ali_baba2

<p>If I got it right your high number of pictures is due to several copies of the same one that have been modified in different ways. You will find that now your modifications dont necessarily have to be exported as new picture but can be just kept as bunch of information along with the original picture that stays untouched. All these instructions take way less space than copies of the pictures even when you take in account the backup copies of the catalog.<br>

Also suspect that the way you organize your pictures is to just keep them in order through date, file name, folder name, subfolder name etc and browse through them like any other file on your pc. If you will get into the habit of using the "metadata" (extra info attached withinin the file) to tag all your pictures by title, caption, keyword etc when you upload them, and when you work on them, your search for one picture will be quite more simplified. The software will do most of the work and you will be looking a catalog of results instead of hacking through a jungle of directories...<br>

It could be a change from the way you do things now so it takes a bit of an effort but a better way of organizing files usually ends with reducing clutter quite well. In that way you can lessen your worries about storage space and you can eliminate that factor from the decision "large unprocessed versus smaller processed"<br>

(At least thats my experience as "messy data hoarder")</p>

<p>I think that the whole 12 vs 14, compressed and uncompressed, is much more subjective than the RAW vs JPG. Since the differences are very subtle, it greatly depends on what someone does to their pictures and what kind of hardware one has. Transferring big files on a slow network and working on slow machines can be more of a factor in deciding between all that than the final result, which can be practically the same, most wont care about a difference of a few seconds on snappy hardware but once brought to slower hardware things change.You can find plenty of valid arguments backed by numbers for each option, have just to google it. Beside that the difference between "<strong>lossless</strong> compressed" and "uncompressed" should be none once the file is opened in your software... it should take a fraction longer to open the compressed file because the software needs to decompress it, negligible, but its faster to transfer (and im talking on a network) because smaller so it might be your best bet in between all the choices.</p>

Im not sure that Lightroom is a must, plenty of other software available and some its not bad at all, but now you bought that particular software so thats it. As for RAW it gives you more possibility of tweaking your image over JPG. It doesnt mean you would work on every single image you shoot but some will inevitably need a bit of retouching, an improvement or correction here and there or even modifications as a progression of your "creative vision" for a particular image if your photography doesnt end at the "click".

I too dont see the analogy JPG= cheap 4x6 prints, but you can sort of intend it as the photographer that drops the roll at the store to have it developed, and eventually asks for some tweaking in printing the negatives if necessary, and the ones that (if you shoot RAW) had their own darkroom and knew how to develop their own film tweaking the process to obtain a particular result all the way to the final print.

As an hobbyist you dont even need to shoot exclusively RAW... if you shoot your bestfriend wedding you might want the RAW file but for other less important things like reference shots etc JPG can be just fine. You will also find that some pictures shot in RAW will end being converted as JPG with no need to keep the RAW file and that, at the end, the way to maintain the amount of storage within decent limits is not to sacrifice the editing freedom skimping on each file size but it is to be ruthless in deleting when you review your work (which its not easy to do).

too much of a good thing its not necessary good, you cant always completely crosspolarize, especially on metallic paints where their "character" its exactly the reflection that will be eliminated.

In a lot of the tutorials you will find the objective is reproducing paintings where texture from brushstrokes or canvas give non wanted reflections, its not your situation.

I found this document http://www.betterlight.com/downloads/conference10_speakers/guyer_Polarization.pdf from a presentation on the subject quite helpful, maybe it can help you achieve what you want too if you keep in mind the point above.

The whole betterlight site is quite interesting even more their articles section

I think she means that at the same magnification Zooming and Cropping show two different results, which shouldnt happen. In that case it might be that what you are trying to do is not just cropping but cropping AND enlarging to original size and the loss happens while enlarging, as they said in the other replies there is a limit in how much you can enlarge.

<p>It used to be that 6.4.4 used an old Canon SDK that gave that problem, im not sure if it ever been released a patch to correct it or if they just took care of it with new versions of the software.<br /> In the meantime people used a workaround that consisted in replacing the canon SDK in Capture with the updated SDK from Canon Utilities.<br /> Basically you update your EOS Utility to the last version (which is free btw) then navigate to "EOS Utility/Contents/Frameworks/EDSDK.framework/Versions/A" and "CaptureCoreServer/Contents/Frameworks/CaptureCore/Canon/ED-SDK/EDSDK.framework/Versions/A". In the two "A" folders you should find that some files (four of them) have the same name, replace those ones in Capture "A" folder with the ones from the EOS Utility "A" folder. <br /> If you are planning any update do so before applying the workaround or you risk to have to redo the whole file replacement after updates</p>

