I've had a Nikon D300 for two years and this was its first geek-out:

 

 

 

I had a D70 for four years and it did something like this about 6 or 7 times, usually when there was a strong light source in the shot.  I have no idea what caused this to happen with the D300 since it returned to its normal good behavior immediately after this shot. 

 

 

 

Hmmm. Looks to me like it's possessed. If it does this again, I'd take it to a priest and have it exorcised.

I guess this will fit in this topic. Today on photo walk, someone let me use their Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I have never used a longer lens than my 18-55 kit lens. I have read a few reviews and all were positive. I'd like to hear what you guys think about it. I am seriously considering buying this lens.  Canon just released a new version of it and I have seen some pretty sweet deals for the previous versions.

This site has pretty decent reviews on lenses:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

Personally, I find 28mm to not be wide enough for the style of shots I like to take, but if you have the 18-55 in addition to it you should be fine. 

Well I do want to get a wider lens at some point. The same guy who lent me the 28-135 was using a Tokina 11-16, and that was pretty sweet. I'm looking around for a wide lens, but the 28-135 seems like a great lens to have. I loved the macro focus.

Ok I have run into a problem. My canon shoots in a 3:2 aspect ratio, much like many other DSLR's. My problem is printing in 8x10. I can't fit the photo on the page unless I crop the photo or cut the paper after I print. What do you guys usually do when you want to print from a 3:2 default aspect ratio? Is printing an 8x12 unusual? I am planning on making prints and selling them during our monthly First Friday art festivals.

I always take photos anticipating the need to crop them, or in some cases distort them very slightly while cropping them only slightly.  You can print 8x12 if you can find paper for that, but it’s more difficult to frame, and usually you have to have it don’t custom.

I would like to see cameras shoot in 16:9 ratio. I know there's a few out there, but not many. I've seen more and more people use their HD TVs to show their photos, same with digital frames. Most newer computer screens use that ratio. It's the future.

 

Cameras seem to be behind the curve. Then frames would follow. I'll let someone else figure out what that would make a standard frame size.

Ok I have run into a problem.  My canon shoots in a 3:2 aspect ratio, much like many other DSLR's.  My problem is printing in 8x10.  I can't fit the photo on the page unless I crop the photo or cut the paper after I print.  What do you guys usually do when you want to print from a 3:2 default aspect ratio?  Is printing an 8x12 unusual?  I am planning on making prints and selling them during our monthly First Friday art festivals.

 

For occasional light-duty framing, pick up a Dexter Mat Cutter (<$25>). With that, a self-healing cutting mat, an utility knife, a straightedge, a pencil, some mat board, and a couple of practice sessions, you'll soon be cutting your own nice-looking beveled mats to whatever size you want, all without lacerating your hand very often.

 

Instead of matting and framing, you can buy resealable ultra-clear bags in sizes to fit standard photo papers; 11x17 bags come to about 30 cents each. Print your photos centered on the paper, and then back them up with cardboard and slip them unmatted into the bags.

 

Serious buyers are going to take your framed prints to a framer and have them redone to suit their decor, anyway. The clear bag and white margins make for good presentation, and you'll get just as much money that way as you would if you framed them. Saves you time and money.

 

Do make sure you stiffen them, though, so they'll withstand handling. You can use binder clips to hang some in your display area, and then use plastic milk crates for bins that people can look through for the rest. I've had very good success at art fests that way.

Ok I have run into a problem. My canon shoots in a 3:2 aspect ratio, much like many other DSLR's. My problem is printing in 8x10. I can't fit the photo on the page unless I crop the photo or cut the paper after I print. What do you guys usually do when you want to print from a 3:2 default aspect ratio? Is printing an 8x12 unusual? I am planning on making prints and selling them during our monthly First Friday art festivals.

 

For occasional light-duty framing, pick up a Dexter Mat Cutter (<$25>). With that, a self-healing cutting mat, an utility knife, a straightedge, a pencil, some mat board, and a couple of practice sessions, you'll soon be cutting your own nice-looking beveled mats to whatever size you want, all without lacerating your hand very often.

 

Instead of matting and framing, you can buy resealable ultra-clear bags in sizes to fit standard photo papers; 11x17 bags come to about 30 cents each. Print your photos centered on the paper, and then back them up with cardboard and slip them unmatted into the bags.

