sarah_lange1

Mervyn, because the family already owns a D90.

<p>Thank you again Shun Cheung.</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone. This is really great info and advice that I will pass along to her mom. Sounds like the D90 is definitely adequate for now -- they do have a lens too. But if they wanted to buy one, the Nikon 7000 series looks good if that's in their budget. Good point Edward about the newer cameras' file sizes and bogging down her computer. I agree the smart phone cameras are getting better and you can be more creative but I don't think they're a very good learning tool for the technical basics of photography. </p>

Thank you Shun Cheung and Mark Pierlot. That's kind of what I was thinking so it's good to know this would be good option for now. Good to know about the new E lenses just in case they want to get one.

Thanks again everyone. Turns out her folks have a D90 and lens. Would that be a good choice for her for now? I know that model is a few years old but should still be compatible with everything? And sophisticated enough for the time being? Also, she does not have any requirements or guidelines from the school, it's a little more open ended than that.

Thanks everyone! All really good points and good suggestions. David, that's a good thought, about what she wants. I don't know but will ask her mom if she knows either what she wants or if the Sschool has made any recommendations. Peter, I think you are exactly right, it has to able to operate all in manual and need not be anything fancier than a basic or older dslr. Thanks. Kent, that's funny. I hope you're keeping the camera exercised for him. But seriously, it sounds like I should suggest the 7000 series. You guys have convinced me a DX is ok for now. And yes, the FX are not necessary and super pricey. Bob, yes, the school is asking her to have image editing software too. But since I know what to recommend on that I did not ask about it here. But you make a good point about the curriculum for the class and what will be taught. I will ask her mom. Thanks for the explanation on the 4/3 Stephen. Sounds like the DX? Except that the micro is smaller?

<p>Thank you Rodeo Joe. Good to know. </p>

<p>Thanks Leszek. Yes, if a good P&S is as much or more than an SLR, definitely should go the SLR route. So much more versatile. Thanks for your advice and I agree that the triangle is the most important thing to learn right now. </p> <p>Thanks Stephen, I don't know what a micro 4/3 is. I'll look it up. </p>

<p>Thanks Hector, I will look at the Panasonic LX100. </p>

<p>Thanks Shun Cheung. Yes, I hear you on the DX recommendation. Makes sense, they are so much cheaper. I don't know the budget but I doubt it's anywhere near $5,000. So I wanted to give them some options, for example a recommendation or two in point and shoots (with manual controls, etc....) and a recommendation or two in SLRs. My guess is they want to stay under a $1,000 just given that, as you say, she may lose interest in photography and the main purpose of this new camera is to be able to take full advantage of the class she is taking and learn as much as possible. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Thanks Hector. That's very helpful.<br> Is there a good point and shoot with manual controls (aperture, shutter speed, iso, white balance, hot shoe) and a lens with an aperture range down to 2.8 or less? </p>

<p>Thanks everyone. I think I was concerned a DX format would be limiting in that she wouldn't be able to use DX-compatible senses with an FX camera down the road. Or, is it the other way around, that FX lenses can't be used on a DX camera? <br> Stephen, good question, I do not know. However since I have been asked for some recommendations my guess is the school hasn't offered any or doesn't have any requirements or guidelines for equipment. But I will ask her parents. </p>

<p>Hi: <br> I have a friend who is a freshman in high school. She is learning photography and is taking a class that will last all year long. What would be a good camera for her parents to buy? I recommended a Nikon DSLR because that's what I know and like and an SLR will enable her to learn the most by being able to use different lenses -- rather than being limited by a fixed lens on a point and shoot. <br> However, getting an SLR is a pretty big investment -- at least an FX model -- -- for a student who may or may not continue studying photography. I am wondering if there is a good and versatile and sophisticated point and shoot that will be more affordable yet still allow her to learn a lot. For example, if the lens zooms and the settings can be used on Manual. Or perhaps an SLR with a DX sensor is a compromise? <br> Thank you!</p>

<p>Well, the content aware actually worked great. Thank you again everyone. The problem is though -- and it's a math problem and I have zero math ability -- no matter what I do I have too much sky. The new canvas and content aware fill-in trick worked great in terms of giving me enough room to the left and right to get the men's outer arms in (although it didn't give me a ton of space but enough). But regardless of where I placed the old photo after dragging it onto new canvas, once I cropped to 5x4, invariably I ended up with too much sky. I tried putting the old photo in different placements in hopes of not having so much empty sky space on top but it never worked. I always ended up with the same final photo. I tried a new canvas at 5 x 4 and larger 5x4 ratios (for example 25 by 20) and then I tried a canvas of 25 inches (5) width but shorter height. No go. I still ended up with too much sky. </p>

