fmueller

<p>Craig - I think you got the right impression. That said, I believe the marketing folks aren't actually dealing with a printing vendor. It seems the university bought them a printer that can go up to A1 (maybe even A0), and now they are supposed to work with that thing without any training or background in the area. </p> <p>The other images that were given to them came from a 7D. I have seen a maximum resolution jpg and tif, and they look excellent to me. The photographer is another employee, and he has the RAW image, if that's required. The images are underwater shots from a diving expedition, so it would not be easy to rent another camera and re-take them.</p> <p>Maybe I should make a trip to the marketing department and see if I can have a look at that printer. Could be a nice toy ;-)</p>

<p>They are not paying, but they are doing the printing. Also, technically they are the pros, I am the amateur, and who is the client and service provider, respectively, is difficult to tell. </p> <p>Let me explain, I am dealing with the marketing department of a public university. They are supposed to design and print a series of posters to recruit students for a variety of research areas. Employees have been asked for input, mostly on the wording on the posters but also on the layout. The stock images marketing proposed are atrocious and could only serve to scare students away. Also, marketing has rejected RAW images from a DSLR that another research area submitted on the basis that they were 'too low resolution'. I am not sure yet what camera was used and how good the images really were, but I should get copies of them shortly.</p> <p>When I approached the issue of interpolation with marketing, they gave the impression of having never heard about the concept, but were keen for me to show them how such a thing could be accomplished. It seems they were expecting to get images straight out of a camera that could be printed at native resolution and 300dpi in A0 size. That they won't get 9,930px X 14,040px RAW images came as a shock to them. Now there is not much point in complaining. Since we want the students and we have no other place to work with to get these posters, we better make the best out of what we got.</p>

<p>Ellis - Let me begin by saying that I have enjoyed reading your contributions in these forums for many years. Also thanks for the suggestion of specific camera bodies. I had no idea which ones currently offer the highest resolution.</p> <p>I understand that you are predominantly dealing with paying clients. If this was my situation, I would certainly rent one of the bodies you suggested, and ad the cost to the bill. Since this is not the case, I reckon my T1i will do just fine, and I'll get some more experience by having a chance to play around with interpolation - after I have managed to find out if they want 33.1" x 46.8" (A0), 23.4" x 33.1" (A1) or just 16.5" x 23.4" (A2).</p>

<p>David - many thanks for the quick response.</p> <p>I had been told the posters would be A0, and had tried to clarify exactly what size image is needed to do the job. Here is the response I received: </p> <blockquote> <p>I’ve just discussed this with the department and we don’t have specific size for the images, the only requirement we have for the photos is that they should be in a very high resolution (as it goes to A1;A2 size posters) and the images should be clearly visible in this format. Hope this helps and please let me know if you have any questions.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Seems to me they have not the foggiest idea what exactly they want to do. I reckon I'll take the best images I can get with my T1i and we take it from there!</p>

<p>Most of my shooting is for web publishing. I use a 20D and a T1i, and usually I throw resolution away to bring the image down to a size suitable for my purposes. The 20D delivers a maximum of 3504 x 2336 px and the T1i 4752 x 3168px. Now I have been asked to shoot some images that will be blown up to an A0 sized poster (33" x 48"). </p> <p>I know that for printing one usually uses 300dpi, which none of my cameras can deliver at A0, but I understand that for a print of that size a lesser resolution might be sufficient, due to the increased viewing distance.</p> <p>Will my T1i be up to the task?</p>

<p>T1i, EFs 15-85 IS</p><div></div>

<p>Last time I checked, the standard service charge of Canon's repair services was $300, which is pretty much exactly the new retail price of this lens. Unless you can find a local repair service that works a lot cheaper, unfortunately this looks like a write off to me. Gotta hold on a bit tighter to mine, now that I read this!</p>

<p>Since nobody else has pointed it out, the images on the web site you have linked to are masterfully taken, but they did not come out of the camera as they are presented. They show a rather heavy amount of post processing in Photoshop or a similar software. To me it looks like certain areas of each image were enhanced using unsharp masking, while Gaussian blur was applied to other areas. If you are not familiar with how to do that, you might want to find some online tutorials or a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Photoshop-Classic-Guide-Correction/dp/032144017X/ref=sr_1_4">good book on image processing</a>, and experiment with those techniques. The problem might not be with your gear, but with knowing what technique to use to achieve the desired result!</p>

<p>If your friend is after these kinds of lenses, my advice would be to search eBay for good deals on cameras that have the lens included. If you get the set for a good price, there is a very high likelihood that you can sell the camera alone for the same money you payed for the set, effectively picking up the lens for free. Alternatively, KEH currently has the Sigma for $5.</p>