 

Serious buyers are going to take your framed prints to a framer and have them redone to suit their decor, anyway. The clear bag and white margins make for good presentation, and you'll get just as much money that way as you would if you framed them. Saves you time and money.

 

Do make sure you stiffen them, though, so they'll withstand handling. You can use binder clips to hang some in your display area, and then use plastic milk crates for bins that people can look through for the rest. I've had very good success at art fests that way.

 

Awesome ideas Rob.  I do plan on putting them in plastic sleeving so I'll have to look into those bags.  I just don't like the idea of shooting a wider shot to compensate for cropping, especially since I frequently shoot at the widest focal length my current lens can allow.  I have a feeling many of the people who will be interested in my shots will have the prints framed themselves.  I have a friend who owns a frame shop downtown and I can always send them her way to help her out.

Great! Another tip: have you ever noticed that when you work to get a print just right for color and contrast, and then put it behind glass, it doesn't look as good as it did before you framed it? Put a piece of glass, even good picture glass, on a white sheet of paper and compare the view through the glass with the unobstructed paper. See how green the glass is? Even on a black-and-white print, that greenish cast deadens contrast and mutes colors.

 

Try the same thing with a sheet of acrylic. The acrylic sheet really is clear. There are pros and cons about it; some people don't like it because it scratches more easily than glass, and you can't use chemical glass cleaners with ammonia or solvents to clean it (use mild soap or the cleaner made specifically for it, and wipe it with a soft cloth, no paper towels). It builds up static, too, and can attract dust that makes you really pay attention when framing so that you don't get dust flecks on the inside of the glass. On the other hand, it gives a true, undistorted view of photos and gives better UV protection than regular glass.

 

You don't need to pay high prices for it at art supply stores. My local Lowe's carries Optix acrylic, and it works fine. The ultra-clear bags have that same clarity, and you can get an idea from those, how much better a print looks behind acrylic than it does behind glass.

How does everyone feel about canvas prints? I've gotten a few large prints (24x30) done on canvas for $80 each.  I have to move around the country quite a bit and didn't want to risk breaking big, heavy frames, but love to have a few abandoned building prints on my walls wherever I am. 

What do you guys think of this picture?  Do you think its too dark?  Should I try and "lighten up" (if thats the correct phrase) the person in the foreground? 

 

I like it, and it might not hurt to try but you have a good definition of the profile and just a glimmer of the light reflecting in the eye. I wouldn't go overboard trying to correct it.

Did you take it in RAW format or just JPEG? If it's in RAW, you could add a bit of fill light while simultaneously bumping up the contrast.

 

I wouldn't call it too dark as is, though. 

I did take it in RAW, I will try what your mentioned.  Thanks.  Although, please tell me if I do this wrong - I covert the RAW files to a high-quality jpeg using the Nikon software that came with my camera and then open and edit that file in Photoshop.  Is this the correct way to do this?  Photoshop does not recognize the RAW file when I try to open that directly.

Strange, I'm not sure about Nikon but I know the Canon RAW format I use opens in Photoshop and allows lossless editing of the file prior to converting to jpeg.  Does the Nikon software let you edit anything, like white balance, saturation, contrast, etc? 

It depends on which version of photoshop and which type of camera you have.  A new version of Photoshop should recognize all of the older NEF files but vice verse might not work and you'll need a plugin. 

 

I've never used the Nikon software. 

Cory, 'nother thing to check - see if Adobe has an update for the Camera RAW file types on their site. I've updated in the past; I think I had to download an update to CS3 when I bought my D700. Depending on the version of Photoshop you're using, there might be a free update from Adobe that will let you read later-model NEF files.

 

Something about JPG that you ought to know about, maybe it's already been covered; I'm too tired to read back through the thread to see if it has. The way JPEG compresses files is by discarding selected amounts of image data. When you reopen the file, whatever program you're using interpolates to try to guess what was discarded, and recreates an approximation of it. With each save-reopen cycle, the image degrades.

 

I only tinkered briefly with the Nikon software, so I don't know if it will save in TIF format. If it will, you're better off to use that instead of JPG because TIF doesn't discard image data. It maintains the integrity of the original image, except for what you change knowingly when you edit.