<p>PS: here you will find a step by step http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=12926&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=709883d030d1f9930bd751d0d1a373b5#p59346<br>

If you need it i can rewrite the reply in Italian.</p>

if you were in the air taking the pictures, in the first one the sun would be behind you right above your right shoulder, in the second picture instead you are almost at the opposite side so the sun is in front of you not too high and a bit on the left. the shadows give all the hints you need. In the second picture you were seeing the side of the house that was in the shadow, the camera was seeing more shadows and exposed to compensate and that accounts for the difference (and there could have been a filter added if the camera was manned)

If you really (but really?) want to calculate the approximate angle of the sun then pick an object of a more or less known measure (i.e. the umbrella beside the pool in the second photo, in average those tend to have the same height all over), then measure the length of its shadow. Divide the object height by the length of its shadow to obtain the tangent of the angle of the sun on the horizon. Calculate the inverse of the tangent to obtain the angle of the sun in degrees. It wont be of a military precision but i guess it will do for a general idea... its ok if you find trigonometry fun but i doubt it will come really useful for taking pictures ;), just learning how to manage exposure with your camera would serve you much better since that "greying out" its not just a direct consequence of the sun angle

In the old days cameras came with a prime lens so there: 35mm SLR had the 50mm and so on, now the kit lens is mostly a zoom lens of a certain range and it makes sense that is like that in today's market which is much different than in the past.

As for the being stuck with the 35mm equivalency: if every maker would use their own numbers for the focal length of a lens it would be a mess trying to figure out what a lens does, this way you have one unit of measure as starting point equal for everybody.

I guess one could think the 35mm, medium format and large format in film as perfectly comparable to the sensor sizes of today... Is it just my impression that back then it wasn't as big of an issue as the crop factor is now? (and there were also plenty of different frame ratios to complicate things)

The explanations above are plenty clear. I would add to scout the area first both while theres still light and when its dark. On experience you might find that certain areas have no traffic after a certain hours for various reasons, or that accent lights on building arent on all the time during the evening or during the week. If you live in the area then its easy but if you are traveling it could save you some wasted time wondering whats going on.

The work of others is great in teaching you techniques and letting you see something though their eyes, eventually trying to convey a mood or feeling. In that they are a great reference but you cant just imitate them, once you understand how they obtained a result you move on, you are the one taking the pictures, you are the one that knows why you are taking them and the only way to transmit it (or not since theres no need to always say something to others) is to do things the way you want. I feel that in the video his advice is simply to not get bogged down by what everybody else expects YOUR photographs to be and just do what you want with it. In essence doing things the way you feel and see them is actually following his advice

Obviously something that is just in your head doesnt magically appear on a screen or print, you need to know how to put it there. Like everything else or you are one of the lucky ones with an innate talent or you practice and learn so that you can express what you see. Most of the time the whole practicing and learning reveals your vision and technique

If its for a present why not point towards a photograhy intro course for beginners rather than a camera? for some theres no need to own a camera and in that way she will have a better idea of what she wants when its time to buy (taking into account that certain suggestions given during these courses could be exclusively to promote a certain product)

Couldnt he get away with a simple reversing ring instead of a macro lens?

if you can use a polarizer in front of the lens it might help in reducing the reflected light from the dust

if you get just the face try not to have the person looking directly into the camera, 3/4 hides a bit the distortion (ear and nose are on the same plane). Or instead of just thinking about the "photo book best lens for portraits" just make use of the exaggerate perspective to give a different look and character to the picture (i.e. different angles etc)

this should help you, http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/install_canon_software.html. scroll down you will find the stuff for Mac

Btw a portable cd reader is always useful to have around for laptops that dont have one, they are fairly inexpensive, another thing you can do its networking your pc and mac and install through the network, it can be a bit tricky at first but once set up you can use that system for whatever else, its faster than porting everything on usb and go back and forth from pc to mac

<p>often on models you want to show the details for competitions, if there are "reproduction"categories you will want to be a tad closer using the widest setting the camera has so to make it look a bit less like a model. But even in a general kind of competition you want to avoid taking pictures high and flat from the side that give the aerial scout look, a 3/4 more or less level with the model is generally better.You want to show off the sheer giving a bit of shadow, but not use so much light from one single direction that everything above the sheer blends together: You can see it a bit on Sylvia II. Generally on boats you want that some details of the hull show, ideally you should be able to see the keel meeting the garboard, the chines shouldnt disappear in shadows. The reflection from the bottom shouldnt be too much in lapstrake models or theres the risk of erasing the strakes, unless you are trying to minimize errors in their proportions. Placing the model on a shiny dark surface often helps to reflect upwards a bit of the light.<br>

