to 100MP, but this cannot be proven yet with today's technology. This has so much to do with technique, that many of the online reviews are misleading. If a reviewer "proves" that film is only 8MP, he has usually used a cheap film scanner or some other simple mistake. The best reviews I've seen involve printing an enlargement from the film first, up to 20 times the size of the negative. Then they'll scan the print under high resolution, like 4000dpi or greater. When comparing this to a digital image from a 24MP camera, the film can easily be shown to give more detail under close inspection. Just how much more will have to wait to be proven. Until we see a 35mm digital camera with a 100MP sensor, we still won't know the comparative limits of film resolution.

 

Here's the review I recently found:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html

 

I have seen other similar reviews before, but failed to bookmark them at the time. Of course, this still doesn't address the issue of, "Does this even matter?" We've all seen by now that an 8MP digital camera can make comparable prints to 35mm film, that hold up under scrutiny surprisingly well, at least until you get really, really close, or magnify really, really large. So the common-sense answer is that it just doesn't matter which system you use from a resolution standpoint. Personally, I would shoot for at least a 12MP camera from the latest generation of digitals. This has the best chance of impressing you, rather than disappointing you.

just a small point: 120 and 220 films are not 120mm wide. The film is something like 60mm wide, but the frame is only 56mm wide. On a 6x6 camera, the frame is only 56mm x 56mm. On a 6x7 camera, the frame is 56mm x 70mm.

 

Ziploc bags are cheap (alot cheaper than your film). I would use a new plastic bag for every batch that you introduce. That should ease your mind. Even if you don't introduce moisture (and there's plenty of that in the fridge) you could introduce smells, bacteria, and fungus if you don't protect the film. Remember, modern fridges use air circulation to cool everything, so your film will share air with any foods you put in the fridge.

I'm just curious, what kind of film will you be using? What's the best kind of film for snowy landscapes? Are you shooting color or B&W, or some of both? I imagine the film needs to be stored in plastic bags and kept cold, too, so it stays clear when changing rolls. Is there any risk of the film freezing or cracking? Does it become less responsive at cold temperatures, and do you have to rerate the ISO at certain temps?

You mean you're using an Apple computer and it's not perfect?

 

Kidding aside, you should definitely look into your RAM capacity (physical RAM) and Photoshop's usage of scratch disk space. If you have 2GB of RAM (for example), you can't let Photoshop use it all. Maybe 1GB max. Check your RAM usage just after booting your computer, and consider how much free RAM you have accessible. Allot something less to Photoshop from inside PS's performance menu. You should never allot more than half of your total physical RAM (in my experience) to a single application. Set some astronomical limit for hard drive scratch usage, like 4GB or more.

 

As Dan suggested, you may have to upgrade memory to see adequate performance. I also agree a second hard drive is necessary for scratch disk. It doesn't do any good to have scratch on your 1 and only Primary drive. If that's the case, you might as well not have any scratch disk space whatsoever.

 

In the meantime, reboot whenever you take a break for lunch, snacks, or smokes. This will at least keep it lean for your immediate usage.

I would be surprised if the friend couldn't come up with a budget for you to perform photography services. You might explain that you need a deposit up front to cover rental deposits. I wouldn't recommend anything south of the D90. Realize that the D90 is really Nikon's lowest option for quality work. Either rent another D90, or something fancier like a D300s. When renting, most people are apt to get the best money can buy, since it's just for one day (or weekend).

 

But to get to your question, you might look for a D200 as a backup. That's probably the best cheaper option. Next step down would be the D80. Seriously, though, I don't think anyone would think this is a really great idea. You could get a D5000 or (yeesh) a D3000, you'd really be scraping the bottom of the barrel. The D5000 might produce results as good as the D90 in most circumstances, but the menus will be different, and it doesn't have a front control wheel. The D5000 and D3000 also don't have a focus screw, so you couldn't use your 50mm or 85mm. (Those last two points also apply to the older D40 and D60).

This post might have been better addressed in the Large Format forum, as noone else will have any experience with the issues you are talking about. I have not personally used large format cameras, but I have seen other people using them in recent years. My understanding is that they are still very much in use. I do know that my local lab can process and print 4x5", although they get much more business in medium format.

 

The one thing that you would definitely benefit from in large format is the camera movements. The view camera allows you to control your plane of focus and perspective by using front and rear tilt, shift, swing, rise, and fall movements. I've never seen a digital view camera, but I have seen very expensive tilt/shift lenses. Those are not necessary on a view camera, as any lens will tilt and shift just as readily as any other.