Does anyone edit photos with just their MacBook/MacBook Pro?  I usually don't because I have my older cinema display at home.  Now I don't know much about color calibration (I'll be learning about that next semester) but I have heard the apple cinema displays were very accurate.  Is this true?  The glossy screen on my MBP seems to have a much cooler temperature.

Yeah I would agree that the macbook's have a bluer cast to them.  The method of illumination is of course quite different.  I often bring my laptop to work and use it alongside the Mac tower with cinema screen if I'm trading files or want to do something one one while the other is backing up or whatever.  Our cinema screen is about five or six years old so it's starting to fade in different areas.  I don't find it to be a big problem though if you're getting color proofs printed.  The colors and contrast can be way off, but usually you can reign it back in easily on the second try. The newer Imac's from about 2008 on seem to have the best monitors of all.  However, I don't think any of this stuff's really supposed to last longer than five years. 

 

If you are doing true fine art color printing for a public exhibition of some significance, I recommend dropping the cash for custom graphic design work and printing by a place that does both in-house.  They're going to know how to get it looking the best off their equipment and on which type of paper because they do it all day long.  For a 16x20 you're going to pay at least $100 per print, and probably closer to $200, but that is the price to get stuff looking its best.  Personally I think it's pretty dumb to spend a few thousand on camera gear, then go skimpy on the prints and framing.  Nobody can tell how great your lens is without a great print, and your print will never look its best in a readymade frame. 

 

 

Recently I shelled out for a new NEC 25.5-inch 2690WUXi2 LCD monitor with NEC's SpectraVision II calibration software and the optional X-Rite colorimeter. I really like this setup; once I position the sensor and start the software, it goes through the entire calibration process and generates and uploads the profile without any intervention. I can start it and then go to the kitchen and make coffee, if I want. The software automatically posts a reminder at startup when the recommended time has run out for recalibration.

 

Screen resolution on the monitor is 1920 X 1200 @ 95dpi, and the brilliance and sharpness took a couple of days to get used to. With scenes shot outdoors in normal daylight situations, I often can pull a respectable giveaway print from the Epson R2800 on the first try, using Epson's downloadable premium print profiles for their papers.

 

I replaced a four-year-old ViewSonic G22fB 20" Graphic Arts CRT. That monitor had the highest user ratings of anything in the prosumer price range when I bought it, and when new and freshly-calibrated with Monaco EZ-Color it used to come very close to printer output. In the past year or so, though, I'd had to fuss more and more with trial-and-error proofing, and when the calibration software no longer could bring it within the desired contrast range, I knew it was time to switch. Only after replacing it did I realize how much its sharpness and clarity had degraded.

Yeah I really hope my cinema display doesn't die any time soon.  I got mine in December of 2005 so it's probably the same one jmecklenborg was referring to.  Should I need to start looking for a new display, what would you guys recommend?  I am not interested in the new Apple displays.

Yeah I really hope my cinema display doesn't die any time soon. I got mine in December of 2005 so it's probably the same one jmecklenborg was referring to. Should I need to start looking for a new display, what would you guys recommend? I am not interested in the new Apple displays.

 

Check out the one I cited above: NEC 2690WUXi2, if your budget will stand it. It's pricey, but not as much as some of the high-end strictly-pro large-format monitors, and from what I was able to learn, the performance is comparable. A close friend who's an avid photographer and artist with a very discerning eye bought one, and based on his recommendation I did some research. The positive reviews convinced me, and I shopped around for price. Amazon.com's price was at the time about $400 less than MSRP. My ex-sister in law is a professional illustrator and web designer with a high-end clientele, and she's a hard sell on anything that doesn't bear the Apple logo. She was impressed.

Cory, 'nother thing to check - see if Adobe has an update for the Camera RAW file types on their site. I've updated in the past; I think I had to download an update to CS3 when I bought my D700. Depending on the version of Photoshop you're using, there might be a free update from Adobe that will let you read later-model NEF files.

 

Something about JPG that you ought to know about, maybe it's already been covered; I'm too tired to read back through the thread to see if it has. The way JPEG compresses files is by discarding selected amounts of image data. When you reopen the file, whatever program you're using interpolates to try to guess what was discarded, and recreates an approximation of it. With each save-reopen cycle, the image degrades.

