steve_congrave

<p>Thanks<br>

As there could be 2 or 3 cameras roaming around at busy times, I am not sure the time thing will work. I don't need personal info - just a way for them to find their photos quickly so they don't take up too much time at the viewing station and don't lose interest.<br>

<br />There must be something around that I can print cards with barcodes or QR codes on and have the photographer photograph the code and then hand the card to the family. Then snap the photo(s) and have some clever software that can group the photos with the barcode.<br>

I found an online service that does it but I can't find any PC/Mac software to do it but I am sure something must be out there to do it.</p>

<p>I have been asked to propose a solution for a local theme park to operate roving photographers who take photos of families and then the family can visit the sales desk to find, view and print their pictures.<br>

<br />I am trying hard to think of a way that we can make it easy for people to find their photos at the end of the day - there could be several hundred pictures taken so how can we arrange it so that the family can find their pictures quickly and easily?<br>

<br />We could hand out bar coded tickets but how can we link those to the photos on the SD cards?<br>

Does anyone else provide such services for events and how can you track the photo taking to the final images uploaded to the computer and viewing screens?<br>

<br />Thanks for any guidance</p>

<p>Thanks Joe/Peter<br>

I'm definitely leaning towards the Pixma at the moment but the deal on the OCE is hard to pass up - it's almost a free printer given all the supplies that it would come with. Decisions, Decisions.<br>

<br />I'm with you on the viewing distance - in Vegas, the whole of the flamingo hotel was covered in a wrap of the Osmonds a while back - driving down the strip then whole thing looked amazing but close up, each 'pixel' was about 1/4" in size so as you got closer the harder it was to see what it was.<br /><br />What I have to weigh up is if I open a gallery store selling say 24" * 36" prints then what would be an 'ideal' resolution because when they look at the print in the gallery they will put their noses up against it but in their homes they would observe from 6' away. How do I decide what is 'ideal'??</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

I guess the next question is how much benefit can be gained from multi color systems over and above CMYK?<br>

I have an opportunity to buy a slightly older printer that has a new head and a bulk ink 'conversion' but is only CMYK rather than a 6, 8, 10 or 12 color system. Using bulk ink seems to be a far more cost effective than the very expensive OE cartridges.<br>

I'm hoping to be creating prints for sale at some point and will I be restricted by having 'just' CMYK?</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

I'm looking at Epson and Canon printers - the Epson is 720dpi NATIVE resolution and the Canon is 600dpi - does that mean that I am better off (and will get better prints) if I print at a multiple of the native resolution - 720/360/180 for the epson - 600/300/150 for the canon? Or does it make little difference?</p>

<p>How big are people printing D800 images?<br>

I'm investing in either a 36" or 44" roll feed inkjet and wondering what max size of wall prints I should be considering before I have to get into resampling.</p>

<p>Clive, I simply meant that when I had my D90 I had 4 lenses that cost me probably less than $1000 all in - now I find myself buying good or pro glass and I have over $6000 invested in it plus the $3000 for the camera - so it's costing me $10,000 so far :)<br>

<br />I just hope that if I die, my wife doesn't sell it all for what I told her it all cost me :)</p>

<p>Hahaha ;)<br />OK, well at least I added in the missing prism and hot shoe LOL</p>

<p>This is what I can get from the video so far - maybe someone has done better<br>

Looks like a digital FM3 but what is that lever to the left of the lens?</p>

<p><img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/nikonpure.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I used a 70-200 VR at f5.6 1/4000 @ ISO1600 - I wish I had reduced the ISO to 800 and used 1/2000 for a little less noise. I used spot metering and AF-C on a D800</p>

<p><img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/ospreysm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/mallardsm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>There are some interesting comments and opinions and I appreciate all of them.<br>

The conclusion seems to be<br>

1. Buy the best glass <br>

2. Shoot fast or use a tripod<br>

3. Keep the ISO low<br>

For those of you who are old enough to remember, it's like owning a 1980's Italian Supercar LOL<br>

It's expensive to own, it needs the best, it is intolerant of anything less but it can produce amazing results when treated right :)</p>

<p>And in a little more conventional pose<br /><br /><img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/osprey5sm.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D800 70-200 f2.8 @ 200mm F5.6 1/4000 ISO 1600</p>

<p>Is this a free for all Wednesday event? If so then I'd like to add a couple :) <br /> <br /> This is a young Osprey that is learning to fish - I keep an eye on him to try and catch him actually fishing but he is a little shy when I'm around.<br /><img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/ospreysm.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="501" /><br>

D800 70-200 @ 200mm F5.6 @ 1/4000 ISO1600</p>

<p>OK, I think you might be right and it was my mistake - I just realized that I was shooting at ISO 1600 after some evening shooting, so it was noise at the pixel level that I was seeing.<br>