 

You could theoretically use a medium format digital back on a large format camera, but you are cropping in the extreme in such a situation, and the expense is astronomical and impractical for landscape work. I believe digital backs only pay off in highly commercial fields like fashion and celebrity portraiture.

*sigh* I can't wait until April 2.

I couldn't read past the first paragraph. Too bad there wasn't a question in it.

The moon will be MUCH brighter than any artificially lit night-scene. If you've ever seen a night photo with a moon properly exposed in it, the image was composited together. Generally, for these long exposures, you need to keep the moon completely out of the photo. If you want to do so separately, take a photo to expose just the moon, and selectively insert it into the final photograph. The moon is lit by sunlight, and exposes like a bright, sunny scene. (i.e. at f/16, ISO 100 and 1/125 sec.)

 

The other problem is white balance (color of light). You will want to balance color for the artificial lights during the long exposure, but use something close to daylight for the moon exposure.

I've typically seen these signed and numbered in pencil, on the matte board. That way, it's up to the client whether or not they keep your artist's signature on display. Not everyone will care. While it is your reputation that you want to market, not all collectors will be interested in advertising for you. I suspect the majority will leave the signature in tact, and in place. In addition, you should certainly mark the back of the print in a permanent fashion. This will verify authenticity in years to come.

You might find that people here are not friendly to the idea of photo-piracy. You should contact the owner of the image and arrange payment for a print. If the owner doesn't like the idea, or doesn't want to create a print, then you're out of luck.

 

But to answer your question, you could just pretend it's your photo and take it to Walmart. They have a canvas printing option, as does any other modern digital printer.

I bought a Canon refurb once, and it was a great and reliable camera. It looked and acted just like new. You can save alot of money this way, and when you're done with the camera, you can often sell it used for exactly what you paid for it refurbed. I believe there's a brief warranty, like 3 months. Nothing like the New warranty. But then again, I don't really care for warranties.

 

The Nikon's are a little sturdier than the Canon's, but for the price point, the Canon will have more features. That shouldn't really be your deciding point, however, because no $600 camera will have all the features of a pro camera. Also, it's not any more likely that you will accidentally break the Canon vs the Nikon. If the Nikon feels better, then go with your gut.

I like the idea of using a fisheye. You've gone super-wide in the shot above, but with a fisheye you would give the feel of a CCTV camera, especially when done in black and white and with some broadcast-quality grain and maybe horizontal streaks added.

The grain seems WAY too high, and the total resolution is minuscule. You could probably reduce the picture size to 300x200 and still retain all available detail.

 

Alot of the grain depends on the specific developer used. Any idea what the lab used? Some of them don't work very well when pushed to 3200. Is this a lab scan or did you scan the negs or prints? There are some obvious large scratches on the image. I wonder if you scratched the film or if the lab did. It may be a hasty conclusion, but I would think this was not developed or scanned well. Or it is a bad scan from a small print, like a 3x5" print.

Ask photographers if you need help selecting a camera, and even then you'll get widely varied and inevitably biased opinions, but at least they'll be sound opinions. For advice on computers, you need to ask in a computer forum. From what I know of computers, the answers on this thread have been widely ignorant and opinionated, with little basis in reality or fact. There are a couple exceptions, but good luck sorting those out from all the useless and conflictory answers.

 

I recommend you not listen to anybody in here, and go consult with someone who knows computers. Obviously, this does not include the salesmen at retail stores. If you still can't find your answers, just go buy any computer at random, and your chances will be the same that you will find what you are looking for as if you had taken advice from this thread.

To me, this image is creepy. Where is the back half of the baby? How are the feet all the way up by the chin? Feet aside, the image is excellent. The gesture is perfect, hands perfect, lighting, skin tones, textures all perfect.

 

I'm inclined to think that the baby is being supported from below, and only the illusion is given that she is rested on her belly. She is probably being held by the bottom. Something like this might account for the "baby folded in half" effect. Either that, or the baby is deformed. Maybe this is a PSD (Photoshop Disaster).

 

You should definitely go back and find the original image link, and post the link for when the image gets deleted by moderator.

It would be an easy thing to sell the Rebel XT for a couple hundred, and get a used 40D for just a couple hundred more.

Unless the landscape was green (what are you standing in, anyway?), this picture has been tampered with. I don't see a "green cast", because I don't detect any green in the sky. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it in the sky. The weird colors were applied selectively, unless there was something wrong with your film. The granite mountainside should probably not be green. I would go back and ask the lab what they did to it.