 

I only tinkered briefly with the Nikon software, so I don't know if it will save in TIF format. If it will, you're better off to use that instead of JPG because TIF doesn't discard image data. It maintains the integrity of the original image, except for what you change knowingly when you edit.

 

So I can save in TIFF format from Nikon.  The printer I use (myphotopipe) does not accept 16 bit TIFF files.  I can save in 8 bit.  I plan to get a 24x36 print on canvas - is 8 bit good enough quality?  I am thinking about printing the following pic. I will rotate it slightly so it's straight, but what other edits would you guys make?

 

I knew I'd posted this tidbit before, but I searched for it and found that it was when this thread was new, about five years ago. I guess it won't hurt to bring it up again.

 

If you want to resize a photo for a very large print there's third-party software that does a better job than Photoshop. I've been using Genuine Fractals, from onOne Software, for several years. Currently I'm using V6.0. I just looked it up, and with the latest version the publisher has changed the name to Perfect Resize 7. It's very easy and straightforward to use and does an excellent job making big size changes without sacrificing image quality. List price is $159.95, and probably you can find it for less. It's well worth the price.

 

I received an email request from a gentleman who had visited my web site and had seen a photo that really struck him, from the campus where he and his wife attended college. They had an anniversary coming up, and he was looking for a present for her. He works in a graphic arts shop with access to printing equipment, and wanted a print file for a 24X30 image taken from a crop of a frame shot with the Nikon D700 and Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 lens. I told him I'd give it a try, and it worked. I created the file, and then took as big a crop out of it as my Epson R2880 would print, just to see how it would look. It was sharp throughout without any visible artifacts and with color and contrast true to the source image. He was happy with it.

I knew I'd posted this tidbit before, but I searched for it and found that it was when this thread was new, about five years ago. I guess it won't hurt to bring it up again.

 

If you want to resize a photo for a very large print there's third-party software that does a better job than Photoshop. I've been using Genuine Fractals, from onOne Software, for several years. Currently I'm using V6.0. I just looked it up, and with the latest version the publisher has changed the name to Perfect Resize 7. It's very easy and straightforward to use and does an excellent job making big size changes without sacrificing image quality. List price is $159.95, and probably you can find it for less. It's well worth the price.

 

I received an email request from a gentleman who had visited my web site and had seen a photo that really struck him, from the campus where he and his wife attended college. They had an anniversary coming up, and he was looking for a present for her. He works in a graphic arts shop with access to printing equipment, and wanted a print file for a 24X30 image taken from a crop of a frame shot with the Nikon D700 and Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 lens. I told him I'd give it a try, and it worked. I created the file, and then took as big a crop out of it as my Epson R2880 would print, just to see how it would look. It was sharp throughout without any visible artifacts and with color and contrast true to the source image. He was happy with it.

 

I will have to look into that.  If I don't decide to get it and just edit my pic in CS4, is an 8 bit TIFF high enough quality to print 24x36?

I don't think bit depth affects print clarity or resolution; it only affects the number of colors that can be displayed - that is, the gradations between the primary colors, or between steps on a gray scale. I believe the difference might be evident in the detail visible in deep shadow or bright highlight areas, and much less evident in the mid-range exposure areas. Without the real scene or a 16-bit rendition for comparison, I don't think most people would be able to see any deficiencies in a well-executed 8-bit print. Jake Mecklenborg and possibly some others understand this sort of stuff better than I do. I'd be glad if they'd weigh in on the topic and explain it better.

 

If you're going for high-dollar fine-art work, then 16-bit might be critical. Otherwise ...

 

Keep in mind that a 16-bit file is twice as big as an 8-bit file.

 

Where the Perfect Resize/Genuine Fractals application comes in is in stretching the limits of your camera's resolution capability. It uses a different algorithm than Photoshop, and can scale an image up more with less loss of sharpness. I can't remember now if the latest versions support 16-bit, or if they only work with 8-bit

 

To see if you'll get a good enough 24x36 print using CS4, work up the best on-screen image can and then use the Crop tool to select a critical area for an 8X10 or 11X14 print at the same magification. Print that and examine it closely to see how the colors and fine detail look.  You can even make separate test prints in 8-bit and 16-bit and compare them, if you want. Then you can make an informed cost-versus-benefit decision which way to go. There may be a trial-version of Perfect Resize that you can download for comparison purposes.