<br />I must remember to write myself a checklist that I should use before going out on a shoot.<br>

<br />Sorry guys, as I said, I do love my D800 :)</p>

<p>I own a D800 and some mediocre and some pro glass - I am happy with it and am getting better and better at realizing just how nice a camera it is to use.<br>

As I experiment more and more and process in PS and zoom into the pixel level, when I compare it to other lower resolution cameras that I own and have borrowed, I am seeing a significant difference in pixel quality.<br /><br />Would others agree that the 36MP sensor still has some way to go? - I think it has 36 million 'mediocre' pixels - which in itself is pretty amazing but I believe that as the technology improves we may find new cameras having 36 million 'good' pixels and eventually 36 million 'amazing' pixels.<br>

Could it be the physical limitations of the tiny pixel size necessary by cramming 36 million of them onto the die? <br>

Would Nikon have been better buying a 24MP sensor rather than a 36MP one for the D800?<br>

Of course I purchased the D800 because of the 36MP sensor and I do love the camera - but I am just wondering whether it is just too high a resolution for the physical die size of a FF camera?</p>

<p>I kind of agree Maurice although the last shot of the Osprey did show me that under good conditions you can get some good shots with a $500 lens :)<br>

<br />I have to say also that I am beginning to think that although the D800 is a phenomenal camera, the 36MP sensor still has some way to go - I think it has 36 million 'mediocre' pixels - which in itself is pretty amazing but I believe that as the technology improves we may find new cameras having 36 million 'good' pixels and eventually 36 million 'amazing' pixels.<br>

That's just my 2c and others may not agree.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input - we are moving to Malta and I am not sure of availability of professional local print houses so I was thinking of a 36"-44" inkjet in the $5k price range.<br>

I have been an 'enthusiastic amateur' for 3 decades - my work/job is computer technologies - but I am at a stage in my life when I'd like to spend more time enjoying my hobby and making a moderate living from it. <br>

I'll read the suggested books especially the one on color management.</p>

<p>OK, THANKS to everyone who gave advice. Gave it another try today and ramped the ISO up to 800/1600 and shot with both f5.6 and f8 from 1/1000 to 1/2000 and wow what a difference!<br>

This is one of the shots that I got and I am very happy - shutter speed is the answer as well as stopping down from the fastest aperture.<br>

Again this is a pretty tight crop from a fair distance away but the focus and clarity met my hopes and expectations.<br>

<img src="http://www.ywip.com/photos/ospreysm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I am looking at possibly setting up a small gallery and printing off my own, and customers, work.<br>

I can find a plethora of books on photography but not anything that covers the post-post-processing :)<br>

Does anyone know of a good book, article of web site that covers the steps to create a great gallery print?<br>

Specifically<br>

<br />1. How to choose the right printer<br>

2. How to choose the right papers/medium<br>

3. How to frame and display your images<br>

<br />I appreciate any help.<br>

<br />Steve</p>

<p>Yes it was a tight crop - this is the original full frame</p>

<p><img src="http://www.ywip.com/boattestorig.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>David :)<br>

<br />I just read the link that you gave to Thom Hogan and to quote him<br /><br />"The following lenses are ones that Nikon NPS has published as having excellent resolution..... Indeed, I'd tend to say these are the best lenses Nikon has produced in terms of optical quality, though I'd probably add the <strong>70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR</strong> to this list."<br>

Now I am even more confused/uncertain :)<br>

I guess I'll be trying to improve my techniques by stopping down (although more than f8 on the D800 seems to introduce diffraction artefacts) and increasing shutter speed dramatically and see what results this relatively inexpensive glass can give me.</p>

<p>David<br>

I really appreciate your insight into the D800 - I did wonder what the downside of a 36MP FX sensor would be - I mean it can't all be a bed of roses and you have explained to me at least that I am going to have to read, read and read some more to get the best out of it. I have some investment in pro Nikkor glass and some middle of the road glass. Hopefully I can educate myself enough to get decent results with both :)<br>

<br />I am going to look at your links now - I have Thom Hogans PDF that is great so far - just heavy reading due to the amount of info contained.<br>

<br />Thanks again!</p>

<p>Hi Barry - I agree with the 1/300 but this is a VR lens so in theory (ha!) it should give me 3 stops of latitude - so 1/300 should be the equivalent of 1/1000 with VR engaged.<br>

<br />I still have some experimenting to do but I think that such a heavy crop is unrealistic and getting closer to the subject with a faster shutter speed will improve matters as well as raising the ISO so that I can stop down the lens.</p>