jackh1

<p>I find that oftentimes my zoom lenses are treated as twin primes–meaning I'm shooting either at the widest or the longest setting, with not much of the middle focal length real estate being utilized.</p>

<p>It's different, for sure, losing that zoom ring. But there are times when it's good to have it there. If you shoot with a prime, are there going to be times when you wish for some focal distance flexibility, sure, there will be. But same goes for a zoom--there's always going to be times when you want more reach, or a wider field of view, or a faster aperture, or something...but what I like about primes is that I spend more time compositing and paying attention to what is in the frame and what I can do with it, rather than racking back and forth to recompose.</p>

<p>And recently I've really gotten into the Pentax pancake primes, and have really been enjoying the compactness and low weight of this series of lenses for lots of HDRI and family shots. I'm surprised Canon and Nikon don't have anything like this in their lineups. I'm of an age and station (new baby) where travelling light is a critical part of my day-to-day shooting. I'd love to see some EF-S pancakes, but I really doubt there's any coming down the pike any time soon...</p>

<p>I've always been of the mind to buy the biggest, fastest CF cards you can...<br>

Way back when that meant a 12x 512MB card, which my then-girlfriend bought me as a gift to double my storage capacity before a Winter trip to Yellowstone... now it means 16 and 32 GB UDMA cards that won't clog up or fill up too quickly when I'm shooting hi-resolution time lapse or RAW HDRI capture bursts. Even if I'm using an older camera, the DL speeds via FW800 are well worth it when you're talking this much data, in my opinion.<br>

I've heard the "eggs in one basket" argument before, but I've not had any issues with a CF card from Hoodman, Sandisk or Lexar in years and I'm pretty lax about formatting cards and oftentimes have had files from many different cameras on a CF card without problems, too.</p>

<p>I cannot speak for the current content on Pop's website, but during my tenure there as an Online Editor (2006-2008), I never came across an archive list going back that far either in hard form or digitized anywhere within the organization..<br>

However, you mention that this is a University Library, so you very well may be in luck. Check with the reference librarians for the Periodical Index and Guides for that timeframe that they've got. It may be a bunch of huge dusty books probably with green or blue covers, or it may have been converted, in part, to digital and online searchable databases. Alexander Library at Rutgers was about half and half when I was there in the early nineties. I'm sure at least some of these old lists have been digitized since then. But yes, there are/were these amazing big books filled with almost every article published in different magazines and newspapers that you can pore through to find an article from way back when.<br>

Good luck.</p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p>Here's a part of this puzzle that I've badgered Adobe to address as it has driven me nuts for years.<br>

Under the <strong>View</strong> Menu is an option titled <strong>Print Size</strong>. Which you might think, would then display your image at the size it would print, for example, 8x12 inches at 300dpi. But in practice, it doesn't actually usually work out this way when you hold a ruler up to the screen... It may be close-ish, but it is not exact straight out of the box and the error grows more obvious the larger you go.<br>

Instead, you've got to determine your monitor's pixel count and pixel density and then plug this number into your Photoshop<strong> preferences</strong> for <strong>screen resolution</strong> under <strong>Units and rulers</strong>, and then <strong>View>Print Size</strong> will be much more accurate.<br>

For example, my 20-inch iMac display is 1680px wide over 17 viewable inches. Divided, that's 98.8 px density. So if I set my screen resolution to 99 in Photoshop, my on-screen <strong>View>Print Size </strong>display is significantly more accurately sized. So now when I hold a ruler up to my 8x12 shot onscreen, it measures darn near 8x12 inches.<br>

But what would be even greater would be a database of popular monitor sizes and densities and a sniffer/drop-down option to make this just work straight out of the install, wouldn't it?</p>

<p>Devon, if you are on the fence at all, that's probably a good indication that at least some part of you really doesn't want to do it for many of the great and valid reasons previously offered in this thread.<br>

I oftentimes wonder if people who are in other wedding-industry related fields (either as pros or hobbyists) have the same issues.<br>

Does Aunt Mary get asked if she can make a mess of lasagna and meatballs for the reception because she's such a good cook?<br>

Does cousin Ellie with the green thumb and nice garden get asked if she can do all the flowers?<br>

Seriously, Devon, if you are not 100% comfortable with this, be honest with yourself and your friends and do not do the wedding photography. Here's an idea:<br>

If your friends don't like the Korean wedding mill style of photography that you describe, perhaps there's a few local newspaper photographers that moonlight as wedding shooters–just like here in the US. Maybe you can help them track down a good local news shooter to do their wedding in a photojournalism style, and have this be the way you help them with their special day.<br>

Good luck, whatever course you choose!</p>

<p> </p>