 

Cory, 'nother thing to check - see if Adobe has an update for the Camera RAW file types on their site. I've updated in the past; I think I had to download an update to CS3 when I bought my D700. Depending on the version of Photoshop you're using, there might be a free update from Adobe that will let you read later-model NEF files.

 

Something about JPG that you ought to know about, maybe it's already been covered; I'm too tired to read back through the thread to see if it has. The way JPEG compresses files is by discarding selected amounts of image data. When you reopen the file, whatever program you're using interpolates to try to guess what was discarded, and recreates an approximation of it. With each save-reopen cycle, the image degrades.

 

I only tinkered briefly with the Nikon software, so I don't know if it will save in TIF format. If it will, you're better off to use that instead of JPG because TIF doesn't discard image data. It maintains the integrity of the original image, except for what you change knowingly when you edit.

 

So I can save in TIFF format from Nikon. The printer I use (myphotopipe) does not accept 16 bit TIFF files. I can save in 8 bit. I plan to get a 24x36 print on canvas - is 8 bit good enough quality? I am thinking about printing the following pic. I will rotate it slightly so it's straight, but what other edits would you guys make?

 

 

As usual thanks for the great info Rob.  I went back to take a picture of that door again so I could be farther away from it and it looks like someone stole the door.  What's the world coming to when someone steals a door out of an abandoned building??

 

I've never seen an 8 bit print next to a 16 bit print of the same image.  Theoretically it's better, but my guess is in most situations the difference is negligible. 

 

 

Smith's really cool photo set at the Holden arboretum made me look at some of my own snow shots, and I have to ask a rookie question. How are you guys adjusting the snow shots to make them look more natural? Keep in mind I'm just using a P&S camera right now, but I either get shots that are too washed out,  too dark, or just unnatural color.

 

Thanks

I barely know how to use Photoshop, but I read this article about dodging and burning to bring out the whites and blacks.  http://www.lightstalking.com/dodging-burning

 

I use a gradient map to convert to b&w (not sure if that's the best method). 

 

Also, two of those shots in my set I used one of my favorite features in Photoshop - Equalize.  Equalize does not always get the effect I want, but it frequently does.

Until I splurge for an SLR, I'm toughing it out with MS Photo editor. 9 times out of 10 it does the trick for me (I'm mostly tweaking pictures of the kids for grandma / grandpa, so I'm not looking for publish-quality photos). But it struggles mightily with snow shots. I can correct the colors, but then the snow typically looks bleached. If I tone that down, then the colors are muted and the background is too dark.

 

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look.

When color adjusting for a photo with a lot of white tones, a first step I will often take is to adjust automatically after identifying true white with the picker. This is particularly great if your problem is that your whites are coming out yellowish or blueish or whatnot due to shooting lighting. Within an automatic color adjust menu, you can point the picker toward the area of the photo you think should be closest to an absolutely clean white. The photo will then realign all the coloring to make your whites whiter :)

 

Generally, this is just a first step for me. In a photo with a ton of white, you may find that this move gives the photo a neon quality; you may also find that there are also brightness, contrast and saturation issues. I think the best advice is to go through the various "Adjust" tools to get a better understanding of how they work and what works for you. Just make sure to zoom in as you're making adjustments or looking at previews when they're available, as fields of white or fields of black can pixelate pretty quickly. 

 

In most cases, you can probably achieve the results you're looking for with Auto Corrects, Hue/Saturation (Master) and Brightness/Contrast, but it's worthwhile to explore a little at the channel level in Hue/Saturation and with histograms, curves and levels. There's tons of tutorials out there than can walk you through each, but it can also be fun to just say, what happens when I put a point here and a point here and drag this curve way up here? :)

I've used the auto color feature, and it does a good job, but you're right, the snow turns neon. I've been monkeying around with the brightness / saturation, etc. but haven't yet found the perfect mix. Good tip to zoom in, though. I have noticed pixelation is an issue.

 

I've found that pure 'auto correct' tends to over pixelate and the colors tend not to seem quite right.

 

Thanks for the advice.

OK fellow photogs.  As the novice that I am with Photoshop, I am not sure what to do with this picture.  Can some of you give me guidance with what you would do to edit this pic?  Thanks!