As already said a plain dark background will not distract the eye taking away from the model<br>

The cheapest light is a window, you can use reflectors to balance it around the model, plenty of videos on the net on how to make and use them, pick the ones with the cheapest homemade setup (2 or 3 pieces of foam or whiteboard and some ducktape) so members can see how to use it.<br>

If someone doesnt have a tripod, even the small dollar store ones can do, tell them to place the camera on a stack of books, a beanbag... any stable support to rest the camera on basically, then turn on the selftimer and let the camera take the picture without touching it<br>

Often the builder will take a picture and "see" the details of the model only because he built it and knows where they are (same goes for the defects), to other builders they might seem less visible because the picture is flat, in a competition you dont want judges to look for something they expect but cant distinguish, having someone else as sounding board is useful.<br>

On the "judge" side you can level the field a bit forcing people to shoot the model from a certain angle only, in that case ask for two pictures for each model i.e. one from the bow and one from the stern so you wont penalize anyone. Often two shots, a whole model one and a detail closeup, can balance things since busy and extremely detailed reproductions will loose a bit in the whole picture that can show off very well the simple models, but the closeup of the small detail will show off more the care taken for the busy ones: like a detail in the masts and rigging or the deck in the paddlewheeler.</p>

 

oh so you are rotating the collar not the ballhead?.... well then its weird

Apart from auto focus and auto exposure?.......................... Not even that, I was meaning fully manual.... Should have been" ... IF there are no automatic etc". That said, I know people that would have lost the taste for photography right at the start if they found they had to learn too much while others are curious about all the technical stuff... so independently from our opinions on digital and film i think the kind of person you are buying for has a lot to do with the choice

<p>and once you have another copy of the original scan it and print it, carry with you the printed one and keep the copy of the original safe</p>

<p>I dont think its possible to say one is better than the other, they are just different, in the long run developing rolls can be rather expensive, even if you do it by yourself. One would get more use out of a digital for sure. I started with film and I keep going back to it, in a way it forces you to learn because you have no other choice, there are no automatic settings to use, but if someone is disciplined in keeping a DSLR in manual settings then its the same with the added advantage of the immediate feedback. Wouldnt use auto settings because that can leave more attention to composition etc, they both come together with practice. I also have a lot of fun taking pictures with pinholes, polaroid, and PreWW2 cameras so .... biased</p>

<p> </p>

Just an idea: if you would use an L bracket instead than rotating the ballhead would the problem still be there? Still a pain but less than a beanbag With the ballhead rotated there is less stability as mentioned in the first post, i presume you used a cable release or similar system, maybe even mirror lock, just to see if its any different...

If the cameras changed but the tripod is always the same then maybe people with the same tripod/ballhead could tell you how it works for them.

Thanks guys, TTL communication wouldnt be an issue, all the offcamera strobes would be used as simple "dumb" strobes. I wasnt trying to have all the strobe communicating to compensate, they would all be on manual. I just thought that, since they would be also fired by the preflash, then the camera should be seeing the scene while its illuminated also by the other strobes while it is metering and expose accordingly, i.e. the camera would see a room illuminated by strobes rather than thinking its just a dark room... I guess ill set everything completely manually like i used to with my Yashica...

 

Dan, yes the optical eyes Im going to put together are like the Sonia ones at your link, basically I'd be replicating them using electronic components I already have sitting there gathering dust. the Sigma always did what i needed it to do without glitches up to now, but havent used it for anything too fancy yet so... crossing my fingers... I used it off camera few times, in slave setting the hotshoe triggers it normally.

When I press the exposure lock button on my Canon the camera flashes the preflash, its actually using it to catch

the right exposure and lock it, or I misunderstood the way it works?

 

The reason for the question is that I have 3 strobes, one sigma EF530 and two old maxxum 2800. I intend to use all

of them offcamera with optical slaves and use the camera flash to trigger them (I do set the AF flashes as

"off"so its only the single preflash going before the actual flash).

Im making the optical eyes for the maxxum strobes myself, have enough junk electronic components to put them

together quickly and at zero cost, the point is that I could as easily add a small delay so that the eye will

ignore the preflash shot. Since the Sigma can be set as simple "dumb" optical slave, to be triggered by the onboard flash and DOESNT ignore the preflash Im wondering if I should make the other two "dumb" as well, no delay, so all of 3 strobes will work exactly the same, if I build them to ignore the preflash then I will have to make a smart eye even for the Sigma

strobe.