<p>Hi Shun: Thank you! I will give that a try. Also, thank you so much for offering to look at the photo. That's very kind of you. However, I cannot share this photo. This particular business is super careful about privacy and super cautious about photos getting around. In fact, I cannot email them any photos for that reason. I have to deliver everything on a flash drive. But I appreciate your offer. </p>

<p>Thanks Shun. Yes, I've tried to use Content Aware in the past and, as you mentioned, it picks up unwanted content, such as the pelican's foot, and becomes a big mess -- unless you have a wide swath of clean content to borrow from. So maybe I have an older version too. In my photo of four colleagues, there isn't a lot of background around them (which is why I can't crop to 4x5) and so to try Content aware I'd definitely get lot of body parts in with the background. <br> Thank you JDM. Your example here looks like it works way better than Cloning or Healing Brush. <br> But here's a question -- Let's say I want to try Content Aware even though my version is probably early and not as sophisticated. How do I drag out the photo to 4x5 and dragged out the way Shun's done with his pelican photo? Thank you.</p>

<p>Thank you both. I have not tried content aware, I haven't even gotten that far, to filling edges because I'm still trying to match up edges of smaller, larger photos. But I am watching the you tube video Phil linked and that is explaining maybe how to do this so that it great. Thank you for that video. Yes, I can see that if it works to do it like video says I don't have to fuss with a second photo. But not sure it's going to tell me how to get the original photo to 4x5, at what point in the process do I crop? But thanks for getting me started on this. :-)</p>

<p>Hi: I took a group shot for a business at an outdoor setting. Four people. The photo they chose had to be cropped to 4x5 inches per their business's specifications (I did not know this ahead of time). When I crop it, two men's outer arms -- they are on each end -- are slightly cut off. <br> So I am trying to figure out how to put this group into a 4x5 that gives them more background so that the arms are not cut off. I do have other photos that have more background but all my trials and errors and experimenting are not working out. The backgrounds when I sandwich the photos don't match up. Then, there's the problems of the people in the photo I'm using for the background and getting rid of them. But mostly the problem is when I place the photo they want over the photo with more background I still am left with no additional background because I haven't shrunk the people in the original photo so it still goes edge to edge. <br> I'm sure there must be a way to do this but how?<br> Thank you!</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone. Stephen, those are fantastic self-portraits. Thank you for your tips. The Styrofoam head is a great idea. <br> Nish, I do have a self-timer function as well as a cord that's long enough to reach. I think that has timer function too. Thank you for the manual suggestion Gary.</p>

<p>Thanks again Tim! What I am learning here is that there is no magic bullet or foolproof trick, just educated guessing and trial and error and keeping settings like aperture and crop sufficient to allow for imprecise focussing that may not be exactly where you want it. I guess getting a shallow DOF with a self-portrait without assistant is not easy, unless you just take a million shots and hope one is focused on the eyes. </p>

<p>Thanks very much everyone. That's very helpful. I think I need to get something vertical to focus on, manual, and then try to get as close to that as I can and push it out of the way? If I use the remote cord with autofocus there's no telling if it's focusing on my nose or eyes or shoulder. Hence the adequate dof, as you say. <br> Tim, when you say "place your eyes right in line with the center of the lens....." how do you place your eyes there? Do you look at the lens and eyeball it and try to get aligned with the lens? Not sure how to place my eyes in that line since my head will be in front of the lens and so I can't look thru the view finder. <br> Thank you again to everyone for your advice. <br> </p>

Hi, I have my D800 set up on a tripod, along with a corded shutter trigger, I can't seem to get my self portraits properly focused. What are the techniques for doing this? Thank you!

<p>Thank you Michael. I appreciate it. </p>

<p>Thank you very much David. </p>

<p>Hi: I do not sell a lot of canvas. <br> I have a client interested in a canvas print of a family photo to go over their mantle. I haven't seen the mantle but I think it's an average sized middle class house. Not a mansion, not small either. I will ask them to measure exactly but, on average, those of you who do sell a lot of canvas, is there a popular mantle size or a few popular sizes? <br> She is asking what's a common mantle size. I'd like to be able to give her a ballpark and also ballpark price (I'm not asking price here, just size.) <br> Not sure if they want a gallery wrap or a loose canvas to frame. <br> Thank you so much. </p>