 

I guess this is as good a place as any for this question - does anyone here sell used photo equipment or know of good sites that do?  (specifically Nikon).  Thanks!

I've bought used equipment successfully at a local camera shop down the street from where I live, but I've never bought any on line. B&H is a reputable on-line vendor, and they sell some used equipment, but I don't know how their prices are compared with local shops.

Is it safe to use old flashes on DSLR's? I have a couple old units from back when I shot with a Minolta SRT-101 and Pentax Spotmatic.

 

I am currently shooting with a 50D. The flash I want to use is a Vivitar SMS 30 Auto Thyristor Flash.

I dunno about Minolta.  Nikon had a weird timing issue that necessitated the Nikon D1-era SB-28DX, which was a modified SB-28.  So many SB-28's were dumped on the market that you can get them used for $50 today and make great remote strobes if you have pocket wizards (many Canon users use SB-28's due to some issue with the PC slot on older canon flashes).  I don't think Canon had that same issue with their film versus digital shutters, so I think that their pre-digital flashes are forward compatible.   

Is it safe to use old flashes on DSLR's? I have a couple old units from back when I shot with a Minolta SRT-101 and Pentax Spotmatic.

 

I am currently shooting with a 50D. The flash I want to use is a Vivitar SMS 30 Auto Thyristor Flash.

 

Proceed with caution. Some older electronic flashes have very high trigger voltages, and they can damage the electronics in DSLRs or even in non-digital cameras that have electronic shutters. For example, I have Vivitar 283 from 1979. It still works well, and it really lights things up. Pre-DSLR, I used it on a Nikon FM. When one of my fingers strayed across the extrernal-flash contact on my camera body, I got an unpleasant bite. I put a voltmeter across the terminals, and learned why they called it "283;" that's the voltage across the trigger terminals. I'm glad I learned that before I used it with my Mamiya 7; although that's a rangefinder, roll-film camera, it has an electronic shutter that could have suffered damage. I can't use the flash on a hot shoe on any newer camera because of the direct connection, but I was able to buy an in-line adapter for a remote flash cord. It wasn't expensive, and seems to work OK. I think even the later versions of the 283 have that protection built-in, and use a lower trigger voltage.

 

Voltmeters are inexpensive. I suggest you use one to determine the trigger voltage on your flash.

 

 

I think I'm going to be getting a DSLR next month. Any suggestions on a photography primer for newbies (something goes a little bit beyond 'this is the lens', 'this is the flash').

If you're buying from a local retailer, ask if they offer classes. Some do, geared to various experience levels. Your salesperson may have recommendations regarding books. Photography/camera clubs sometimes have classes, too.

I've had a few questions about how I embed a copyright notice on photos, so I'll describe that and while I'm at it I can't resist the temptation to post a condensed outline of my workflow as it has evolved to now.

 

1. I save all my DSLR photos in Camera RAW, and all my film scans in uncompressed TIF.

 

2. I open RAW or TIF files from Adobe Bridge into Photoshop CS5 at their native resolution and make any needed adjustments to levels, contrast, etc.

 

3. My photography is consistent with my politics, in that I seem to frequently tilt to the left, so I have to correct the horizontal/vertical orientation of a lot of my photos. I do that with Filters > Lens Correction, and then click the "Custom" tab at the top of the Lens Correction menu. The resulting window lets me correct barrel distortion, rotate, and adjust vertical and horizontal perspective.

 

4. I save the corrected image as a STN file. STN files are produced by Genuine Fractals or Perfect Resize 7.0, from OnOne Software. The application allows greater flexibility and better reproduction that Photoshop's resizing algorithms. It's very easy to reopen STN files across a wide range of sizes, and considerable amounts of enlargement or reduction don't degrade the image or introduce artifacts. I like STN files because I can open a 72dpi small JPG for online presentation, or a 320dpi TIF file for an 11X16 print with equal ease. Because I keep my monitor and printer profiles current, I can easily create a print file without having to make a lot of test prints and adjustments

 

5. I process all my RAW or TIF photos and convert them to STN files as a batch, and then lock all the files to protect them from myself and my fumbling fingers in case I slip into a robotic state of consciousness.

 

6. I open MS Word and type a line with the first image number and copyright info. To create the copyright symbol in Word, type ©. I highlight the text with my cursor, press Ctrl+c to save it to my clipboard, and close MS Word.

