t_n1

Can you provide some screenshots?

I can't really answer your questions about profiling supplementary screens, but I do recommend on getting an external monitor for the laptop!

If you're going to upgrade to Vista, it's best to buy a video card. Matrox has generally fallen out of favor in recent years. Most of their current products cater to a specialized niche.

 

When choosing a 3D card, you generally have two flavors... nVidia and ATI. Either one of these chipsets can be found on almost every popular video card. The maker of the video card hardly matters unless it's some no-name company. The best drivers to use are from the chipset manufacturers (nVidia or ATI), not from the video card manufacturer. I tell everyone to download drivers from ATI or nVidia, instead of using the CD that comes in the video card box.

 

nVidia or ATI will work just fine. I am more familiar with nVidia since it has been the cheaper option for most people. I would recommend anything with at least _600 series (ie 6600, 7600, or 8600). Anything higher than _600 will work fine too (ie 6800, 7800, 8800). As long as it has at least 128MB (not shared with system RAM), then you should be fine. Pixel pipelines as well as GPU are more important than amount of memory really.

 

If you're planning on using Windows XP for awhile, onboard video will work just fine (or your Matrox).

 

Photoshop CS3 Extended has optional 3D editing support, which is why you may hear that CS3 works better with 3D video cards. If you're not working with 3D layers, there is no need for an additional 3D video card. The 3D hardware acceleration in the preferences of CS3, as shown in the attached image, works only if you're editing 3D layers.

 

So unless you're upgrading to Vista or working with 3D layers, your Matrox card should be fine.<div></div>

Peace, Raymond. I am not being argumentative with you. I state things as they are very dryly. This is what I do for work, recommending and building computer systems not just for individuals, but for labs and offices. Based on previous clients, most do not upgrade but buy entire new systems every 3-4 years since things evolve so quickly.

 

I don't mean to be offensive in any way. I just don't want anyone who may come across this thread to falsely believe that they need to spend more than necessary to get the job done. And I understand how technology may quickly evolve/change within a short amount of time. I too have a hard time keeping up. ;-)

<p><i>PS CS3 Extended is, again, looking forward as to where Photoshop is going. Surprise! It now uses 3D acceleration.</i></p>

 

<p>The 3D acceleration applies only if you're using 3D layers. As I've already stated, you do not need a video card (or 3D acceleration) when doing 2D work.</p>

 

<p><i>An integrated video chip on a MB uses one less slot. For example rather than have 4 expansion slots, you end up with 3. More expensive MB can obviously create more expansion, but again at a higher price. </i></p>

 

<p>I don't know where you shop, but there are several medium priced motherboards at newegg.com with integrated video that have 3 and 4 expansion slots. There are also several medium priced motherboards with no integrated video that have 3 and 4 expansion slots as well.</p>

 

<p><i>simply being able to draw those huge RAW images faster and still be able to leave multiple programs and windows open.</i></p>

 

<p>I just compared two similar spec machines side by side (same processor, same RAM, same FSB). One has onboard Intel GMA 950, while the other has nVidia 7800GTX card. Both computers loaded and processed the same 16-bit TIFF image with 30 layers at identical speeds. This was with an internet browser and winamp loaded in the background. If the machine has 2 gigs of RAM (smarter investment than video card), multiple programs/windows won't make any difference whether or not you have a separate video card unless you're blasting video games.</p>

You have to type in the degree that you want it rotated next to the rotate button.

"True you can shut off that on-board video card and upgrade to a dedicated PCIe in the future, but you've just wasted space on the controller to use for another PCIe slot."

 

That does not make any sense whatsoever since all the PCI express x16 slots are dedicated for video graphics anyway. You would not be wasting that slot for anything else.

I've built computers for university labs, including those that belong in the digital media and art schools. You definitely do not need a video card for photoshop. You can simply use the onboard graphics for 2D work. The only time you need to buy a separate video card is if you are dealing with 3D work or using an operating system that hogs resources. If you're still planning on using Windows XP, you won't need the graphics card.

 

You can always buy a graphics card down the line later. Again, you do not need a graphics card for Photoshop and Win XP.

350D. It's cleaner at higher ISOs.

The mirror on the film rebel won't knock the Tamron 17-50mm?

 

The Tamron 17-35mm suggested above will vary drastically from sample to sample. If you get a good copy (which is rare), it is extremely sharp. However most samples I've used offer terrible quality.

The sharp copy I used was excruciatingly sharp edge to edge on the 5D, much more so than any of the Canon L variants.

I haven't shot boxing either. I've shot martial arts and kickboxing in the ring though, so I'll share my experiences. My experiences reflect Brad W's comment. While the AF speed and shutter lag on the 1 series (I used the 1DII) are much better than the 5D, I don't think it's necessary for sparring matches. These matches are generally static. If it were any other sport, I'd recommend the 1D series in a heartbeat. How often will you be shooting boxing?

Most copies of this lens are terrible due to poor quality control at Tamron. However if you're able to find a good copy (probably on the order of 1 out of every 5), it's EXTREMELY sharp. Much sharper than the Canon wide zooms (16-35 L, 17-35 L, and 17-40 4L).

Canon is notorious for back/front focusing issues as well.

Then can the site chop off the www. when navigating. I manage a few sites and they never insert 'www' in front of the domain unless the user actually typed that.

 

On this site, even if I use 'photo.net', the site inserts 'www.' in front of it. Just some ideas.

Canon's white paper states what it states to prevent itself from getting badgered and possibly sued. It's the same reason why most food manufacturers provide .1 gram more food in the package than the label indicates. Same reason why pharmaceutical industries print a slightly lower toxic dose threshold on their labels.

If that's the case, can the search results return "www.photo.net" instead of "photo.net"?

Canon's white paper states what it states to prevent itself from getting badgered and possibly sued. It's the same reason why most food manufacturers provide .1 gram more food in the package than the label indicates.

My prints from slides (digitally scanned and/or optically via cibachromes) always showed less dynamic range than prints from linear RAW files from my digital SLRs. Move away from iso 100 and the digital files will ALWAYS win. Regardless, Les always manages to stray the thread off topic.

 

Kelly, you need to provide more information before any of us can offer any practical suggestions. As you can tell, many of us are eager to provide advice.

Hello,

 

I notice that photo.net loses track of my login cookie whenever I use the search

engine and click on one of the search results. It's rather a pain to login again

after using the search engine. Can this be remedied? I believe the problem

becomes consistent when I have a cookie from google for my gmail account as well.

 

Thanks.

Capture One.

I have also read stories of people vacuuming out their shutter curtain ($300 damage).

Exchange it.

I agree entirely with Howard and Robert Schall. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is excellent and inexpensive (relatively).

 

Robert Lee probably got a bad copy of the Tamron 17-35mm. Unfortunately in my experience, there seems to be more bad copies than good copies of this lens floating around. However I did use a sharp copy once and it was sharper than the Canon 17-40L, 16-35L, and 17-35L.

A cheaper alternative would be the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. It's as sharp as the Canon 17-55mm except at f2.8. It also doesn't have the IS. It's also $600 cheaper. ;-)

 

The Canon 17-40mm 4L lens is great on full frame, but not so great on the crop cameras for AF issues as well as curvature/ distortion in the corners.

 

I've used all the lenses mention in this thread on the XTi, 10D, 20D, and 5D.