Am I wrong in thinking that if i keep the optical slave "dumb", triggered by the preflash also, then I have the

benefit that when i press the exposure lock button, the preflash will trigger all the other flashes and the

camera would then expose correctly taking in account even all the other strobes, so from then i can shoot away as soon as the strobes recycle keeping the exposure locked?

<p>oh i dont want to think about where its from, i will just stick my head in the sand and assume its simply a foreign object, its working, so case closed.<br>

I have no idea how the two have been treated, they were a "for parts" thing, the person who sold them to me told me he got them as old store returns from a place that closed down and that they had the problem of not turning on, which wasnt the case because they did turn on. I dont know of a serial # database that i could check so it will stay a mistery. Maybe they were display cameras kept out there with no lenses on (seen some in walmart in those conditions, plenty of greasy fingerprints on the mirrors, sigh...). Maybe its a shard from the pentaprism, although i doubt its plastic and, if it is, its from a place out of the way. Could be that the camera suffered a fall, the shell is in perfect condition so doesnt look like, but since the lot came with just one kit lens, and have no way to know if its the lens of the XT or the XTi, could have happened that the camera fell lens down, saving the body and breaking the lens that got thrown away and a piece of the lens remained in the body and eventually found its way up there. Who knows...<br>

The XT, instead, came with the rear curtain completely pulled in and out off the track, maybe someone tried to move it off the way to reach the sensor, they would have had to lift the mirror and that would have lifted the first curtain which was in fact all the way up, and safe, in fixing the curtain i realized one of the leafs is cracked so its irrecoverable, or i find another junker to scavenge the curtain and rebuild the shutter assembly or ill just shell other 50$ for a new/refurbished assembly from Canon parts service and be done with it, i still come out ahead... then ill probably give it to a friend who likes photography but has no DSRL, if she wants it, or i might modify it for IR photography.</p>

<p>Mark: thanks for the links<br>

Michael: thanks for that one too, it will come useful to know<br>

Daryl: it was harware, was close with the dust.<br>

Dan, Kryn: yes, its a good observation, but i thought the system canon uses is programmed to try to give the details in the shadows overexposing the rest. But you guys are right and it makes perfect sense to test it in the way everyone said, and so i did take pics of a plain wall, so all evenly lit, the difference was always the same: XTi very underexposed, now prbably 4 or more stops. I would hope i dont need to recalibrate the XS since its fresh out of the box :) but since the full auto mode (which i dont really use unless its to take quick snaps of books pages) always behaved overexposing to keep the shadow details i suppose its just programmed that way.<br>

Mark: i just had now the possibility to compare XS and XTi side by side, i prefer the XS. The XTi and another XT that is currently apart on my table were an "as is" lot buy, the XT has a busted curtain (who knows what they did to reduce it like that), and have to decide what to do with that one, but for 50$ for the lot of 2 i didnt expect much... The idea was to experiment with them, maybe for use in "dangerous" situations, like for underwater, dont really want to risk the XS for that, i know some may think its not a great risk since its not a thousands dollars camera but if i can risk 50 instead of 500 i much prefer so.<br>

Anyways now its <strong>SOLVED!</strong><br>

It was an hardware problem, the links posted gave me an indication of which was the light sensor so i took it apart, (btw the sensor is between the pentaprism and the viewfinder, raised up). I was thinking to check the possibility to swap the sensor with the one off the busted XT since i read they used the same sensor, and in reality they are different, same technology maybe but different wiring.<br>

But when i lifted the sensor from the camera there it was: a small shard of transparent plastic was stuck against the little lens that feeds the image to the light sensor, i dont even want to know where it comes from. took the "intruder" and goop of the little lens, put everything back and IT WORKS! Evidently that piece of plastic was big enough to throw off the sensor, and since it was stuck on one side that could also explain why i was getting sometimes 2 stops different exposure than normal and sometimes more, probably due to the different angle the light was hitting it in different situations.<br>

Finally the cheap buy works perfectly and i can use it as a back-up. Hopefully this will come also useful to others that have a similar problem.<br>

Thanks to everyone for replying with suggestions, they were still useful since i learned something from each of them. I really appreciate all the help. Now... anyone knows where i can scavenge a shutter curtain from?..... hehe :P</p>

<p> </p>

<p>both evaluative, but the shots are at full auto (green mode) to show how the camera compensates the reading. there is no EC compensation. no custom functions, i know i reset the XTI to default and i never set custom functions on my XS</p>