 

7. Again in Adobe Bridge I go through the STN files one-by-one, opening each at 72dpi with a the larger dimension at 1024 pixels. In Photoshop some images need just a tad of sharpening. That especially applies to film scans (just the nature of the beast) and photos from my first DSLR. I do that with Filters > Sharpen > Unsharp Mask. Once I set the amount of sharpening that I likely will use through an entire batch, I can apply it to an open file by pressing CTRL+f.

 

8. To embed the copyright info I use the Text tool and a personal typeface that I created using my block printing and Font Creator 3.0. I place the Text cursor in an area with as little clutter as possible and press Ctrl+v to paste the copyright line. I select black or white for best legibility, adjust the image number, and press Ctrl+e to flatten layers.

 

9. Now, I can save the image as JPG. My personal choice for JPG levels is level 10; although it creates rather large files (250KB or more), I think it's the best compromise between file size and quality presentation. I may be spoiled in regard to file size, because I have Yahoo Small Business sites with unlimited storage. If I had to pay extra for any of my storage, I'd probably shrink my files some.

 

:clap: You've been a great audience! :wink: Comments and suggestions are welcome.

^ I've been wondering how to add the copyright.  This seems pretty detailed and slightly confusing, but I will have to give it a try. 

 

I have a question for you guys:

 

So I just rented a Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye lens from Dodd.  It has been pretty fun to play with.  Here is my issue - The lens does not have a built-in motor and since I use a D3000, I have to focus myself.  I was thinking about getting a different wide angle lens - Tamron SP 10-24.  My question is - how do I know if this lens has a built-in motor?  I can't find anything online.  Thanks.

 

For fun - here are a couple pics I took with the Fisheye so far:

 

 

Neat fisheye images. The first one is an excellent people photo, and the second one looks like a bug's-eye view.

 

^ I've been wondering how to add the copyright.  This seems pretty detailed and slightly confusing, but I will have to give it a try. 

 

Actually, it's pretty simple after you create the text line and save it in your clipboard. All you have to do is place the cursor where you want it, press Ctrl+V to paste it, tweak the image number (if you use one), and flatten and then save.

 

There are simpler ways through Photoshop to add a watermark, but I prefer this method because it allows me to embed an image catalog number to help find the original file. It's helpful when someone contacts me to inquire about a print or use of an image. The number on digital images is the date (yyyymmdd) followed by a sequence number.

Just sold my Canon 5D Mark II on Ebay for $2275, or just $175 less than I bought it for last September.  So it literally cost me the same to own it for 8 months as to rent it for a weekend. 

 

It's a shame to get rid of it, because the image quality is incredible, and I love the video, but honestly I never felt comfortable carrying around such an expensive camera.  Also, I simply never got used to the Canon buttons.  I do think that Nikon's ergonomics are decidedly better -- the core issue is that Canon's back wheel sells more cameras to novices, but in practice is difficult to use. 

I had always thought you were a Nikon guy, for some reason. I have to shoot the Canon 5D Mark II at work some times, and I hate using it because I can never familiarize myself with the awkward layout of the buttons, and I've been a Nikon fanboy since 1998. Before that, I used a Canon AE-1.

I'm convinced that the back wheel on Canon is purely a sales gimmick.  To a novice, it looks like it "makes sense".  In practice, it's a lot harder to use than the way Nikon's selection wheels have been laid out since the F100. 

 

That said, the image quality from the 5D Mark II is stunning.  If you shoot Raw files on a dull day, you can always get a radiant image with five seconds of post-processing.  The dynamic range when shooting Raw is huge, to the extent that you can be as sloppy as you want with exposures. 

Well, pretty much like the gain I saw moving from the Nikon D70 to the Nikon D3, which is now three+ years old and is no longer being made. The difference between the DX and the FX sensor was amazing, not only in terms of ISO quality, especially at low light, but the dynamic range. I think the Canon's ISO tolerance wasn't nearly as great, but their dynamic range was much better.

 

The Nikon D3s replaced the D3 and improves upon the camera a lot - adding a sensor cleaner for one (one of the reasons why after my D3 was stolen that I "downgraded" to the D700). The D3x would be the next step up, but its practically what the D4 could be.