<p>Happy New Year from NZ! Auckland Skyline with Harbor Bridge and Sky Tower. Foreground: A Blooming Pohutakawa Tree (NZ Xmas Tree). T1i with EFs 15-85mm and polarizer.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry to hear about your stolen lenses. That sucks!</p>

<p>Takashi Amano passed away on 4 August at his home in Japan at age 61. Amano's main claim to fame was the huge influence he had on the development of the aquarium hobby over the last few decades - one hobby I shared with him and Photo.net founder Philip Greenspun. </p> <p>One of the first things that caught my eye about Amano was the astounding quality of photography is his series of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=takashi+amano&sprefix=takashi+amano%2Caps%2C630">Nature Aquarium Books</a>, and I found out that he was an accomplished large format photographer who had traveled the world in a quest to document untouched-by-humans, natural environments. He had many international exhibitions and won numerous awards. Two of his images showing pristine cedar forests on a Japanese island were prominently displayed at the G8 Summit in 2008 discussing the environment and climate change. There is lots more info about him on <a href="http://www.amanotakashi.net/">his web site</a>, and the <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323353204578129260597491712">Wall Street Journal introduced him with an article</a> in 2012.</p> <p>I was always hoping to one day meet him at an aquaristic convention and maybe hear him give a presentation. I guess I missed that opportunity. What remains is a work of amazing images for many people yet to enjoy!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Nikon have just announced a moderately priced ($1400) 200-500</p> </blockquote> <p>The 100-400 MkI still sells at $1,400 new. It might not appeal to those who always need the latest and greatest, but if I was Canon, I would consider this "gap" in the lineup well filled!</p>

<p>Oops. Missed that thread. Sorry for the duplication and thanks Jeff for steering folks back to the original thread.</p>

<p> <p>By and large, courts these days seem to lean towards restricting photographer's rights - often unfairly in the opinion of many Photo.net members, myself included. You can find many examples of this in these forums. In this case the court has gone the other way, but I am afraid they might have gone a little too far. If so it might be hurting our cause more than it is helping. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Digital cameras seem to have reached the stage were improvements are now incremental, rather than each new model being a quantum leap better than the old one. Features like the flip LCD can be a big deal for some - eg if you are shooting video. If that feature doesn't mean much to you, the T3i is basically the same as a T2i to you.</p>

<p>Tui - my first posting since moving to NZ.</p> <p><img src="http://www.fmueller.com/images/mini-Tui-1.jpg" alt="" width="699" height="466" /></p> <p><img src="http://www.fmueller.com/images/mini-Tui-3.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://www.fmueller.com/images/mini-Tui-5.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>20D, 100-400L</p>

<blockquote> <p>The erratic nature suggests (to me) an incomplete break on one of the traces in the flex cable.</p> </blockquote> <p>That was my thinking exactly, plus the cable breaking is a known weak spot of the 17-85. Rather than waste any more time with it now, I think I'll just wait for the new cable to arrive and swap it out.</p> <p>I can not believe I have a new cable in the garage, but unreachable in one of a gazillion boxes! I felt so smart when I ordered that cable some years ago. Oh well, the fun of moving!</p>

<p>Or a loose connection? I've ordered another one of these flex cables. They are cheap, and it should be here in a couple of days. Once it's here, I'll open the lens and swap it out, keeping an eye open for other issues. If that doesn't fix it, maybe it's time for a 15-85 ;-)</p>

<p>Ed - thanks for the suggestion. I did it on my 20D. Behavior is erratic. Sometimes the lens stops down, sometimes not at all, sometimes it seems to stop down a little but not all the way to f16. After trying about 20 times, I got Error 99.<br> <br />This seems to confirm that there is a communication problem, but how does this help me distinguish if it's in the camera/lens interface, or in the lens itself?</p>

<p>This morning I started getting Error 99 on my 20D with the EFs 17-85. The same lens gives Error 1 on my T1i. Both cameras work fine with other lenses. So it seems my trusty 17-85 is the culprit. I've cleaned the contacts with an eraser to no avail. The most common problem with this lens seems to be a broken shutter flex cable. Does this sound like what I am dealing with?</p> <p>As it happens, I ordered such a cable several years ago so I would have it on hand when needed. Of course now I am in the process of moving, and this cable is probably at the bottom of a huge mountain of moving boxes, and I'd probably rather order a new one than try and find this sucker.</p>

<p>Off Topic is by far the friendliest forum nowadays, although a bit quiet for my taste!</p> <p>Kidding aside, anybody who thinks Classic Cameras is not about photos should visit the forum. There are more photos posted there than in any other PN forum I visit, save No Words.</p>